125 F.4th 713
5th Cir.2025Background
- Jose Gomez Quiroz was indicted in Texas state court for burglary of a habitation and bail jumping (both felonies under Texas law).
- While under indictment, Quiroz purchased a handgun after allegedly denying being under indictment on the ATF firearm purchase form.
- He was convicted by a jury on two federal counts: (1) unlawfully receiving a firearm while under indictment (18 U.S.C. § 922(n)), and (2) making a false statement in connection with a firearm purchase (18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6)).
- On the same day as verdict, the Supreme Court issued Bruen, a major Second Amendment decision.
- The district court, applying Bruen, found § 922(n) unconstitutional and dismissed both counts; the government appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(n) | Law is constitutional under tradition | Violates Second Amendment per Bruen | § 922(n) is consistent with tradition; constitutional |
| Materiality of False Statement (§ 922(a)(6)) | Statement was material as law criminalizes receipt while indicted | Not material if § 922(n) is unconstitutional | Material—§ 922(n) is constitutional, so statement is material |
| Applicability of Bruen historical analysis | Historical analogues exist for § 922(n) | No founding-era analogues to disarm indictees | Sufficiently analogous to Founding-era pretrial restrictions |
| Scope of historical tradition needed | Relevant similarity is enough, not identicality | Law must closely match founding practice | Similarity sufficient; not a historical 'twin' required |
Key Cases Cited
- N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) (set modern Second Amendment framework—require regulations to conform to historical tradition)
- United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024) (interpreted Bruen, underscoring relevance of analogous historical justifications over precise historical twins)
- Bucklew v. Precythe, 587 U.S. 119 (2019) (surveyed founding-era capital punishment for understanding criminal penalty context)
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) (government’s interest in preventing crime by arrestees supports pretrial restrictions)