BELLEVUE, WA – The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is cheering the 2-1 ruling by a panel of the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals which overturned the gun law conviction of a Mississippi man who had earlier been placed on five years’ probation for failing to pay child support. The case is known as U.S. v. Cockerham.
Edward Cockerham had pled guilty for failing to pay child support, in violation of Mississippi law, which could have resulted in a five-year prison term. But Cockerham was sentenced to five years of probation, and he eventually repaid his child support and was released from probation. But federal law strips Second Amendment rights from anyone convicted of a crime for which the sentence could be more than one year behind bars.
As noted in the opinion authored by Judge James Ho, a Donald Trump appointee, “So there’s no historical justification to disarm him at that moment — never mind for the rest of his life.”
Judge Ho was joined by Judge Cory Wilson, another Trump appointee, while Judge Stephen Higginson, a Barack Obama appointee, dissented.
“Aside from underscoring the importance of who serves as president to fill federal judicial vacancies,” CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb observed, “the court’s opinion in this case clearly defines common sense, and serves justice. Mr. Cockerham was not convicted of a violent felony. He didn’t harm anyone. He didn’t pay child support, and at the time of his arrest for having a gun under the seat of a car he was driving, he had squared his account and had actually been released from probation.
“Cockerham never spent a day behind bars for his original conviction,” Gottlieb noted. “Yet, he was deprived of his rights as if he had committed some heinous crime. Being stripped of a fundamental right for non-payment of what amounts to a financial obligation is legal overreach in the extreme. We’re delighted Judge Ho determined Cockerham’s conviction violates the Second Amendment, and that the conviction is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.”