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

[Molly B.]

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

[Gamma]

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.

[lockman]

Just another decision showing the schizophrenic behavior of the state.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Just some guy]

It seems that, on the bottom of page 10, the AG didn't put much effort into presenting his case. That could be interpreted as supporting Hatfield. The AG was required to reply to the motion and merely "went through the motions". Am I reading between the lines too much?

[speedbump]

Judge Phil Gilbert is a pretty smart cookie in most instances.

[Molly B.]

Researching follow-up on this case.  Does anyone know if the decision was appealed in U.S. Appellate court?

[gunuser17]

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

[Molly B.]

Thank you very much for finding the info!  

 

It's not exactly the result I had hoped for - our work continues.

[2A4Cook]

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 August 29, 2021 at 12:15 PM by 2A4Cook