False-statements ban in connection with acquiring a firearm doesn't violate the Second Amendment.

And such false statements are "material" even if the actual purchaser isn't a prohibited possessor.

United States v. Manney, No. 23-716, decided August 19, 2024.

Panel: Desai (Biden), de Alba (Biden), and Gutierrez (DJ, C.D. Cal., GW Bush).

Author: Judge de Alba.

Advocates: Assistant Federal Public Defenders Wendi Overmeyer (at argument and on brief) and Aarin Kevorkian (on brief), of Las Vegas, for the defendant. Assistant United States Attorney Nadia Ahmed (on brief and at argument), of Las Vegas, for the government.

The defendant went to a gun store in Reno, Nevada, and applied to purchase seven firearms. On the application form, known as ATF form 4473, the defendant certified that she was the actual purchaser of the firearms. But her behavior in selecting the firearms raised the suspicions of a store employee, who suspected that the defendant was a straw purchaser. The employee contacted the ATF, and an ATF agent met up with the defendant after she picked up and paid for the firearms. The agent found text messages on the defendant’s phone in which she discussed with her son, who is a prohibited possessor, purchasing some firearms.

The defendant was charged with making false statements in acquisition of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(6) and 924(a)(2). She was convicted at a jury trial.

The defendant challenged her conviction on two grounds. First, she argued that, as applied to her conduct, § 922(a)(6) violates the Second Amendment. “Manney first argues that § 922(a)(6) regulates a purchaser’s possessory interest by imposing information requirements for future transferees. Then, she frames the conduct more broadly by arguing that the statute inhibited her ability to acquire arms by regulating the purchase of firearms.” The panel rejected both arguments. The Second Amendment does not govern literally any regulation of the possession of firearms that may make it slightly harder to acquire one. The Second Amendment only regulates the ability to possess firearms. Section 922(a)(6), however, only prohibits false statements in connection with acquiring a firearm. This conduct is “unrelated to the possession of a firearm,” even if truthful statements on the form might trigger a separate statute that prohibits the possession of the firearm. “All the statute did was prohibit Manney from lying about the actual purchaser of the firearms.” The prohibition falls outside the plain text of the Second Amendment, and so this challenge failed.

Second, the defendant argued that because it violated the Second Amendment to prohibit felons from possessing firearms, her son was lawfully allowed to possess the firearms she bought for him, and so her statement that she was the actual purchaser wasn’t material to the transaction. The panel held that this contention was foreclosed by Abramski v. United States, 573 U.S. 169 (2014).

The decision is here.