A federal appeals court ruled that old drunk-driving convictions alone cannot cost a peaceable man his gun rights for life.
Story Highlights
- The full Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia ruled 8-6 that the lifetime federal gun ban cannot be applied to Edward Williams.
- Williams’s only record is two drunk-driving convictions from the early 2000s, and he served his sentence under home confinement.
- The court said the Second Amendment allows disarming people whose crimes show a risk of violence, not peaceable citizens.
- In a second ruling, the same court upheld the ban for James Bost, who pleaded guilty in a 2002 carjacking.
A Win for a Peaceable Citizen
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting as a full court on Tuesday, October 13, handed Williams the win because, it said, the Constitution lets the government take guns from people whose crimes involved violence or threats, not from someone like him. Judge Paul Matey, a Trump appointee, wrote that Williams is “a peaceable citizen, capable of bearing arms consistent with the design of the Second Amendment.”
Federal law bars gun ownership for anyone convicted of a crime that can be punished by more than a year in prison. One of Williams’s DUI convictions met that bar, even though he was sentenced to 90 days to two years and served it at home. When he learned he could no longer own a gun, he sued to have the ban declared unconstitutional as applied to him, meaning for his own case rather than for everyone.
History and Tradition Decide the Case
Under the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision, a modern gun law must be “consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” The Justice Department argued that old laws aimed at “habitual drunkards” supported disarming Williams. Judge Matey rejected that argument.
Williams’s lawyer, Joshua Prince, said there is no historical tradition of stripping gun rights from people with nonviolent convictions who pose no public threat. The majority agreed that a felony label alone is not enough. The government has to show why a person’s record makes him dangerous.
A Divided Court
The vote split along the lines of who appointed the judges, according to reports. All eight in the majority were named by Republican presidents, and all six dissenters by Democratic presidents. Judge Arianna Freeman wrote for the dissent. She objected to the rule that a prior conviction disarms a person on its face “only if it involved violence or threats.” She argued that drunk driving shows a person “poses a credible threat to the physical safety of others.”
The Bost ruling shows where the court drew its line. Bost pleaded guilty to terroristic threats, conspiracy, false imprisonment and simple assault after the 2002 carjacking, and was later charged with having a gun. Judge Stephanos Bibas, also a Trump appointee, wrote that people whose convictions show a risk of physical violence “may presumptively be disarmed based on those convictions alone.”
What This Means for Gun Owners
This is not a free pass for every person with a felony. It is a ruling for one man whose record shows no violence or threats. But it sends a clear message: the government must prove its case before it takes away a constitutional right for life. Peaceable citizens keep their right to defend themselves, and violent offenders stay disarmed.
The Justice Department can ask the Supreme Court to review the Williams case.
Sources:
foxnews.com, noticias.foxnews.com, hoodline.com, ground.news
