On Tuesday, I covered the Third Circuit's decision in U.S. v. Bost, where the court held that a man convicted of a carjacking back in 2022 could be disarmed under Section 922(g)(1) without violating his Second Amendment rights.
That wasn't the only prohibited persons case decided by the appellate court, however. The Third Circuit also released its decision in U.S. v. Williams, and in that case an en banc panel concluded that a lifetime prohibition on gun ownership after a DUI does, in fact, intrude on the right to keep and bear arms.
While the court ruled 12-2 against James Bost (with several justices concurring with only portions of the majority opinion), the panel in Williams was much more divided. In the 8-6 decision, the majority held that there is a "tradition of disarming those determined to use firearms to threaten civil society," but not one that disarms every irresponsible person or everyone convicted of a felony.
The DOJ had pointed to historical laws dealing with "habitual drunkards" as an analogue to conviction of a DUI offense, but the panel noted that those habitual drunkard laws only disarmed individuals while they were confined. Once they were considered safe to be released into the general public, there were no restrictions on their ability to keep and bear arms.
The panel also concluded that the DOJ had failed to show Edward Williams "threatens to 'misuse[] a gun while intoxicated,' or that he 'poses a danger to himself or others as a result' of alcohol abuse."
In fact, much like those nineteenth-century drunkards released from custody and restored their rights, the record shows that Williams poses no present physical danger from the use of a firearm, or anything else. He has done nothing violent, let alone dangerous, for over twenty years, and has held steady employment at the same job for over three decades. He “no longer consume[s] alcohol, save for the occasional glass of wine with dinner or champagne at home on New Year’s Eve with [his] family,” testimony the Justice Department has not challenged. He has submitted to an expert examination, finding he “has a normal personality, without psychopathology and without addiction or violent tendencies.” And there is nothing to suggest Williams has ever wielded firearms in a manner dangerous to peaceable persons, despite a lifetime of gun ownership. Williams is presently a peaceable citizen, capable of bearing arms consistent with the design of the Second Amendment.
The DOJ's position was that even if all that is true, the proper route for Williams to regain his rights is to petition the Attorney General to have his rights restored. Because that process exists (or will soon exist), the DOJ argues that Section 922(g)(1) is not a permanent prohibition on gun ownership.
The Third Circuit disagreed, pointing out that the process of rights restoration has been dormant for over 30 years, and it's currently a "slow trickle of relief available only upon invitation." The judicial system still has a valid role to play, and in this case, the Third Circuit concluded that Edward Williams should have his rights restored.
Our Republic, like those before it, has long understood “how base it is to pour down more liquor than one can carry,”and that “drunkenness is nothing but a condition of insanity purposely assumed.” Driving under that condition no doubt exacerbates the fault of the wrongdoer. Williams’s criminal conviction and sentence is consistent with our tradition because acts incongruous with the virtue necessary for enjoying the rights of our political community have always justified punishment and the corresponding loss of civic privileges.
But virtuous life is a perpetual project, with redemption and reentry into the community a constant promise. And with that rehabilitation comes restoration of the civic privileges guaranteed to citizens by the Constitution, and the freedom to again exercise the natural right of armed defense against threats and tyranny. For the reasons above, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment granting Williams summary judgment.
Williams had brought an as-applied challenge to his prohibition, and the Third Circuit did indeed look at the statute as it applies to his particular circumstances. His DUIs happened more than 20 years ago. What about someone who was convicted of a similar offense a decade ago, five years ago, or last week? If Williams had actually harmed somebody while he was behind the wheel, would that have made a difference?
I don't disagree with the panel's conclusion. I just have some questions about the details of the Third Circuit's views toward Section 922(g)(1), which seems to generally hold that individuals convicted of violent offenses have been proven to be dangerous and therefore can be denied their Second Amendment rights, while those convicted of non-violent offenses cannot.
Is it really that simple, or are there some intricacies and exceptions here? Time will tell, I suppose, and the Supreme Court could always grant cert to one or more Section 922(g)(1) case and remove some of the confusion and splits among the lower courts. That would probably be the best outcome, but for whatever reason the justices seem fine with letting this issue percolate a little while longer.
Editor’s Note: President Trump and Republicans across the country are doing everything they can to protect our Second Amendment rights and right to self-defense.
Help us continue to report on their efforts and legislative successes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member