At a sporting goods store Petitioner was considering the purchase of a firearm. The store clerk asked Petitioner to identify himself and fill out the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) Form 4473. Petitioner complied and checked the "No" box in answer to Question 11.h, which inquires whether the individual is "subject to a court order restraining [him] from harassing, stalking, or threatening your child or an intimate partner or child of such partner?" (Id.). After Petitioner filled out the form the clerk called into the National Instant Criminal Background System, aka, NICS. The response initially (first) provided by NICS was "Delayed". So, Petitioner promptly left the store neither having paid for any firearm, nor leaving a deposit. Days later, NICS contacted the store again stating that for unspecified reasons Petitioner's background check was "Denied". In turn the store clerk called Petitioner to inform him of the NICS result. When Petitioner asked why the NICS check was denied the clerk said he did not know and that it could be for any number of reasons.

The questions presented are:

FIRST, SINCE THE RECORD SHOWS PETITIONER NEVER POSSESSED A FIREARM, ACQUIRED A FIREARM, PAID FOR A FIREARM OR EVEN LEFT A DEPOSIT FOR A FIREARM, BUT ONLY PROMPTLY LEFT THE STORE, WAS THIS PROSECUTION LAWFULLY BROUGHT UNDER 18 USC §922(a)(6) IN LIGHT OF THIS COURT'S DECISIONS IN Huddleston v. United States, 415 U.S. 814 (1974) and United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394, 405 (1980).

SECOND, SINCE THE 18 USC §922(a)(6) ALLEGATIONS DEPEND UPON PETITIONER'S ACTUAL STATUS AS A §922(g)(8) OFFENDER WHETHER THIS COURT'S DECISION IN Rehaif v. United States, 139 S.Ct. 2191 (2019) REQUIRES THAT THE GOVERNMENT PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT PETITIONER KNEW HIS LEGAL STATUS AS A §922(g)(8) OFFENDER.

Whether the prosecution was lawfully brought under 18 USC §922(a)(6) where the petitioner never possessed, acquired, paid for, or left a deposit for a firearm, but only promptly left the store