7th Cir: Old, non-violent felony conviction not bar to gun possession

What's going on in Washington, D.C.?

Moderators: Charles L. Cotton, carlson1

Post Reply
User avatar

Topic author
ELB
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 6561
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Seguin

7th Cir: Old, non-violent felony conviction not bar to gun possession

#1

Post by ELB » Thu May 31, 2018 5:25 pm

Hatfield v. Sessions (S.D. Ill., Apr. 26, 2018).
Plaintiff Larry Edward Hatfield wants to keep a gun in his home for self-defense. But the Government bans him from doing so, because 28 years ago, Hatfield lied on some forms that he sent to the Railroad Retirement Board: a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a). Hatfield later pled guilty to one count of violating the statute, an offense for which he received no prison time and a meager amount in restitution fees pursuant to a formal plea agreement with the Government. Now, Hatfield brings this as-applied challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)—the statute that bans him from owning a gun—on the grounds that it violates his Second Amendment rights. Hatfield embeds his argument in United States v. Williams, 616 F.3d 685, 692 (7th Cir. 2010), which instructed that "[the Supreme Court's decision in D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)] referred to felon disarmament bans only as `presumptively lawful,' which, by implication, means that there must exist the possibility that the ban could be unconstitutional in the face of an as-applied challenge." If there is any case that rebuts that presumption, it is this one. So for the following reasons, the Court GRANTS summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff Larry E. Hatfield.
USAF 1982-2005
____________
The Most Interesting Texan in the World. :txflag:


RHenriksen
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 2021
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:59 pm
Location: Houston

Re: 7th Cir: Old, non-violent felony conviction not bar to gun possession

#2

Post by RHenriksen » Fri Jun 01, 2018 7:14 am

:hurry:
I'll quit carrying a gun when they make murder and armed robbery illegal

Houston Technology Consulting
soup-to-nuts IT infrastructure design, deployment, and support for SMBs


TreyHouston
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1475
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2016 5:00 pm
Location: Tomball

Re: 7th Cir: Old, non-violent felony conviction not bar to gun possession

#3

Post by TreyHouston » Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:10 pm

:shock: WOW!
"Jump in there sport, get it done and we'll all sing your praises." -Chas

How many times a day could you say this? :cheers2:

User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 24095
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: 7th Cir: Old, non-violent felony conviction not bar to gun possession

#4

Post by The Annoyed Man » Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:27 pm

I think that is probably a good decision. I wonder if it will rest there, or if someone will pursue it to a higher court to get it overturned.
Give me Liberty, or I'll get up and get it myself.—Hookalakah Meshobbab
I don't carry because of the odds, I carry because of the stakes.—The Annoyed Boy


srothstein
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 4027
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2006 8:27 pm
Location: Luling, TX

Re: 7th Cir: Old, non-violent felony conviction not bar to gun possession

#5

Post by srothstein » Fri Jun 01, 2018 10:10 pm

This is a great decision. The opinion is well thought out and written, IMO.

But, I was particularly impressed with this paragraph:
And on a similar note, if the Court accepts the Government's position, it would lead to a harebrained outcome in which the Founders meant to allow Congress to inadvertently disarm the people by passing gobs of statutory felonies not contemplated at the common law, such as making a false statement (18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)); depositing merchandise in a building upon the boundary line between the United States and any foreign country (18 U.S.C. § 547); operating or holding any interest in a gambling establishment on a ship (18 U.S.C. § 1082); transporting lottery tickets across state lines when one state forbids lottery tickets (18 U.S.C. § 1301); mailing indecent matter on the outside of an envelope (18 U.S.C § 1463); possessing contraband smokeless tobacco (18 U.S.C. § 2342(a)); defacing any marks or numbers placed upon packages in a warehouse (18 U.S.C § 548); and more.
I have heard it claimed before, and it appears that this court might agree, that our government is passing laws to make us criminals so it can control us and take away our rights.
Steve Rothstein

Post Reply

Return to “Federal”