2A "as applied" challenge victory
Binderup v. Holder, Eastern Dist. of PA, No. 13-cv-06750. (I won't attach it because it's an 86 page pdf).
By way of background: a constitutional challenge can be a facial one, aimed at the face of the statute (any and all applications of the statute are unconstitutional) or "as applied" (regardless of whether the statute itself is unconstitutional, its application to this person in this context would violate a constitutional command). This was an as applied challenge, brought by Alan Gura.
Plaintiff was convicted, long ago, under a State law punishing corruption of a minor (in this case, a 17 year old girl with whom he had an affair). The statute expressly terms this a misdemeanor, but allows a punishment of up to five years' imprisonment, making it a bar under Federal law (which bars firearms possession by anyone convicted of an offense punishable by more than one year, except for offenses expressly termed misdemeanors and punishable by no more than two years).
The court decides that, in light of the nonviolent nature of the offense, its antiquity, and the fact that plaintiff has kept a clean record before and since, using it to bar him from possession would violate the 2A.
Nice reasoning, and as we see more of these (and more payments of legal fees by the government) Congress might have an incentive to limit the disqualification to offenses that actually suggest a person is too risky to be allowed a firearm. That was raised back in 1968, and again when the GCA was rewritten in the 1980s, but encountered opposition that essentially went searching for statutes that would no longer be disqualifies but would suggest a person was a risk. (The final fall back was always "but they only got Al Capone for a tax violation.").