An en banc Third Circuit ruled that a Pennsylvania man cannot be stripped of his gun rights based on two DUI convictions from more than 20 years ago. The court's decision said the ban was unconstitutional as applied to him.
A concurrence agreed for this defendant but noted that the government has created an administrative process that could let courts sidestep future challenges. A dissent warned that cars, like guns, are dangerous, suggesting the DUI history was not irrelevant.
In a separate en banc case, the same circuit upheld a firearms ban for someone convicted of making terroristic threats. One dissenting judge said the man had done his time and wanted his rights restored.
Another concurrence in that case questioned reliance on old laws that had excluded minorities from gun ownership.