UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
LARRY EDWARD HATFIELD,
Plaintiff,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, in his Official Capacity as the Attorney General of the United States,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:16-cv-00383-JPG-RJD
MEMORANDUM & ORDERJ. PHIL GILBERT, DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff Larry Edward Hatfield wants to keep a gun in his home for self-defense. But the Government bans him from doing so, because 28 years ago, Hatfield lied on some forms that he sent to the Railroad Retirement Board: a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a). Hatfield later pled guilty to one count of violating the statute, an offense for which he received no prison time and a meager amount in restitution fees pursuant to a formal plea agreement with the Government. Now, Hatfield brings this as-applied challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)—the statute that bans him from owning a gun—on the grounds that it violates his Second Amendment rights. Hatfield embeds his argument in United States v. Williams, 616 F.3d 685, 692 (7th Cir. 2010), which instructed that “[the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)] referred to felon disarmament bans only as ‘presumptively lawful,’ which, by implication, means that there must exist the possibility that the ban could be unconstitutional in the face of an as-applied challenge.” If there is any case that rebuts that presumption, it is this one. So for the following reasons, the Court GRANTS summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff Larry E. Hatfield. Case 3:16-cv-00383-JPG-RJD Document 49 Filed 04/26/18 Page 1 of 17 Page ID #295 HE MADE SURE ARE 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS WAS SAFE!!!!