Swordsmyth
10-04-2018, 04:06 PM
A federal judge restored the rights of a Pennsylvania man on Friday after determining that his misdemeanor driving under the influence convictions were not serious enough to justify a lifelong restriction on his Second Amendment rights.
Chief Judge Christopher Conner of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania ruled that Raymond Holloway's second misdemeanor DUI conviction in 2005 was not a serious enough crime to result in a lifetime abridgment of one of his constitutional rights. Connor applied the standard set in the landmark case Binderup v. the U.S. Attorney General (https://freebeacon.com/issues/supreme-court-denies-appeal-leaves-pro-gun-decision-intact/) where the Third Circuit Court of Appeals found those convicted of certain nonviolent offenses can't be barred from owning firearms for the rest of their lives. He said the government had failed to show that Holloway's misdemeanor DUI convictions meant he should be disarmed for life.
"Defendants' evidence fails to account for key characteristics of Holloway and similarly situated persons. They have presented no evidence indicating that individuals like Holloway—after over a decade of virtuous, noncriminal behavior—'remain [so] potentially irresponsible' that they should be prohibited from owning a firearm," Conner wrote in his ruling (https://princelaw.files.wordpress.com/2018/10/memorandum-holloway-83.pdf). "The government has not demonstrated a substantial fit between Holloway's continued disarmament and the important government interest of preventing armed mayhem."
Though Holloway had only committed misdemeanors and only served 90 days of work release for his second offense, he was still considered a prohibited person and barred from firearms possession under federal law because his second conviction carried a possible sentence of up to five years in prison. Federal law says that those convicted of a misdemeanor with a potential prison sentence of more than two years are prohibited from possessing firearms—even if they aren't sentenced to that amount of time in prison. When Holloway went to purchase a firearm in 2016, 10 years after serving his sentence, he was informed that he was barred from doing so.
He then filed suit claiming the prohibition was unconstitutional as applied to him because his crimes were not serious enough to justify a lifetime ban. Judge Conner agreed with his argument.
More at: https://freebeacon.com/issues/federal-judge-restores-non-violent-offenders-gun-rights-following-landmark-case/
Chief Judge Christopher Conner of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania ruled that Raymond Holloway's second misdemeanor DUI conviction in 2005 was not a serious enough crime to result in a lifetime abridgment of one of his constitutional rights. Connor applied the standard set in the landmark case Binderup v. the U.S. Attorney General (https://freebeacon.com/issues/supreme-court-denies-appeal-leaves-pro-gun-decision-intact/) where the Third Circuit Court of Appeals found those convicted of certain nonviolent offenses can't be barred from owning firearms for the rest of their lives. He said the government had failed to show that Holloway's misdemeanor DUI convictions meant he should be disarmed for life.
"Defendants' evidence fails to account for key characteristics of Holloway and similarly situated persons. They have presented no evidence indicating that individuals like Holloway—after over a decade of virtuous, noncriminal behavior—'remain [so] potentially irresponsible' that they should be prohibited from owning a firearm," Conner wrote in his ruling (https://princelaw.files.wordpress.com/2018/10/memorandum-holloway-83.pdf). "The government has not demonstrated a substantial fit between Holloway's continued disarmament and the important government interest of preventing armed mayhem."
Though Holloway had only committed misdemeanors and only served 90 days of work release for his second offense, he was still considered a prohibited person and barred from firearms possession under federal law because his second conviction carried a possible sentence of up to five years in prison. Federal law says that those convicted of a misdemeanor with a potential prison sentence of more than two years are prohibited from possessing firearms—even if they aren't sentenced to that amount of time in prison. When Holloway went to purchase a firearm in 2016, 10 years after serving his sentence, he was informed that he was barred from doing so.
He then filed suit claiming the prohibition was unconstitutional as applied to him because his crimes were not serious enough to justify a lifetime ban. Judge Conner agreed with his argument.
More at: https://freebeacon.com/issues/federal-judge-restores-non-violent-offenders-gun-rights-following-landmark-case/