MONUMENTAL DECISION – Federal Court, POST-BRUEN, Rules It’s Unconstitutional to Strip Second Amendment Rights as a Result of a Second DUI By: Joshua Prince, Esq.


Today, Chief Counsel Joshua Prince secured a major victory for Second Amendment jurisprudence in Williams v. Garland, et al., 19-CV-2641, where Judge Milton Younge of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled in an 11 page memorandum that it was unconstitutional as-applied to Mr. Williams to preclude him in perpetuity from exercising his Second Amendment rights as a result of a 2004 DUI.

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to follow and signup for notifications!

Specifically, Judge Younge declared that

Prohibiting Plaintiff’s possession of a firearm due to his DUI conviction is a violation of his Second Amendment rights as it is inconsistent with the United States’ tradition of firearms regulation. The Constitution “presumptively protects” individual conduct plainly covered by the text of the Second Amendment, which includes an individual’s right to keep and bear arms for self-defense…Protected individuals presumptively include all Americans.

In so holding, after finding that Mr. Williams is of The People – regardless of his criminal conviction for DUI – and that his desired conduct – to purchase, possess, and utilized firearms and ammunition – is clearly covered by the Second Amendment, Judge Younge declared that while DUI is dangerous, “[h]istorical regulations on persons deemed dangerous do not present a sufficient historical analogue without showing that the regulated conduct itself is analogous to Plaintiff’s.” He also found that “the Government’s argument that Section 922(g)(1) can be appropriately applied to Plaintiff because of historical regulations on the possession of a firearm by a presently intoxicated person [is] unavailing,” because, as Mr. Williams argued, “[n]one 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.” Or put succinctly, “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.”

If your constitutional rights have been denied by the U.S. Government, contact Firearms Industry Consulting Group today to discuss YOUR rights and legal options.

Firearms Industry Consulting Group® (FICG®) is a registered trademark and division of Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C., with rights and permissions granted to Prince Law Offices, P.C. to use in this article.