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 Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube.
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.
Deprivation of rights for ANY free individual is unconstitutional.
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 »
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 »
“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.
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.
You going to yell at us to get off your lawn, next?
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!
No one would have rights then. Cast the first stone much?
Sure, why not? Arm ex-felons and disarm legal gun owners. THAT makes
perfect sense if you are a DemoCrap political creature.
The lawsuit is about nonviolent misdemeanors not felonies. So, your comment is mute and dismissed.
a person is either a slave or he is free. no free person should should be disallowed the right and possession of arms.
Many “gun people” I know, I was watching their eyes while making this argument…you can literally see their brains shutting down.
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.