Attorney: Charges violate client's 2nd Amendment right

Jul. 28—ASHLAND — A man facing federal gun possession charges is seeking dismissal based on his fundamental right as an American to bear arms, relying on recent Supreme Court rulings.

Corey J. Benton, 33, of Hamtramck, Michigan, was arrested in February following an hours-long standoff with Kentucky State Police at a residence on 7th Street in Grayson.

On the state level, Benton was booked in Carter County Detention Center on outstanding fugitive warrants, resisting arrest and possessing weapons.

Three months later, Benton was indicted on the federal level on five total counts of distributing substances, one count of using or carrying a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm.

According to his federal indictment, Benton is accused of distributing a mixture containing fentanyl on multiple occasions.

Upon his arrest in Grayson, officers also say they discovered more fentanyl and a handgun.

However, Benton's attorney, Sebastian M. Joy, filed a motion to dismiss Benton's gun charges in United States District Court of the Eastern District of Kentucky, crediting recent Supreme Court rulings.

According to the motion to dismiss, Benton's gun charges must be dismissed due to new standards set last June in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., et al. v. Bruen, Superintendent of New York State Police, et al.

In Bruen, the Supreme Court held that "for firearm regulation to be constitutional, it must be consistent with this nation's history of firearm regulation."

According to the defenses motion, the federal statutes that outlaw felons, addicts and the mentally ill from owning weapons, is "facially unconstitutional."

Previous rulings pertaining to gun ownership, specifically District of Columbia v. Heller, determined "statutes banning handgun possession in the home violated (the) Second Amendment," and "statutes containing prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for purpose of immediate self-defense violated (the) Second Amendment," Joy wrote.

The defense argued further, the right to keep and bear arms belonged to all Americans, including Benton.

"The Supreme Court recognized that the founders of this nation believed that it was not only the right of 'the people' to keep and bear arms, but that it is also necessary to a free society that 'the people' do so," the argument includes, not just members of an armed militia.

Historically, Joy argues, the Court held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, and the Court previously struck down statutes banning possession of handguns in a person's home.

Traditionally and historically (in compliance with rulings in Bruen), according to the court document, limiting statutes of gun ownership is not the longstanding rule.

"A statute that can only trace its origins back to 1938 (referencing the Federal Firearms Act of 1938) is surely not consistent with this nation's history of firearm regulation. ... It is (a) modern law that has no roots in how the United States has treated firearms and firearm regulation," the motion presents.

In Benton's case, his previous felony convictions shouldn't forever deprive him of gun ownership, according to the motion, as even "treasonous rebels" were able to regain firearm ownership following the Revolutionary War.

"There is no circumstances under which it is constitutional to permanently deprive an American citizen of a right guaranteed to him by the Constitution," Joy wrote.

Most recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held it was unconstitutional to deprive a person — specifically those accused or convicted of domestic violence — from owning firearms in United States v. Rahimi.

The court opined, "We must protect citizens against domestic violence. and we can do so without offending the Second Amendment framework set forth in Bruen."

"At its core," Joy wrote, "the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm — or ammunition — in one's home for purposes of self-defense."

The motion closes by emphasizing that American citizens who committed "mistakes" are not "second-class citizens" and therefore deserving of Constitutional rights.

While the United States has yet to file a response to the defense's motion, in February, Chief Judge Danny C. Reeves dismissed gun possession charges following the Bruen decision in a separate matter.

If convicted on all charges, Benton faces decades in federal prison.