Hatfield v. Sessions

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
    Illinois Federal Court Non-Violent Felon regains his gun rights

    Plaintiffs lost his rights due to minor paper violation

    this is the best part of the opinon

    The Government has fallen on their own sword by
    relying on these cases: at the time of the founding,
    English common-law felonies consisted of murder, rape,
    manslaughter, robbery, sodomy, larceny, arson,
    mayhem, and burglary. Jerome v. United States, 318
    U.S. 101, 108 n.6 (1943); Wayne R. LaFave, Criminal
    Law, § 2.1(b) (5th ed. 2010). So if the Founders
    intended to allow Congress to disarm unvirtuous felons,
    that intent would have necessarily been limited to
    individuals convicted of one of those nine felonies.
    Hatfield, however, violated a statutory felony that
    Congress created in 1948: making a false statement in
    breach of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. That offense is most similar
    to the common law offense of forgery, which first arose
    in 1727 as a misdemeanor—not a felony. Jerome, 318
    U.S. at 109 n.7; LaFave, supra.
    3
    Critics of this approach
    may complain that we do not read constitutional rights
    this way—for example, the Fourth Amendment
    prohibition against unreasonable searches now applies
    to electronic devices that the Founders did not
    contemplate, and the First Amendment covers forms of
    communication that the Founders did not contemplate.
    But those scenarios are entirely different: they consider
    the expansion of constitutional rights that protect the
    people over time, whereas the Government here
    is [*14] attempting to shrink Second Amendment rights
    of the people.
     

    Attachments

    • Hatfield v. Sessions_ 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70431.PDF
      143.8 KB · Views: 206

    CrabcakesAndFootball

    Active Member
    Jun 14, 2017
    697
    Illinois Federal Court Non-Violent Felon regains his gun rights

    Plaintiffs lost his rights due to minor paper violation

    this is the best part of the opinon

    The Government has fallen on their own sword by
    relying on these cases: at the time of the founding,
    English common-law felonies consisted of murder, rape,
    manslaughter, robbery, sodomy, larceny, arson,
    mayhem, and burglary. Jerome v. United States, 318
    U.S. 101, 108 n.6 (1943); Wayne R. LaFave, Criminal
    Law, § 2.1(b) (5th ed. 2010). So if the Founders
    intended to allow Congress to disarm unvirtuous felons,
    that intent would have necessarily been limited to
    individuals convicted of one of those nine felonies.
    Hatfield, however, violated a statutory felony that
    Congress created in 1948: making a false statement in
    breach of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. That offense is most similar
    to the common law offense of forgery, which first arose
    in 1727 as a misdemeanor—not a felony. Jerome, 318
    U.S. at 109 n.7; LaFave, supra.
    3
    Critics of this approach
    may complain that we do not read constitutional rights
    this way—for example, the Fourth Amendment
    prohibition against unreasonable searches now applies
    to electronic devices that the Founders did not
    contemplate, and the First Amendment covers forms of
    communication that the Founders did not contemplate.
    But those scenarios are entirely different: they consider
    the expansion of constitutional rights that protect the
    people over time, whereas the Government here
    is [*14] attempting to shrink Second Amendment rights
    of the people.

    I am not sure if this is your work, but congrats if so. Regardless, excellent opinion. Thanks for posting.
     

    GlocksAndPatriots

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Aug 29, 2016
    763
    Great decision. I will note, however, that this district judge was appointed by Bush Sr. Once an appellate panel of Obongo or Klinton appointees hears the case, they WILL reverse, as they don't belong the 2nd Amendment means anything at all. To use the judge's description, they "ignore" the 2nd Amendment.
     

    wolfwood

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 24, 2011
    1,361
    It depends on what the panel says but this is a really low level crime and the opinion is well thought out. I hope esqappellate weighs in.
     

    Gryphon

    inveniam viam aut faciam
    Patriot Picket
    Mar 8, 2013
    6,993
    Exactly:

    “Critics of this approach may complain that we do not read constitutional rights this way—for example, the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches now applies to electronic devices that the Founders did not contemplate, and the First Amendment covers forms of communication that the Founders did not contemplate.

    But those scenarios are entirely different: they consider the expansion of constitutional rights that protect the people over time, whereas the Government here is attempting to shrink Second Amendment rights of the people.”

    Was just thinking this the other day. Thanks for sharing.
     

    wolfwood

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 24, 2011
    1,361
    a lot happening in this case lots of briefs filed
     

    Attachments

    • Hatfield NRA amicus brief.pdf
      504.8 KB · Views: 116
    • Hatfield SAF amicus brief.pdf
      989 KB · Views: 140
    • Hatfield Everytown Amicus Brief..pdf
      398.2 KB · Views: 112
    • Hatfield CATO Brief.pdf
      1 MB · Views: 104
    • Hatfield CRPA Brief.pdf
      315 KB · Views: 125

    Allen65

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 29, 2013
    7,063
    Anne Arundel County
    a lot happening in this case lots of briefs filed

    I wish our side would stop using the term "gun violence" in their briefs. It's inherently political and emotionally charged in a way that biases the reader in the wrong direction. Alan Gura, especially, should know better.
     

    wolfwood

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 24, 2011
    1,361
    Answering Brief from our side

    Opening Brief and Reply Brief from the goverment
     

    Attachments

    • Hatfield Answering Brief.pdf
      1.8 MB · Views: 110
    • Hatfield Reply Brief.pdf
      165.8 KB · Views: 102
    • Hatfield Opening brief.pdf
      1.9 MB · Views: 129

    cstone

    Active Member
    Dec 12, 2018
    842
    Baltimore, MD
    I've been curious for many years what we (society) mean when we say that a convicted felon has paid their debt to society after completing the terms of their sentence. Which other rights, besides voting, do felons lose after they have paid their debt? Certainly we would not say that a felon has no right to practice religion, free speech or exercise their freedom of assembly. If a felon who has completed their sentence is so dangerous as not to have the right to self protection, then why is that felon permitted back out on the street with other free citizens?

    We had all better be dangerous in the right situations or we will certainly all be dead or subservient victims afterwards.

    Be safe.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,930
    Messages
    7,259,470
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom