Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court’s judgment and reinstated a man’s criminal charges Friday for providing false answers on a firearm application document.
According to court records, John Holden completed ATF Form 4473 when he sought to purchase a firearm in August 2021.
One of the questions on the form asked whether he was “under indictment or information” for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a year or more.
He answered “no,” which wasn’t true because he had been accused of battering a public safety official in violation of Indiana Code Section 35-42-2-1(c)(1), (e)(2).
In August 2022, Holden pleaded guilty to violation 18 U.S.C. §922(a)(6), making his false statement on the form a crime.
Holden sought to withdraw the plea in order to contend that 18 U.S.C. §922(n), which makes it a crime to purchase or receive a firearm while under indictment for a felony, violated the Second Amendment as understood in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022).
The district court judge granted his motion and dismissed the indictment.
The United States then appealed.
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division’s judgment and ordered the criminal charge against Holden reinstated.
In its opinion, the appellate court stated that a truthful answer to the question “are you under indictment?” can be material to the propriety of a firearms sale, whether or not all possible applications of 22-3160 §922(n) comport with the Second Amendment.
“The main problem with the district court’s approach is that Holden was not charged with violating §922(n). He was charged with making a false statement to a firearms dealer, in violation of §922(a)(6),” Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote.
Easterbrook added that Holden doesn’t deny that his statement was “material” in the sense that it affected the dealer’s willingness to sell him a gun.
But Holden argued that it was no material to the lawfulness of the sale, because Section 922(n) must be treated as if it was never enacted. Easterbrook notes that neither the Supreme Court nor any court of appeals has deemed Section 922(n) void.
“Someone who wants a court to take such a step should file a declaratory judgment action rather than tell a lie in an effort to evade detection that the sale would violate the statute,” Easterbrook wrote.
Easterbrook added that their discussion is to show that the statute’s status is still unresolved.
The case is United State of America v. John Holden, 22-3160.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.