Federal Court Rules It’s Unconstitutional to Strip Second Amendment Rights as a Resul

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • wolfwood

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 24, 2011
    1,361
    Federal Court Rules It’s Unconstitutional to Strip Second Amendment Rights for DUI

    COngrats to Josh Prince and Adam Kraut the attorneys of record

    https://blog.princelaw.com/2018/10/...amendment-rights-as-a-result-of-a-second-dui/

    Today, Chief Counsel Joshua Prince and attorney Adam Kraut secured a major victory for Second Amendment jurisprudence in Holloway v. Sessions, et al., 1:17-CV-00081, where Chief Judge Christopher Connor of the Middle District of Pennsylvania ruled in a 21 page memorandum that it was unconstitutional as-applied to Mr. Holloway to preclude him in perpetuity from exercising his Second Amendment rights as a result of a 2005 DUI.

    Specifically, after finding that DUI is a non-violent offense and calling the Defendants out in footnote 7 for their erroneous contention that “[f]orty-six states punish DUIs as felonies on a first or subsequent conviction,” the Court found that “[t]he government has not shown consensus regarding the seriousness of a generic second DUI offense, let alone a second DUI offense at a high rate of alcohol.” Thereafter, the Court went on to hold that “[a]fter a careful weighing of the Binderup factors, the court concludes that Holloway’s crime was not a ‘serious offense’ within the ambit of Section 922(g)(1).”

    In turning to the second prong of Binderup, the Court held

    The government has not satisfied its burden of proving that disarmament of Holloway, and other individuals like him, will promote public safety. It relies heavily on an expert report to support the proposition that individuals like Holloway “are substantially more likely to intentionally use firearms to harm others, inflict self-harm, and cause inadvertent harm. The expert report states that individuals with alcohol dependency or
    abuse are more prone to violence and cites one study that suggests just over 50 percent of DUI offenders were alcohol dependent. (Doc. 61-4 at 4-5 & n.8). It further notes that alcohol abuse is often comorbid with mental illness and is strongly linked with domestic violence, youth violence, violent crime, and road rage. (Id. at 6-7). But nothing in the record suggests that Holloway was ever diagnosed with or suffered from alcohol dependence, alcohol abuse, or mental illness. Moreover, the report acknowledges that “it is not possible to determine with certainty whether these associations are causal.” (Id. at 6).

    The Court then goes on to hold that “[t]he government has not demonstrated a substantial fit between Holloway’s continued disarmament and the important government interest of preventing armed mayhem.”

    As such, the Court concludes:

    Section 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to Holloway. Holloway’s disqualifying conviction was not sufficiently serious to warrant deprivation of his Second Amendment rights, and disarmament of individuals such as Holloway is not sufficiently tailored to further the government’s compelling interest of preventing armed mayhem. The court will grant summary judgment, declaratory judgment, and permanent injunctive relief to Holloway.

    The accompanying Order declares:

    AND NOW, this 28th day of September, 2018, upon consideration of the plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 58) for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and defendants’ motion (Doc. 60) to dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12 and 56, and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum, it is hereby ORDERED that:
    1. Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 58) for summary judgment is GRANTED.
    2. Defendants’ motion (Doc. 60) to dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary judgment is DENIED.

    3. It is ORDERED and DECLARED that the felon-in-possession ban of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to plaintiff Raymond Holloway, Jr. (“Holloway”) in violation of the Second Amendment to
    the United States Constitution. Defendants, together with all those acting in concert with them, are ENJOINED from enforcing, directing enforcement, or permitting enforcement of the felon-in-possession ban of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) against Holloway.
    4. The Clerk of Court shall enter declaratory judgment in Holloway’s favor on his Second Amendment claim, brought pursuant to Binderup v. Attorney General, 836 F.3d 336, 339 (3d Cir. 2016) (en banc), cert. denied 137 S. Ct. 2323 (2017), challenging the felon-in-possession ban of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) as applied to him, said judgment to be entered in accordance with paragraph 3.
    5. The Clerk of Court shall thereafter close this case.
     
    Last edited:

    Peaceful John

    Active Member
    May 31, 2011
    239
    Section 922(g)(1) . . . and disarmament of individuals such as Holloway is not sufficiently tailored to further the government’s compelling interest of preventing armed mayhem. The court will grant summary judgment, declaratory judgment, and permanent injunctive relief to Holloway.

    Lay question: "Not sufficiently tailored" and "government's compelling interest" are dog whistles for "strict scrutiny", no?
     

    welder516

    Deplorable Welder
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 8, 2013
    27,307
    Underground Bunker
    How can this be parlayed into helping us all here in Maryland , or is this just a local verdict . ?? I am not clear on all the legal ease .
     

    tallen702

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Sep 3, 2012
    5,102
    In the boonies of MoCo
    How can this be parlayed into helping us all here in Maryland , or is this just a local verdict . ?? I am not clear on all the legal ease .

    So, basically it says that the state (and subsequently the federal gov't) can't infringe upon your right to keep and bear arms due to a DUI conviction that can carry a misdemeanor sentence of more than 2 years at the state level (PA can give you up to 5 years at the highest level of conviction for a DUI). The argument was that a DUI conviction is not a "serious" enough conviction to warrant revoking the plaintiff's second amendment rights.

