The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the conviction of Habibullah Jaghoori for conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States. The court ruled on October 20, 2026, affirming that Jaghoori's actions in a firearm purchase scheme violated federal law. This decision impacts Jaghoori and his sister, who were involved in the case, and clarifies the legal boundaries of firearm purchases and false statements.
Jaghoori's case began when his sister, Fatima Jaghoori, purchased two Glock pistols from a federal firearms licensee on March 22, 2021. To complete the purchase, Fatima signed a federal form, declaring herself the actual buyer of the firearms. However, she was buying the guns for her brother, who intended to benefit from a military discount she received. This misrepresentation led to their indictment in August 2022.
The government charged both siblings with conspiracy to make a false statement during the purchase of firearms, a violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 922(a)(6). The indictment included additional counts, but the focus of the appeal was on the conspiracy charge. The siblings argued that Fatima's false answer on the form was immaterial because both could legally own firearms. They claimed this was protected under the Second Amendment.
The district court denied their motion to dismiss the indictment, stating that the charges were based on lying and conspiring to lie on a government form, not on lawful firearm ownership. Jaghoori subsequently pled guilty to the conspiracy charge and received an eight-month prison sentence. He appealed the district court's decision, challenging the denial of his motion to dismiss.
In its ruling, the Tenth Circuit upheld the district court's judgment. The court found that Jaghoori's conduct did not fall under the protections of the Second Amendment. The judges stated, "Because the Second Amendment does not protect an individual’s false statements, the conduct § 922(a)(6) regulates falls outside the scope of the Second Amendment’s plain text." This ruling aligns with similar decisions from other circuit courts, reinforcing the principle that making false statements during firearm purchases is not protected under the Second Amendment.
The Tenth Circuit's decision clarified that the government has the authority to regulate firearm purchases and can penalize individuals for providing false information. The court emphasized that the prohibition against making false statements on federal forms is a legitimate regulatory measure, separate from the right to bear arms. The judges noted that the siblings' actions were not about the right to own firearms but rather about the legality of their statements on the purchase form.
This ruling has significant implications for future cases involving firearm purchases and false statements. It establishes that individuals cannot use the Second Amendment as a defense against charges related to lying on government forms. The decision may deter similar conduct in the future, as it reinforces the legal consequences of providing false information during firearm transactions.
Looking ahead, it is unclear if Jaghoori will appeal the Tenth Circuit's ruling. The court's affirmation of the lower court's decision means that his conviction stands. There are no indications of related cases pending that would directly affect this ruling, but the legal landscape surrounding firearm regulations continues to evolve, especially as courts address Second Amendment challenges.