Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_95-cr-00419/USCOURTS-azd-2_95-cr-00419-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Murr Eyring
Defendant
United States of America
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. CR 95-419-PHX-RCB

)

vs. ) O R D E R

) 

Murr Eyring, )

)

Defendant. ) )

On December 4, 1995, Defendant Murr Eyring plead guilty to one

count of False Statements and Entries, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 1001. Min. Entry (doc. 3). Eyring was sentenced by this Court

on September 30, 1996. (doc. 18).

On October 14, 2005, Eyring filed a motion entitled "Motion

for Right to Bear Arms." Mot. (doc. 32). In his motion, Eyring

argues that it has been over five years since he was discharged

from U.S. Probation and over nine years since the judgment was

ordered against him. Id. at 1-2. In light of this passage of

time, and the fact that the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa

County restored his civil rights two years ago, Eyring requests 

Case 2:95-cr-00419-RCB Document 33 Filed 08/28/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

that this Court restore his "right to possess and own a firearm for

any and all lawful purposes." Id. at 2. The Government did not

respond to Eyring's motion. 

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution

establishes that the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms,

shall not be infringed." This constitutional guarantee "is a

limitation only upon the power of congress and the national

government, and not upon that of the States." Presser v. Illinois,

116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886). The Ninth Circuit has held that the

Second Amendment is a right held by the states and does not protect

the possession of a weapon by a private citizen. Hickman v. Block,

81 F.3d 98, 100-01 (9th Cir. 1996). 

Under federal law, it is a crime for any person to possess a

firearm after having been "convicted in any court of, a crime

punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year." 18

U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). A conviction does not count for § 922(g)(1)

purposes if the defendant has had his civil rights restored, unless

the restoration expressly restricts the defendant's firearm rights. 

See U.S. v. Nix, 438 F.3d 1284, 1285 (11th Cir. 2006). In his

motion, Eyring fails to provide the Court with citations to any

legal authority that grants this Court the power to restore such

rights. Upon its own review of relevant case law and statutes, the

Court concludes that it lacks such authority. 

Under Arizona law, a convicted felon may have his civil rights

automatically restored. A.R.S. § 13-912 (A). However, this law

does not automatically restore a person's right to possess weapons,

"unless the person applies to a court pursuant to section 13-905 or

13-906." A.R.S. § 13-912 (B); see also A.R.S. §§ 13-905 and 13-

Case 2:95-cr-00419-RCB Document 33 Filed 08/28/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

906. Thus, upon application, the State of Arizona may restore

Eyring's right to bear arms, however this Court has no authority to

do so.

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Eyring's Motion for Right to Bear Arms

(doc. 32) is DENIED.

DATED this 24th day of August, 2006.

Copies to counsel of record.

Case 2:95-cr-00419-RCB Document 33 Filed 08/28/06 Page 3 of 3