Whether the Gun Control Act's application to private arms sales on the secondary market exceeds federal jurisdiction and violates constitutional protections

No question identified. : QUESTION ’(S) PRESENTED 1. Does the district court's application of the Gun Control Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921 and following, to apply to private arms sales on the secondary market constitute a clear absence of jurisdiction, violating the statute's text, congressional intent, Supreme Court precedent, and a recent federal injunction supported by the attorneys general of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Utah, and three gun rights organizations, thus requiring a writ of mandamus to compel dismissal? 2. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 921 (a)(2 1 )(C) is unlawfully being applied outside the statutory scheme to private sales on the secondary markets allowing Batfe agents, prosecutors and judges to assume “hypothetical jurisdiction ” to decide the merits of a case, when there is a clear absence of jurisdiction as congress never gave the courts of limited jurisdiction any delegation of authority over private sales on the secondary market? 3. If the above question is answered in the negative, then did congress violate the fifth amendment ’s substantive due process clause by taking the right to dispose of one’s own lawfully owned private property of arms and violate the unconstitutional conditions doctrine? 4. Whether the Gun Control Act of 1968 exceeds federal authority under the Commerce Clause by regulating private, non-commercial secondary-marketusa Page 1 of 5 arms sales by unlicensed individuals, thereby infringing the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms and the Fifth Amendment's substantive due process protections for liberty and disposal of privately owned property of arms, in the absence of any delegated power to Congress for such regulation as intended by the Founders? 5. Whether, contrary to explicit congressional intent in the Gun Control Act of 1968 exempting private secondary-market sales by non-dealers (e.g., Rep. Dingell, Cong. Rec., Vol. 114, p. 27462 (1968)), and given a circuit split on its applicability (e.g., dismissal in United States v. Kouyate, D. Colo. 2024), the Act's enforcement against unlicensed individuals unconstitutionally usurp jurisdiction, violating the harmonious protections of the Second and Fifth Amendments and the Framers' design limiting federal power to external commerce without internal conflicts? 6. Whether the federal regulation of any private arms transfers under the Gun Control Act impermissibly burdens the cohesive framework of the Bill of Rights —including the First (chilling expressive association), Fourth (enabling arbitrary intrusions), Ninth (undermining retained natural rights), and Tenth (overriding reserved powers) —while clashing with Second Amendment safeguards and Fifth Amendment due process, absent any Page 2 of 5 delegated authority and in defiance of the Framers' design of a non conflicting Constitution limiting government to external concerns? 7. Whether the Gun Control Act's conditioning of private arms sales on FFL licensure violates the unconstitutional conditions doctrine by coercing waivers of rights under the Fourth (privacy from surveillance) and Fifth (liberty/property) Amendments, further implicating the First (speech in transactions), Ninth (uneriumerated liberties), and Tenth (federalism) Amendments, where legislative history confirms no intent to regulate non dealers and the Framers withheld such power to prevent arbitrary disarmament schemes? 8. Whether district and circuit courts' assumption of "hypothetical jurisdiction" over Gun Control Act charges for non-FFL private sales, despite congressional exemptions for such transactions (Sen. Dodd, Cong. Rec., Vol. 114, p. 11069 (1968)), constitutes a clear abuse warranting mandamus, as it usurps undelegated powers in violation of the Second, Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments, creating equal protection disparities across circuits and conflicting with the Framers' harmonious constitutional limits? 9. Whether convictions under the Gun Control Act for private sales by non dealers are void ab