another court victory of sorts

[ilbob]

http://reason.com/volokh/2018/04/27...nt-con?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook

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....

 

[danez71]

I haven't read it but here's the link to the case so this doesn't get shut down.

https://reason.com/assets/db/15248473798653.pdf

 

[Frank Ettin]

It's only in the trial court so it has no value as precedent. We'll have to see if it gets appealed.

 

[gc70]

The article refers to the earlier Third Circuit case of Binderup V Attorney General (836 F.3d 336) which is precedential. And the government's appeal of Binderup was denied by the Supreme Court.

 

[jrmiddleton425]

I'll say this much after skimming through it: he's not wrong in saying that Heller created a rebuttable presumption. I wonder if he will get anywhere with it.

 

[Frank Ettin]

The article refers to the earlier Third Circuit case of Binderup V Attorney General (836 F.3d 336) which is precedential. .

Binderup is precedent only in the Third Circuit. This case, Hatfield, is in the Seventh Circuit. So while Binderup is binding on trial courts in the Third Circuit it doesn't bind trial courts in the Seventh Circuit.

However, I think the reasoning in Binderup is sound and might have influenced Judge Gilbert's thinking. However, we can't necessarily assume that because it doesn't appear that Judge Gilbert cited Binderup in his decision.

However, it's good to see these cases in which the Second Amendment and Heller/McDonald are being taken seriously.