Estimated reading time: 2 minutes
Table of contents
Groundbreaking Ruling Challenges Federal Gun Control Act
In a pivotal legal development, Judge John Milton Younge of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has issued a ruling in favor of Edward Williams, directly challenging the federal Gun Control Act’s lifetime firearm ban on individuals with certain non-violent misdemeanors.
The case, Williams v. Garland, represents a significant change in the interpretation of Second Amendment rights.
The Case of Edward Williams: A DUI Leading to Firearm Ban
Edward Williams faced a lifetime ban on firearm possession following his 2005 DUI conviction, classified as a first-degree misdemeanor in Pennsylvania.
This ruling came despite Williams never having served prison time, instead undergoing house arrest, paying fines, and completing mandatory treatment.
Judge Younge’s Opinion: A Call for Reasonable Gun Laws
In his opinion, Judge Younge pointed out the disproportionality of applying a permanent firearm ban in cases like Williams’, emphasizing that permanent disarmament for past non-violent misdemeanors like DUI is inconsistent with historical regulations.
“The Government points to several regulations permitting the disarmament of drunk or intoxicated persons,” wrote Judge Younge in his opinion.
“None of these regulations allude to disarmament lasting beyond the individual’s state of intoxication, and none provided for permanent disarmament, as Section 922(g)(1) does.
“Certainly, this Court agrees that using a firearm while intoxicated is dangerous, but historical regulations which momentarily disarmed certain individuals for temporary mental incapacity cannot be considered similar to the sanction of permanent disarmament for past DUI convictions,” he continued.
FPC Law Reacts: A Victory for Second Amendment Rights
Reacting to the decision, Joseph Greenlee, Director of Constitutional Studies at FPC Law, welcomed the ruling, advocating for the restoration of Williams’ Second Amendment rights.
“We are very pleased with the district court’s decision,” said Greenlee. “Mr. Williams is a peaceable person who should have never been disarmed. The court correctly ruled that his Second Amendment rights should be restored.”
The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) also credited attorney Joshua Prince for his significant contributions to this landmark case.
Implications of the Decision: Reevaluating Firearm Rights
Judge Younge’s ruling in Williams v. Garland not only reinstates the firearm rights of Edward Williams but also sets a legal precedent that could influence future policies on firearm possession rights for individuals with non-violent misdemeanor records.
*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! All Local Sales are FREE! ***
DUI KILL A FAMILY !! HELL WHY NOT GIVE THEM A GUN !!!
Next up should be overturning the clearly unconstitutional Lautenberg Amendment of 1996. Specifically the law is 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), and it prohibits any person ever convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence from possessing a firearm. This ridiculous law retroactively makes otherwise peaceable non-felon gun-owners felons. How is it possible congress can go back in time and make average people prohibited from owning their own gun collections?
Even worse, it also prohibits any person who even attempts to cause physical harm. Such as a conviction of attempting to commit the offense of domestic violence. Evening attempting to cause any physical harm will now get you a lifetime firearm ban. Example, discipling a child.
The commiecrats want to pass laws that create as many categories of “prohibited persons” as possible. Back door gun control. At least this judge has sense!
True , Sir . Anything that can be possibly used to classify one
as a “ person with disability “ can and will be used in an
effort to disarm the populace .
That’s the way the Neocommunists work .
IF you’ve ‘paid your debt to society’ Then your rights should be restored.
Yup, I agree.
sounds like the sentence was more about who you vote for than anything criminal…….