Attention

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent our advertisers

Friday, October 05, 2018

Federal Judge Restores Non-Violent Offender’s Gun Rights Following Landmark Case

Judge says non-violent DUIs not enough to meet standard for lifelong gun ban

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 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. “The government has not demonstrated a substantial fit between Holloway’s continued disarmament and the important government interest of preventing armed mayhem.”

Read more

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Judge!

Anonymous said...

common sense ain't so common. shoulda never happened. cato issued a report several years ago how our rights are continually being stripped away like this. One woman was convicted of a felony for not trimming her hedges! government bureaucrats at their finest!

Anonymous said...

how about a misdemeanor and an other than honorable discharge?