652 F.Supp.3d 796
S.D. Tex.2023Background
- Defendant Cesar Flores was indicted on one count of engaging in the firearms business without a license (18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(1)(A), 923(a), 924(a)(1)(D)) and nine counts for making false statements on Form 4473 (18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A)).
- Flores moved to dismiss, arguing the statutes violate the Second Amendment by (1) denying a right to commercially sell firearms and (2) burdening buyers' right to keep and bear arms; Government opposed.
- Court applied Bruen's framework: first ask whether the Second Amendment's plain text covers the conduct; if so, government must show the regulation is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.
- The court concluded commercial dealing is not covered by the Amendment's plain text and Flores failed to show historical support for an independent right to sell firearms.
- The court also rejected the claim that §924(a)(1)(A) (false statements) independently burdens purchase or possession rights, and rejected Flores's argument that false-statement counts become immaterial if §922 is invalid.
- Result: Defendant's motion to dismiss was denied in full.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (United States) | Defendant's Argument (Flores) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §922(a)(1)(A) (unlicensed dealing) violates the Second Amendment | No independent Second Amendment right to commercially deal; statute consistent with historical regulation | Second Amendment covers commercial sale; statutory limits exceed historical tradition and burden buyers | Court: Commercial dealing not covered by the Amendment's plain text; Flores failed to show historical support; §922 constitutional; motion denied |
| Whether §924(a)(1)(A)/(D) (false statements on acquisition forms) violates the Second Amendment or is rendered immaterial if §922 invalid | False-statement law is an enforcement mechanism that does not restrict purchase/possession; constitutionally permissible | Truthful-disclosure requirement burdens buyers; counts immaterial if §922 unconstitutional | Court: §924 does not itself restrict possession; counts valid; motion denied |
| Whether laws that indirectly burden possession (commercial regs) trigger Bruen scrutiny | Bruen's textual test controls; non-covered conduct need not trigger historical-analogue scrutiny; commercial regulations described as "presumptively lawful" | A law that creates a "significant barrier" to acquisition should trigger scrutiny | Court: Declined to adopt expansive indirect-burden rule; Flores offered no evidence of meaningful downstream burden; fails under any plausible standard |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (Second Amendment protects individual right to possess a handgun in the home)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (Second Amendment applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment)
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (Second Amendment textual-and-historical test for firearm regulations)
- Teixeira v. County of Alameda, 873 F.3d 670 (9th Cir.) (Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to sell firearms)
- Mance v. Sessions, 896 F.3d 699 (5th Cir.) (upholding certain commercial-sale restrictions under Second Amendment review)
- United States v. Hosford, 843 F.3d 161 (4th Cir.) (commercial-sale regulations not necessarily "core" Second Amendment conduct)
- United States v. Marzzarella, 614 F.3d 85 (3d Cir.) (commercial restrictions subject to Second Amendment analysis but do not establish independent right to sell)