« Shaneen Allen: good news | Main | Only government actors are safe with arms »
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.").
2 Comments | Leave a comment
There is a case just filed in the Middle district of Tennessee using BINDERUP as its guide, involving a federal non-violent felon raising the same "as applied" challenge to the federal ban 18:USC 922(g)as BINDERUP.
Its Byrd v. Holder et al., case# 14-cv-02159
The ATF has recently resorted to applying Caron v. United States in Louisiana to further prohibit persons where rights have been restored.
Under Louisiana law (La. C.Cr.P.art. 893), a person can plead guilty to certain non-violent felony offenses. The conviction is "held in abeyance" and the guilty plea is not accepted by the judge (subject to agreement from the Prosecutor and Judge). Upon successful completion of the conditions (generally probation, community service, and/or fines), the judge had the option to dismiss the prosecution and set-aside the conviction with the same effect as an acquittal.
Under proper application of this procedure and a subsequent expungement (LA R.S. 44:9), all rights are restored unless explicitly withheld in the restoration order.
Firearm rights have been restored under under Louisiana law. However, Louisiana defines concealed carry as a privilege. As such, it is restricted differently/independently from normal firearm rights. One such restriction pertains to persons with restored rights under Article 893 (Louisiana Revised Statute 40:1379.3(C) (10)).
After the prosecution was dismissed and the conviction set-aside and an expungement granted until about May 2014, I legally owned and purchased firearms. This was done with the explicit documentation of said legality from the DOJ and a UPIN they issued notwithstanding the dismissed and set-aside conviction for which they were sent court records. My one and only offense was for [felony] forgery (manufacture of a fake ID for the purposes of entry to bars at 17). While illegal and reprehensible, that certainly does not make me more likely to present a danger to society than others that should constitute a prohibition from firearm ownership.