Edward A. Williams was convicted of DUI in Pennsylvania. He had a previous DUI non-conviction in 2001 that was subsequently expunged, but that influenced his new case.
Because of the previous infraction, the 2005 charge qualified as a first-degree misdemeanor with a maximum sentence of five years in prison.
Williams was never imprisoned but endured 90 days of house arrest because of a medical issue, paid his court costs and a $1,500 fine, and was subjected to drug and alcohol treatment under the guidance of mandatory minimum sentencing.
That conviction, however, had far-reaching effects on his Second Amendment rights. Due to the potential five years in prison he faced, under federal law Williams was now prohibited for life from owning a firearm.
He had forfeited his gun rights forever.
Fast forward to 2017, and Williams filed a lawsuit to regain those rights. He argued in Williams v. Garland that a lifetime ban was a clear violation of his constitutional rights, but to no avail. This even though there had not been violence, physical harm or even a firearm present.
This was before last year’s landmark Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. By a 6-3 majority, the high court effectively reset gun rights in the U.S. back to before the all-out assault on the freedom to keep and bear arms.
Now, with backing from the Firearms Policy Coalition, Williams asked for a rehearing under the auspices of Bruen.
On Tuesday, he received the good news.
District Court Judge John Milton Younge, a Trump appointee, ruled that stripping gun rights forever from a person with a prior DUI conviction is unconstitutional under Bruen.
His written decision clearly showed that the historical test established by the Bruen ruling did not allow for such draconian punishment.
“In no way does the Court dispute the dangerousness of drunk driving or of combining firearm use and alcohol consumption, and it acknowledges that the Plaintiff’s offenses were serious and his conduct during his convictions in 2004 and 2005 dangerous. However, that legislatures have historically labeled certain groups and conduct dangerous for the purposes of disarmament…does not, in of itself, create a historical analogue to the present-day prohibition on firearm possession by those convicted of DUIs.”
Younge noted that prosecutors pointed to regulations prohibiting possession of firearms by intoxicated persons. However, that ban does not exist past the period of intoxication, “and none provided for permanent disarmament.”
The judge concurred with laws temporarily stripping gun rights from a person who is under the influence or suffering “temporary mental incapacity.” These situations, however, “cannot be considered similar to the sanction of permanent disarmament for past DUI convictions.”
Younge concluded that the government did not prove the nation’s tradition of firearm regulation supported authorities permanently removing a person’s Second Amendment rights for driving while intoxicated.
Again, in no way should this argument be construed as a defense of lax punishments for driving under the influence. Williams could have seriously harmed another individual or himself, and he suffered the consequences for his conviction.
However, the federal law mandating a lifetime ban on owning or possession of firearms is excessive. It has been nearly two decades since the Pennsylvania case, and there are no accounts of Williams breaking the law since.
Besides the Second Amendment, the Constitution clearly prohibits “unusual” punishment. Losing a fundamental right over a non-violent misdemeanor certainly fits that bill.
