FPC to SCOTUS: Lifetime Ban on Non-Violent Persons Unconstitutional

Gun Control iStock-496689884
The Firearms Policy Coalition is challenging SCOTUS ruling that non-violent misdemeanor crime can result in a lifetime ban on gun ownership. IMG: iStock-496689884

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of an important brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Holloway v. Attorney General Garland, et al. encouraging the Supreme Court to grant certiorari (review) of a wrong-decided Third Circuit opinion holding that a non-violent misdemeanor crime can result in a lifetime ban on firearms under the Gun Control Act. The reply brief in support of cert.—the last step before the Supreme Court considers whether to hear and rule on the case—can be viewed at Holloway2Acase.com.

Two decades ago, Mr. Holloway was convicted of a non-violent misdemeanor but has been law-abiding ever since. As a result of that conviction, however, he is prohibited from possessing firearms for the rest of his life. Federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 922, prohibits all felons and many misdemeanants from possessing firearms, based on arbitrary state-law distinctions that vary between jurisdictions.

The reply brief responds to the Government’s brief, filed with the Court on March 10, in which the Government argued that because “[f]ederal law has long restricted the possession of firearms by certain categories of individuals,” the government can continue to restrict possession by other categories of individuals, even if today’s categories differ from those historically restricted.

FPC’s latest filing in Holloway argues that the theory underpinning the Gun Control Act’s lifetime ban on non-violent felons and misdemeanants contradicts the history and tradition of the right to keep and bear arms, further expands upon the circuit split dividing the federal courts on this issue, and shows that Mr. Holloway’s petition represents an ideal vehicle for the Court to address both this important question and the methodology that lower courts must use in Second Amendment lawsuits.

“Today, the Second Amendment’s protections differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction throughout the country,” explained FPC Director of Constitutional Studies Joseph Greenlee, lead author of the reply brief and co-counsel to Mr. Holloway at the Supreme Court. “Mr. Holloway would not have forfeited his Second Amendment rights for driving under the influence in the vast majority of states. But because he happened to be convicted in Pennsylvania, he is forever denied his right to keep and bear arms. We’re hopeful that the Supreme Court will use this opportunity to provide much-needed clarity to lower courts and establish consistency throughout the nation.”

Firearms Policy Coalition and its FPC Law team are the nation’s next-generation advocates for the right to keep and bear arms and adjacent liberties, actively litigating dozens of major lawsuits including federal Second Amendment challenges to California’s ban on “assault weapons” (Miller v. Becerra), Maryland’s ban on “assault weapons” (Bianchi v. Frosh), California’s handgun “roster” and self-manufacturing bans (Renna v. Becerra), Maryland’s firearm carry ban (Call v. Jones), New Jersey’s firearm carry ban (Bennett v. Davis), New York City’s firearms carry ban (Greco v. New York City), the federal ban on the sale of handguns and handgun ammunition by federal firearm licensees (FFLs) to adults under 21 years of age (Reese v. BATFE), and others, with dozens of more cases being prepared. To follow these and other legal cases FPC is actively working on, visit the Legal Action section of FPC’s website or follow FPC on InstagramTwitterFacebookYouTube.


About Firearms Policy Coalition

Firearms Policy Coalition (firearmspolicy.org) is a 501(c)4 nonprofit organization. FPC’s mission is to protect and defend constitutional rights—especially the right to keep and bear arms—advance individual liberty, and restore freedom through litigation and legal action, legislative and regulatory action, education, outreach, grassroots activism, other programs. FPC Law is the nation’s largest public interest legal team focused on the Second Amendment and adjacent fundamental rights including freedom of speech and due process, conducting litigation, research, scholarly publications, and amicus briefing, among other efforts.

Firearms Policy Coalition

Subscribe
Notify of
25 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Morrigan
Morrigan
2 months ago

Sure, why not? Arm ex-felons and disarm legal gun owners. THAT makes
perfect sense if you are a DemoCrap political creature.

MikeJ.
MikeJ.
2 months ago
Reply to  Morrigan

The lawsuit is about nonviolent misdemeanors not felonies. So, your comment is mute and dismissed.

Orion
Orion
26 days ago
Reply to  MikeJ.

a person is either a slave or he is free. no free person should should be disallowed the right and possession of arms.

Roland T. Gunner
Roland T. Gunner
26 days ago
Reply to  Orion

Many “gun people” I know, I was watching their eyes while making this argument…you can literally see their brains shutting down.

JohnLloydScharf
JohnLloydScharf
2 months ago

If you violate the rights of others, you should have no rights.

MikeJ.
MikeJ.
2 months ago

No one would have rights then. Cast the first stone much?

Last edited 2 months ago by MikeJ.
JohnLloydScharf
JohnLloydScharf
2 months ago
Reply to  MikeJ.

I do not violate the rights of others and this is in reference to convicted criminal. Do you think everyone robs, rapes, and murders like you?

Stag
Stag
2 months ago

Deprivation of rights for ANY free individual is unconstitutional.

