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

armoredman · April 28, 2018, 01:49 AM

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.

**Aguila Blanca** · April 28, 2018, 09:10 AM

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.

rwilson452 · April 28, 2018, 11:42 AM

I wonder how far up the food chain the appeals will go on this one.

RETG · April 28, 2018, 12:33 PM

I totally agree but time (and courts) will tell.

**Aguila Blanca** · April 28, 2018, 07:06 PM

Quote:

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.

The Second Amendment has to mean something. What a refreshing notion ...

Al Norris · April 29, 2018, 12:48 PM

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.

**Spats McGee** · April 29, 2018, 04:39 PM

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.

zxcvbob · April 29, 2018, 05:10 PM

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.

**Frank Ettin** · April 29, 2018, 08:01 PM

Trial court case, so not precedent, BUT there is a similar appellate level case in the Third Circuit, Binderup V Attorney General (836 F.3d 336).

riffraff · April 29, 2018, 10:19 PM

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.

doofus47 · May 1, 2018, 01:53 PM

Interesting.

Lohman446 · May 1, 2018, 03:38 PM

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.

April 28, 2018, 01:49 AM	#1
armoredman Senior Member Join Date: May 22, 2007 Location: Arizona Posts: 5,299	Legal eagles - a judge overturns 2A restrictions for non-violent felons 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.

April 28, 2018, 11:42 AM	#3
rwilson452 Senior Member Join Date: June 10, 2004 Location: Tioga co. PA Posts: 2,647	I wonder how far up the food chain the appeals will go on this one. __________________ USNRET '61-'81

April 28, 2018, 12:33 PM	#4
RETG Senior Member Join Date: September 22, 2009 Location: Somewhere in Idaho, near WY Posts: 507	I totally agree but time (and courts) will tell. __________________ I give MY OPINION (not often) based on many years shooting at, other than paper targets. I will not debate my experience vs. your experience based on dreams and "what ifs." I'm 73; I'm too damn old to care.

April 29, 2018, 04:39 PM	#7
Spats McGee Staff Join Date: July 28, 2010 Location: Arkansas Posts: 8,821	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'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.

April 29, 2018, 05:10 PM	#8
zxcvbob Senior Member Join Date: December 20, 2007 Location: S.E. Minnesota Posts: 4,720	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. __________________ "Everything they do is so dramatic and flamboyant. It just makes me want to set myself on fire!" —Lucille Bluth

April 28, 2018, 09:10 AM	#2
Aguila Blanca Staff Join Date: September 25, 2008 Location: CONUS Posts: 18,467	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.

April 29, 2018, 12:48 PM	#6
Al Norris Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 29, 2000 Location: Rupert, Idaho Posts: 9,660	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.

April 29, 2018, 08:01 PM	#9
Frank Ettin Staff Join Date: November 23, 2005 Location: California - San Francisco Posts: 9,471	Trial court case, so not precedent, BUT there is a similar appellate level case in the Third Circuit, Binderup V Attorney General (836 F.3d 336). __________________ "It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper

April 29, 2018, 10:19 PM	#10
riffraff Senior Member Join Date: January 21, 2016 Posts: 629	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.

May 1, 2018, 01:53 PM	#11
doofus47 Senior Member Join Date: June 9, 2010 Location: live in a in a house when i'm not in a tent Posts: 2,483	Interesting. __________________ I'm right about the metric system 3/4 of the time.

May 1, 2018, 03:38 PM	#12
Lohman446 Senior Member Join Date: April 22, 2016 Posts: 2,192	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.