United States v. Bartucci, 658 F.Supp.3d 794

Bartucci was originally charged by Information (Dec. 2018), entered a deferred prosecution agreement (Jan. 2019), and later purchased/attempted to receive firearms while criminal proceedings were pending.
On July 6, 2019 and September 18, 2019 (and charged also as to June 5, 2019), he answered “no” on ATF Form 4473 to whether he was under indictment or information for a felony punishable by >1 year.
A grand jury later indicted Bartucci for one count under 18 U.S.C. § 922(n) (receipt of a firearm while under indictment/information) and two counts under 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A) (making false statements on Form 4473).
Bartucci moved to dismiss: (1) challenging § 922(n) under the Second Amendment post-Bruen as lacking a founding-era analogue; and (2) arguing the Form 4473 question is not “information required … to be kept” so § 924(a)(1)(A) counts must be dismissed.
The government urged a Salerno/due-process framing for pretrial restrictions and defended § 922(n) by relying on historical analogues (colonial disarmament and surety laws) and maintained Form 4473 is a statutorily required record.
The court applied Bruen, held the conduct (receipt) is covered by the Second Amendment, found sufficient historical analogues to uphold § 922(n), and denied dismissal of the § 924(a)(1)(A) counts because Form 4473 is a required record and Bartucci knowingly lied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper analytical framework for challenge to § 922(n)	Gov’t: Salerno/due-process/means-end balancing appropriate for pretrial arrestees	Bartucci: Bruen's text-and-history test governs Second Amendment challenge	Court: Bruen applies; Salerno inapplicable to Second Amendment challenge
Whether § 922(n) violates the Second Amendment	Gov’t: statute is consistent with historical tradition (disarming dangerous groups; surety laws); indictee status supports regulation	Bartucci: receipt of common-use firearms is protected and there is no adequate historical analogue	Court: receipt is within the Amendment’s text; government identified sufficiently analogous historical regulations; § 922(n) upheld
Whether Counts 2–3 (§ 924(a)(1)(A)) must be dismissed because the ATF question is not a required record	Gov’t: Form 4473 is required by statute/regulation; false answers violate § 924(a)(1)(A) and materiality not required	Bartucci: the specific ATF question is not “information required … to be kept” so the counts fail as a matter of law	Court: Form 4473 is part of dealer records required by statute/regulation; Bartucci signed and knowingly answered falsely; counts survive

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (recognition of individual right to possess firearms for self-defense)
New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (text-and-history test for Second Amendment challenges)
McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (incorporation of Second Amendment against the states)
United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (pretrial detention framework; due-process balancing in non-Second-Amendment context)
Abramski v. United States, 573 U.S. 169 (Form 4473 is part of dealer records that statutes/regulations require)
United States v. Rahimi, 61 F.4th 443 (post-Bruen analysis of historical analogies for firearm restrictions)
United States v. Vongxay, 594 F.3d 1111 (discussion of historical concepts of "the people" and civic virtue)
Kanter v. Barr, 919 F.3d 437 (arguments about groups excluded from Second Amendment scope)
United States v. Johnson, 680 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir.: § 924(a)(1)(A) does not require proof of materiality)
United States v. Laurent, 861 F. Supp. 2d 71 (pre-Bruen district-court view that indictees retain Second Amendment protection)