Gail Manney purchased seven handguns from a licensed dealer in Reno, Nevada, in 2021. On the required federal ATF Form 4473, she certified that she was the actual purchaser of the firearms. However, evidence later revealed she was acting as a straw purchaser for her son, Razaaq, a convicted felon prohibited from owning guns. After the dealer reported suspicions to the ATF, an investigation uncovered WhatsApp messages between Manney and her son discussing the purchase. Manney was indicted and convicted for knowingly making false statements on the form. She appealed, arguing that the statute violated her Second Amendment rights and that her lie was not 'material' because her son could legally possess the firearms if not for his felony status.
The panel analyzed Manney's Second Amendment challenge using the framework established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. The court first determined whether the Second Amendment's plain text covers the conduct regulated by 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6). The court concluded that the statute regulates the act of making false statements, not the possession or acquisition of firearms itself. The opinion states, 'the conduct that § 922(a)(6) regulates falls outside the scope of the Second Amendment's plain text.' The court rejected Manney's argument that the statute infringed on her right to acquire arms, noting that the statute only prohibits lying to a dealer to ensure accurate information is provided. Because the Second Amendment does not protect false statements, the analysis ended there without requiring a historical inquiry. Regarding the materiality of the lie, the court held that Manney's argument was foreclosed by the Supreme Court's decision in Abramski v. United States. In Abramski, the Court ruled that a false statement about the actual purchaser is material under the statute even if the actual purchaser is legally eligible to own a gun. The Ninth Circuit applied this precedent, noting that the government is entitled to collect accurate information about who is buying a firearm.
Manney's conviction for making false statements on a firearm purchase form is upheld, reinforcing the government's ability to prosecute straw purchasers who lie on ATF forms. The decision clarifies that the Second Amendment does not provide a shield for false statements made during the acquisition process. While the conviction stands, a portion of Manney's sentence was vacated in a separate memorandum disposition not detailed in this opinion. The ruling confirms that the materiality of a false statement regarding the actual purchaser is established by the fact of the misrepresentation itself, regardless of the actual buyer's legal eligibility.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download