Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Source documents Court filing — E.D.N.C. No. 5:23-cr-00021 (Dkt. 22, E.D.N.C.)

Court filing — E.D.N.C. No. 5:23-cr-00021 (Dkt. 22, E.D.N.C.)

Full text

                        IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                    FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
                                 WESTERN DIVISION
                               No. 5:23-CR-00021-FL-RN-1

 United States of America,

 v.
                                                                       Order
 Carlos Alston,

                         Defendant.


        Defendant Carlos Alston has challenged the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(3)

and 922(n), the federal statutes under which he was indicted. See Mot. Dismiss, D.E. 17. In short,

Alston contends that the statutes fail to satisfy the test laid out in New York State Rifle & Pistol

Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022). The court has scheduled a hearing to discuss Alston’s

motion for later this month. See Order Setting Hr’g, D.E. 21.

        Federal law—at least in theory—allows someone barred from possessing or receiving a

firearm under § 922 to apply to the Attorney General to restore his rights. 18 U.S.C. § 925(c). And

if the Attorney General denies an individual’s application, § 925(c) allows him to petition the

courts for relief. Id.

        But since 1992 Congress has prohibited the Executive Branch from using appropriated

funds “to investigate or act upon applications for relief from [f]ederal firearms disabilities under”

18 U.S.C. § 925(c). Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022, Pub. L. No. 117–103, 136 Stat. 49;

United States v. Bean, 537 U.S. 71, 74–76 (2002). And absent an actual denial of a request for

relief, federal courts lack jurisdiction to conduct the review provided by § 925(c). Bean, 537 U.S.

at 75–76.




         Case 5:23-cr-00021-FL-RN Document 22 Filed 05/12/23 Page 1 of 2
       The court would like to know the parties’ positions on how—if at all—the existence of this

rights-restoration provision and, separately, Congress’s denial of funds to the Attorney General to

implement the provision impact the questions before the court. Thus, the court orders the parties

to submit supplemental briefs, not to exceed 20 pages, on this issue by May 26, 2023.


Dated:
Dated: May 12, 2023

                                             R OBERT T. NUMBERS, II
                                             ______________________________________
                                             U
                                             Robert STATES
                                               NITEDT.      M II
                                                              AGISTRATE JUDGE
                                                       Numbers,
                                             United States Magistrate Judge




                                                2

        Case 5:23-cr-00021-FL-RN Document 22 Filed 05/12/23 Page 2 of 2


File and source

File
22.pdf
Size
652,978 bytes
SHA-256
410a996984e88911a0c9fababc34bd4cdf26bc9c1fad5d1926f5fab2eed238b3
Our copy
22.pdf
Original
archive.org
Back to top