Jump to content

Hatfield vs Sessions (Barr) Federal Felony Restoration of Rights (denied)


Recommended Posts

Even though Hatfield received a small fine and no prison time for his non-violent statutory felony, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) bans him from owning a gun. That statute makes it unlawful for a person to possess a gun if they have
been convicted of a crime that is technically punishable by more than one year (i.e. a felony)—regardless of the sentence that the individual actually received. Since making a false statement in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) is punishable by up to five years, Hatfield falls within the gambit of § 922(g)(1).

 

He argues that the Government does not have an important interest in banning non-violent felons who received no prison time like him from having a gun. Hatfield also points out that while every state he researched has some sort of process to restore Second Amendment rights to felons on a case-by-case basis, the federal government does not. Curiously, 18 U.S.C. § 925© does provide a similar mechanism for a federal felon to restore their Second Amendment rights through an application to the Attorney General, but Congress has chosen to not fund § 925© since the early 1900s.

 

So for the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the motion for summary judgment by Jefferson B. Sessions, III, in his Official Capacity as the Attorney General of the United States (Doc. 41), GRANTS Larry Edward Hatfield’s motion for summary judgment (See Docs. 47, 48); and DECLARES that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment as-applied to Larry Edward Hatfield: a non-violent felon who received no prison time for his offense.

 

DATED: APRIL 26, 2018

J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 

Hatfield vs Sessions.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was about to post this, it was discussed on another forum.

 

It's too bad they couldn't have filed the non-resident carry ban litigation in this judge's district.

 

There's a lot of red meat in the decision for gun rights proponents, but there's a great quote that deserves notice:

 

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.

Overbroad policies ignoring a Constitutional Amendment describes the entirety of Illinois firearms law and regulatory agency attitude.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...
  • 3 years later...

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No.  18‐2385 LARRY E. HATFIELD, v. Plaintiff‐Appellee, WILLIAM P. BARR,  Attorney  General  of  the  United  States, Defendant‐Appellant. ____________________ Appeal  from  the  United  States  District  Court for  the  Southern  District  of  Illinois. No.  3:16‐cv‐00383‐JPG‐RJD  —  J.  Phil  Gilbert,  Judge. ____________________ ARGUED APRIL 12, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 6, 2019 ____________________

 

Before  FLAUM,  EASTERBROOK,  and  SYKES,  Circuit  Judges. EASTERBROOK,  Circuit  Judge.  A  person  “who  has  been convicted  in  any  court  of,  a  crime  punishable  by  imprisonment  for  a  term  exceeding  one  year”  is  forbidden  to  possess a  firearm.  18  U.S.C.  §922(g)(1).  

 

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/18-2385/18-2385-2019-06-06.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Molly B. changed the title to Hatfield vs Sessions (Barr) Felony Restoration of Rights - Decision reversed on appeal

What the heck happened to Easterbrook???  

 

Original Case:

"Curiously, 18 U.S.C. § 925© does provide a similar mechanism for a federal felon to restore their Second Amendment rights through an application to the Attorney General, but Congress has chosen to not fund § 925© since the early 1900s."

 

Easterbrook:

"Hatfield, who has not tried to show that it is possible to say whether he, and others like him, are to a constitutionally dispositive degree less dangerous than other felons, must accept that the Supreme Court’s norm applies to him."

 

The entire point is that there is it is unconstitutional because the Federal government provides no mechanism for him to do so, thereby unconstitutionally depriving him of his rights under the Second Amendment.  And for pete's sake, does one really have to provide expert evidence to show that, as a class, people who are convicted of perjury and other process "crimes" are inherently less violent than murderers, rapists, armed robbers, muggers and burglars???  Jurists are still allowed to use their own common sense in analysing cases.  Easterbrook appears to have lost his over the past several years.

Edited by 2A4Cook
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Molly B. changed the title to Hatfield vs Sessions (Barr) Federal Felony Restoration of Rights (denied)

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...