Legal eagles - a judge overturns 2A restrictions for non-violent felons

A

armoredman

New member
IL District Court declares 18 UCS, 922(g)(1) unconstitutional when applied to a man who was convicted of a non-violent felony AND spent no time in prison.

https://reason.com/assets/db/15248473798653.pdf

Interesting and very understandable read, even for a casual layman as myself. Would the real lawyers here care to comment? I personally see this as maybe a crack in the wall? I applaud it - will fed.gov appeal and perhaps risk losing in SCOTUS?
Curious to hear the opinions of the experts.
 
Verrrrry interesting.

By coincidence, just last weekend I attended an Appleseed shoot with a friend, and we discussed this exact point (but not this case) during the hour-and-a-half drive home from the event. To me the decision makes perfect sense, and I hope it is upheld. I'm tired of lower and appellate federal courts using that "presumptively lawful" phrase to claim that Heller automatically declared all preeexisting gun control laws to be lawful so they (the courts) don't have to look at them.
 
It is absolutely impossible to reconcile the Government’s positions here
that (1) a specific felon is so harmless that the felon does not need to
go to prison for their felony conviction, but also
(2) the felon is so dangerous that they should be stripped of their
right to own a gun and defend their home. This type of logical inconsistency
shows that the Government is not taking the Second Amendment seriously.
The Second Amendment has to mean something as a matter of law, policy
debates aside. Overbroad policies ignoring a constitutional amendment are inexcusable.
Click to expand...
The Second Amendment has to mean something. What a refreshing notion ...
 
Let's be real here. A federal (gun) law was just ruled unconstitutional, even if only "as applied" to the instant case. The Federal Government must appeal.

Then it will come down to who is on the appeals panel for the 7th Circuit.
 
I like this one and will likely file it away in my 2A Research file. I do think it will be appealed by the gov't, and will likely be overturned. I think that primarily just because it's the 7th Circuit, although we have had some useful cases come out of there.

I dug the case up in Westlaw and noticed a couple of things. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and lack of personal jurisdiction and lack of standing. Plaintiff responded and defendant replied. Reply briefs are discouraged under the Local Rules, so the defendant got his hand slapped and his MTD was denied.

With that said, this case has enough positive things going for it that I almost hope it's over turned on appeal. If it stands on appeal, it may or may not make it to SCOTUS. I don't know that the USAtty would appeal it, because it's as-applied. I also don't know when, where, and under what exact circumstances a USAtty must appeal. If it's overturned, there's a chance it could get to SCOTUS.

Anyway, here are the things that make this one attractive as an appellate case for me:

  • A good plaintiff. Yes, Mr. Hatfield was convicted of a felony, but:
    • It was a non-violent felony;
    • He was given probation with zero jail time + fines.
    • He has served his sentence.
    • He has been a model citizen since then. The court even said, "Since that time, Hatfield has maintained a spotless record: he has no mental health issues, he does not drink, he has no drug addictions, and he does not even have any traffic citations since his felony conviction."
  • A clearly readable decision. Most of you can identify quite well when judges "shove things around" to get where they want to go. I don't see that here. The reasoning is clear and the language is concise. (IMHO, the fewer words you can put in an order, the better. It leaves less wiggle room.)
  • Clear citation to authority. This is obviously related to the issue above, but what I mean is that he not only names Heller and the 7th Circuit decisions, but the judge's dissection of his necessary points is pretty clean.
 
I just read the whole thing. It's beautiful. It's going to require a lot of dishonesty to overturn it. (I predict it will be overturned)

This one might make it to the Supreme Court.
 
Good stuff...

One situation which comes up in very gun unfriendly states is they have adjusted their laws over time by attaching 2.5 year jail sentences to crimes they consider misdemeanors, shamelessly to limit gun ownership wherever they can. - In MA for instance for many such crimes nobody has ever been sentence to a day in jail in the history of the state (certainly not > 2 years), but it clips gun rights permanently.
 
From a "judges as politicians" view I'm rather curious to see how this comes out of the seventh. There seems to be some motivation to prevent attaching continued punishment to criminal actions after the sentence has been completed. I'm going to go with the theory that discussion of the previous point is off topic and only note that such a movement exists. This might turn out well even in the land of activist judges.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top