    The tie-in to "Binderup" is that this case involves strict scrutiny and the steps determined in "Binderup" to determine whether the law in question meets the required benchmarks to be constitutionally enforced. Does the law stating that state-level misdemeanor convictions with a potential prison sentence of more than 2 years actually meet the idea that it is the least restrictive possible? In this case you have to look at "Barton" which addresses the revocation of 2A rights. Barton states that the revocation only applies to those who are "historically barred" from owning firearms. (eg, violent offenders or offenders whose offenses are closely associated with violence. eg, Drug dealers, drug users, etc.) Barton basically says that laws regarding the revocation of 2A rights apply to people who have shown they are a danger by committing serious crimes.

    The court ruled that despite PA's allegations that DUIs are a serious misdemeanor and a felony in many states, the DUI conviction is not serious enough to justify revoking someone's 2A rights out of hand.

    Holloway got his DUI conviction in 2005. It appears he learned his lesson and kept his nose clean for the intervening 11 years (tried to buy a firearm in 2016 and was denied due to the DUI). Never the less, PA tried to deny him his right to keep and bear arms even upon appeal. Federal court told them to pound sand. It's a victory for sure that will have a very wide reach.
     

    Sundazes

    My brain hurts
    MDS Supporter
    Nov 13, 2006
    21,302
    Arkham
    So, basically it says that the state (and subsequently the federal gov't) can't infringe upon your right to keep and bear arms due to a DUI conviction that can carry a misdemeanor sentence of more than 2 years at the state level (PA can give you up to 5 years at the highest level of conviction for a DUI). The argument was that a DUI conviction is not a "serious" enough conviction to warrant revoking the plaintiff's second amendment rights.

    The tie-in to "Binderup" is that this case involves strict scrutiny and the steps determined in "Binderup" to determine whether the law in question meets the required benchmarks to be constitutionally enforced. Does the law stating that state-level misdemeanor convictions with a potential prison sentence of more than 2 years actually meet the idea that it is the least restrictive possible? In this case you have to look at "Barton" which addresses the revocation of 2A rights. Barton states that the revocation only applies to those who are "historically barred" from owning firearms. (eg, violent offenders or offenders whose offenses are closely associated with violence. eg, Drug dealers, drug users, etc.) Barton basically says that laws regarding the revocation of 2A rights apply to people who have shown they are a danger by committing serious crimes.

    The court ruled that despite PA's allegations that DUIs are a serious misdemeanor and a felony in many states, the DUI conviction is not serious enough to justify revoking someone's 2A rights out of hand.

    Holloway got his DUI conviction in 2005. It appears he learned his lesson and kept his nose clean for the intervening 11 years (tried to buy a firearm in 2016 and was denied due to the DUI). Never the less, PA tried to deny him his right to keep and bear arms even upon appeal. Federal court told them to pound sand. It's a victory for sure that will have a very wide reach.

    Thanks for putting this in english.
     

    POP57

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 5, 2016
    2,771
    Delaware
    Perhaps Im not understanding the verdict correctly but does not "as it pertains to the plaintiff" mean that each case will have to be decided individually to determine whether someone with dui conviction (s) can legally own a firearm?
     

    welder516

    Deplorable Welder
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 8, 2013
    27,307
    Underground Bunker
    So, basically it says that the state (and subsequently the federal gov't) can't infringe upon your right to keep and bear arms due to a DUI conviction that can carry a misdemeanor sentence of more than 2 years at the state level (PA can give you up to 5 years at the highest level of conviction for a DUI). The argument was that a DUI conviction is not a "serious" enough conviction to warrant revoking the plaintiff's second amendment rights.

    The tie-in to "Binderup" is that this case involves strict scrutiny and the steps determined in "Binderup" to determine whether the law in question meets the required benchmarks to be constitutionally enforced. Does the law stating that state-level misdemeanor convictions with a potential prison sentence of more than 2 years actually meet the idea that it is the least restrictive possible? In this case you have to look at "Barton" which addresses the revocation of 2A rights. Barton states that the revocation only applies to those who are "historically barred" from owning firearms. (eg, violent offenders or offenders whose offenses are closely associated with violence. eg, Drug dealers, drug users, etc.) Barton basically says that laws regarding the revocation of 2A rights apply to people who have shown they are a danger by committing serious crimes.

    The court ruled that despite PA's allegations that DUIs are a serious misdemeanor and a felony in many states, the DUI conviction is not serious enough to justify revoking someone's 2A rights out of hand.

    Holloway got his DUI conviction in 2005. It appears he learned his lesson and kept his nose clean for the intervening 11 years (tried to buy a firearm in 2016 and was denied due to the DUI). Never the less, PA tried to deny him his right to keep and bear arms even upon appeal. Federal court told them to pound sand. It's a victory for sure that will have a very wide reach.

    Thank You kind sir :thumbsup:
     

    tallen702

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Sep 3, 2012
    5,102
    In the boonies of MoCo
    Perhaps Im not understanding the verdict correctly but does not "as it pertains to the plaintiff" mean that each case will have to be decided individually to determine whether someone with dui conviction (s) can legally own a firearm?

    My assumption is that it wouldn't be the case. Seems to me that they are applying the standards of scrutiny across the board here. Precedence has been set.
     

    YerNotGood

    Active Member
    May 30, 2013
    128
    Baltimore
    One more DUI would check the box for "Habitual Drunkard" in Maryland, making him prohibited.

    Like the saying goes, there are two types of people in the world: People who get 1 DUI and people who get 7 :innocent0
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,928
    Messages
    7,259,383
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom