How a Glen Ellyn man's case could change laws banning felons from possessing guns

A Glen Ellyn man is at the center of a legal fight that could wipe out the long-standing ban on gun ownership for anyone convicted of a felony in federal court.

A divided U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday reinstated Patrick Atkinson's 2021 lawsuit challenging the restrictions preventing him from purchasing a firearm. The 2-1 ruling reverses a lower-court decision dismissing the suit last year and sends the case back for further proceedings.

Atkinson, 64, pleaded guilty to a mail fraud charge stemming from a job placement scheme in 1998, court documents state. He was sentenced to two years' probation, six months' home confinement and 200 hours of community service.

In the nearly 25 years since, his lawsuit states, Atkinson has successfully launched two businesses and led a law-abiding life. Now he wants to purchase a gun for home defense and other legal purposes.

"Someone like Mr. Atkinson does not deserve to be permanently disarmed," his attorney, David Sigale, told us Thursday. "He wants a chance to move forward."

Nonetheless, the law bans firearm possession by anyone convicted of a federal crime punishable by more than a year in prison, regardless of whether such a sentence was given.

While Illinois has a process through which a person convicted of a felony in state court could have their gun rights restored, there's effectively no similar path for Atkinson through the federal system.

The restrictions have withstood numerous legal challenges over the years. Then the Bruen case happened.

The new standard

Formally captioned New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., Et Al. v. Bruen, Superintendent of New York State Police, the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision last June set new standards for how courts are to consider Second Amendment cases. It was a big win for guns rights advocates.

Written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the majority opinion states that instead of balancing Second Amendment rights with public safety - as had long been done in such cases - courts should consider restrictions only in light of the country's "historical tradition of firearm regulation."

The ruling has led to lower courts upending long-standing gun restrictions across the country - like West Virginia, where a court struck down a law requiring guns to have serial numbers, and Texas, where a judge ruled that people under felony indictment could continue to possess firearms, and Louisiana, where a federal appeals court struck down a law banning people subject to domestic violence protection orders from possessing guns.

What does Bruen mean for Atkinson's case? The judges that ruled in his favor Tuesday admit they're not sure. They want both Atkinson and the U.S. Department of Justice to conduct the kind of historical analysis Bruen demands and present their arguments at the district court level.

"The constitutional issues at stake are weighty," Justice Michael Scudder wrote. "Before we resolve the question before us, the parties should have a full and fair opportunity to develop their positions before the district court in accordance with the principles of party presentation. Our review, which all agree is inevitable, will be better for what transpires on remand in the district court."

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Diane Wood writes that there's enough historical tradition of restricting gun rights for felons to meet the new Bruen test.

"The right to keep and bear arms always has been subject to careful limitations," she wrote. "These limitations are at their zenith when applied to people who are the antithesis of the law-abiding citizen who wants to exercise his or her right to self-defense, whether at home or in public, and who may also enjoy the various sports and other activities that involve guns."

As for that, Sigale said Atkinson isn't looking to eliminate restrictions for everyone convicted of a crime.

"There are absolutely people who should not have firearms," he said. "We are not at all challenging laws about violent felons.

"All we're looking for is a chance to show that Mr. Atkinson is a good person, despite a mistake a very long time ago."

Early edge?

Atkinson may already have a legal advantage.

In a similar case, the Philadelphia-based U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled earlier this month that a man convicted of making false statements to obtain food stamps in 1995 should not be barred from buying a gun.

While the ruling isn't formal precedent, and courts here are not bound by it, the decision could provide what's known as "persuasive authority" for judges deciding Atkinson's case.

Lincolnshire lifesaver

Lincolnshire police Officer Robert (Bob) Skrobot has been given the village's Life-Saving Award for his work to help save a man suffering cardiac arrest last month.

Village officials said Skrobot was responding to an emergency call to a home May 3 when he discovered an unresponsive 89-year-old man. Skrobot immediately began CPR and continued until paramedics arrived.

"Officer Skrobot's proficiency and dedication in administering lifesaving CPR is a true reflection of the caliber of our officers," Chief Joseph Leonas said in an announcement of the award.

Skrobot will be recognized by Mayor Elizabeth Brandt and the village board at their meeting Monday, June 26.

The man Skrobot saved is doing well but has chosen to remain anonymous and won't attend next week's ceremony, officials said.

• Do you have a tip or a comment? Email us at copsandcrime@dailyherald.com.