CA1: A poor man’s divorce leads to prison for false statements

US v. Edgarton, No. 06-2518 (12/6/07).  This opinion came out late.  It affirms the conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6) of a man that made a “false” statement to a firearms dealer to get a gun.  The defendant argues that the jury should have been instructed that there must be proof of an intention to deceive.  The First says he knew what he was doing.  Also, he was poor.  Keep reading.

There was a state court order in place which told him that “Possession Of A Firearm Or Ammunition While This Order Is In Effect Is Prohibited Under Federal And/Or State Law.” So, you see, rather than getting a nice separation agreement, followed by a divorce like members of my class do, his “his intermittent girlfriend and mother of his child” went to the police. The court then conducted some kind of hearing, that he didn’t attend, and his life went even further downhill from there. In the future, I would urge people to have more money and enter into mature relationships before separating. This way, they won’t lose their ability to carry a gun.

Anyway, the defendant had testified that his “intermittent girlfriend” had told him that the “matter had been dropped.” Ha ha. Only middle class people and above can control their domestic disputes. People like the defendant are at the mercy of the police as to when and if a matter gets resolved. He was poor. He should have known that.  

And so, the First writes “Section 922(a)(6) requires proof that the defendant knowingly made a false or fictitious statement. This requirement, however, does not presuppose deceptive intent or even knowledge that one’s conduct is unlawful... Edgerton has not explained why Congress cannot choose to punish a defendant who knowingly makes a false statement that is likely to deceive, regardless of whether the defendant is acting with deceptive intent, and this is precisely what Congress has done in Section 922(a)(6).”

So, another man goes to jail.