By Dave Workman
Editor-in-Chief
A judge with the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, writing the majority opinion in a ruling overturning a lifetime loss of gun rights for a man convicted of non-payment of child support, declared “Our analysis of the Second Amendment must be guided by history—not hoplophobia.”
Hoplophobia is a term coined by the late Col. Jeff Cooper, author, firearms authority and founder of the American Pistol Institute, now known as Gunsite, near Paulden, Ariz. It is defined as the irrational fear of guns.
Judge James Ho, a Donald Trump appointee, authored the opinion in U.S. v. Cockerham, ruling that the lifetime gun ban for Edward Cockerham, who had pleaded 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.
Ho was joined in his opinion by Judge Cory Wilson, another Trump appointee. The dissenting judge was Stephen Higginson, a Barack Obama appointee. As Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, noted in a statement applauding the ruling, the makeup of the panel and the ruling underscores the importance of who serves as president. Federal judges are nominated by presidents, and Trump has filled a number of vacancies with conservative judges.
“Aside from underscoring the importance of who serves as president,” Gottlieb observed, “the court’s opinion in this case clearly defines judicial common sense, and serves justice. Mr. Cockerham was not convicted of a violent felony. 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 been released from probation.
“Cockerham never spent a day behind bars for his original conviction,” he added. “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.”
Judge Ho’s 16-page ruling was expanded with a four-page concurrence in which he added the job of lower courts is not to relitigate or reconsider the 2022 Supreme Court Bruen ruling—which several lower course have allegedly done in resistance to the high court’s landmark opinion—but to “operate in good faith” and “faithfully implement Bruen.”
The Bruen ruling set a new standard, requiring Second Amendment rulings to rely on historical analogues rather than decide cases based on means-end scrutiny, which invariably favors government interests.
And Judge Ho cut the government’s position on Cockerham down to size, noting, “The Government analogizes failure to pay child support to theft. But during the Founding era, thieves were treated differently from debtors. Thieves were subject to permanent disarmament. Debtors were not. Debtors could be imprisoned, and thus temporarily disarmed. But they were released from debtors’ prison upon payment of their debt. And the Government acknowledges that Cockerham was no longer delinquent of any failure to pay child support when he was found in possession of a firearm.
“Cockerham’s conviction under § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment. We accordingly reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
