Opinion
Civil Action SA-24-CR-0027-XR
03-27-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. CHRISTOBAL IBARRA, Defendant.
ORDER
XAVIER RODRIGUEZ, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On this day, the Court considered Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 24). For the reasons that follow, the Motion is DENIED.
Defendant was indicted in this case and charged with Felon in Possession of a Firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
Defendant argues that the charges in the indictment are unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S.Ct. 2111 (2022).
Defendant is a convicted felon who has prior convictions for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and attempted aggravated assault along with multiple convictions for domestic violence. In December 2023, New Braunfels Police Department officers responded to a shots fired call, encountered Defendant, and allegedly found a Smith & Wesson, 9mm caliber pistol in his vehicle.
The Fifth Circuit concluded in United States v. Daniels, 77 F.4th 337 (5th Cir. 2023) that a conviction for possessing a firearm while being an unlawful user of a controlled substance was unconstitutional. However, the Fifth Circuit noted that Daniels was not a felon. Id. at 343. Further, in a pre-Bruen case, the Fifth Circuit found the statute at issue here-§ 922(g)(1)- constitutional. See United States v. Luna, 165 F.3d 316 (5th Cir. 1999). Luna has not been overruled. Further, the courts in United States v. Cartlidge, No. 5-21-CR-520-OLG, 2023 WL 6368327, at *4 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 7, 2023), report and recommendation adopted, No. SA-21-CR-520-OLG, 2023 WL 6368974 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 27, 2023), United States v. Ramirez, No. SA-23-CR-459-OLG, 2024 WL 927677 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 12, 2024), report and recommendation adopted, No. SA-23-CR-459-OLG, 2024 WL 925557 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 4, 2024) and United States v. Avitia, No. EP-23-CR-985-DB, 2023 WL 8494358 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 7, 2023) have likewise rejected the arguments made here and denied motions to dismiss the indictment. This Court agrees with the analyses in the above cases. See also United States v. Esparza, No. SA-21-CR-00144-XR, 2023 WL 5659051, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 31, 2023).
In D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 581 (2008), the Supreme Court stated that there was “a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.” But the Supreme Court then noted that “the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment's right of free speech was not ....” Id. at 595. Even though the Supreme Court did not “undertake an exhaustive historical analysis . . . of the full scope of the Second Amendment[,]” the Supreme Court stated that “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id. at 626-27. The Supreme Court's opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen did not reverse or question the Supreme Court's earlier writings in Heller on the permissible limitations that could be imposed on the Second Amendment. As to the correct historical analysis that should be applied, judges are simply not historians, and historians seldom agree on history. It is for the Fifth Circuit and ultimately the United States Supreme Court to decide upon the constitutionality of the statute at issue. The Motion is DENIED.
The hearing scheduled for April 23, 2024, is VACATED.
It is so ORDERED.