Tionico
Tionico
2 months ago
Reply to  Stag

Those who have proven, by means of their actioins toward innocent people, they maintain a blatant disregard for the life and safety of others SHOULD be debarred the use of arms. Friend of mine got stupid, then drunk, then figured he was”fine to drive”. BIG mistake. After taking out a fire hydrant, poice contacted him, put the clamps on him and his vehicle. Felony DIU. The courts were reasonable, suspended that felony and related sentence on conditions.. they were fine with him having a friend take all his guns out of his house so he could not access them. Court… Read more »

JohnLloydScharf
JohnLloydScharf
2 months ago
Reply to  Tionico

YOU should not have a sharp stick or a rock if you think hitting a fire hydrant while drunk is not serious. He or she could have just as likely hit a 70 year old woman going to get her mail. A few years back I lost a neighbor to a drunk. She was getting her mail and 70. I am 70 now. It is the equivalent of having a negligent discharge with a 20mm cannon. SO, you think a man irresponsible with a weapon having five times the power of a 20mm cannon and near 100% kill rate at… Read more »

Finnky
Finnky
2 months ago

In practice excessively harsh mandatory sentencing is counter productive and racist. I know you think I’m a nut for the second part of that statement. However.. When cops think punishment will be too harsh for whatever it is they’ve observed, they are more likely to use their discretion to release perpetrator with a warning. Whether justified by circumstances or not, that discretion is more likely to be applied to white people than it is to black people. Cops discretion can also prevent repeat offenders from being identified and treated or punished to prevent repeat offenses. Not to downplay the seriousness… Read more »

JohnLloydScharf
JohnLloydScharf
2 months ago
Reply to  Finnky

In no way is mandatory sentencing racist when mandatory sentencing is involved. There is no justice where bargain basement justice is involved; like plea bargaining. Before you start claiming racism, you should read pre-sentence investigations of at least 600 convicts. I do not care what “cops” think. Any officer who will “use their discretion” when a crime is involved is corrupt. It is illegal to let off someone guilty of a crime with a warning. Violations, perhaps, but not misdemeanors or felonies. LEOs do not legally have any discretion in a misdemeanor they see or felony for which there is… Read more »

Roland T. Gunner
Roland T. Gunner
26 days ago

“Any officer who will use their discretion” when a crime is involved” is corrupt? I suggest you leave the debate on ethics to others, as you apparently skipped course 101. I had an outstanding professor, Dr. Sam Souryall, at SHSU, 30 years ago, who would have corrected you. We use discretion in our prosecutions and punishments in the attempt to preserve our moral, ethical, merciful and civilized society. Or something to that effect. It was 30 years ago, after all.

JohnLloydScharf
JohnLloydScharf
25 days ago

Suggest all you want. Discretion is a justification for arbitrary abusive behavior.

Orion
Orion
26 days ago

try reading our first ten amendments (The Bill of Rights) and particularly the Second Amendment again, only this time sound them out S..L..O…W…L..Y.
find the phrase where it limits any Free Person’s right to bare arms, to self defense, to free speech or the right to assemble.
lol…. you wont.

JohnLloydScharf
JohnLloydScharf
26 days ago
Reply to  Orion

REALITY ORIENTATION: YOU DO NOT GET TO INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION. I not only have read the Amendments, but the interpretation by the Supreme Court. YOU READ what the powers are to suppress those amendments: Section 8 – Powers of Congress The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and generalWelfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and… Read more »

JohnLloydScharf
JohnLloydScharf
26 days ago
Reply to  Orion

Obviously, your reading speed is not as big a problem as your comprehension. YOU are not the interpreter of the Constitution. Article III – The Judicial Branch  Section 1 – Judicial powers The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. There is no mention of… Read more »

Roland T. Gunner
Roland T. Gunner
26 days ago

You going to yell at us to get off your lawn, next?

JohnLloydScharf
JohnLloydScharf
25 days ago

I don’t give warnings.

JohnLloydScharf
JohnLloydScharf
2 months ago
Reply to  Stag

Slavery is constitutional if you are a convict. You have no right to freedom if you violate the freedom of others. Read the 13th Amendment.

Finnky
Finnky
2 months ago

So once Biden gets his “Assault Weapon Ban” passed – you think casting gun owners into bondage is acceptable? Last AWB bill I read (2019?) could be read as classifying every Glock as an AW – outlawing their ownership or possession. Remember Biden has said he’s no going to repeat mistakes of his 1994 bill – including better-expanded definition of AW and no grandfathering of existing firearms.

Following that logic – it makes sense for every single gun owner to hide their possessions and kill every LEO which approaches their abode. Gee – that will really save some lives!

JohnLloydScharf
JohnLloydScharf
2 months ago
Reply to  Finnky

Listen, you pathetic troll. Never put words in my mouth. It leaves a bad taste. If you are too illiterate to read the 13th Amendment which makes an exception for those convicted of a crime, you have no talent for common sense, jerk. Amendment 13 – Slavery Abolished. Ratified 12/6/1865.  1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. I said nothing about casting anyone into bondage. That happens as a consequence of committing a robbery, rape, or murder. When… Read more »

JohnLloydScharf
JohnLloydScharf
2 months ago
Reply to  Finnky

I do not invent laws like you. Nor do I try to justify them. I just read them.

Laddyboy
Laddyboy
2 months ago

I hope ‘b. frosh’ is expelled from Maryland politics. He has been one of the HYPOCRITICAL “Do as I say, not what I do!” bigoted PEOPLE CONTROLERS in the DemoKKKrat National communist party.

JohnLloydScharf
JohnLloydScharf
2 months ago
Reply to  Laddyboy

That would be a violation of the Constitution to remove anyone from politics. It violates the rights of all voters, not just the individual running. Obviously we elect the handicapped and corrupt to the highest office in the land, but we do have a right to know if they were incompetent first. Guns are a right. Being a President is a privilege with powers and immunity.  Presidents should be subjected to a criminal record check and a mental competency test before taking the oath of office.  Presidents should submit to a drug test before sign a bill or issue an… Read more »