Failure to Pay Child Support Doesn’t Justify Lifetime Firearm Ban, Appeals Court Says

Fifth Circuit Judges applied the Supreme Court’s ‘history and tradition’ test to strike down a federal gun conviction.

A customer shops for a pistol in Tinley Park, Ill., on Dec. 17, 2012. Scott Olson/Getty Images

A federal appeals court has overturned the gun conviction of a Mississippi man who failed to pay child support, ruling that such an offense does not justify permanently stripping him of his Second Amendment rights.

In a 2–1 decision issued Dec. 17, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found that once the man became current on his child support obligations, there was no basis for continuing to bar him from possessing firearms.

“There’s no historical justification to disarm him at that moment—never mind for the rest of his life,” Judge James Ho wrote for the majority opinion. He was joined by Judge Cory Wilson.

The case concerns Edward Cockerham, who pleaded guilty to failing to pay child support, a felony offense punishable under Mississippi law by up to five years in prison. He instead received five years of probation, ultimately repaid the owed child support, and was released from supervision.

Despite that, federal law prohibits firearm possession by anyone convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year in prison, regardless of the sentence actually imposed.

Cockerham’s conviction stemmed from a traffic stop involving a vehicle without a license plate. According to court records, he was accused of fleeing on foot in the encounter and attempting to hide a bag containing methamphetamine and cocaine from police. Officers also said they found firearms on his person and in the car, and charged him with drug trafficking as well as unlawful possession of a firearm.

He pleaded guilty under a plea agreement that preserved his right to appeal the gun conviction.

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) defended the conviction under the standard set by the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Under this legal framework, which emphasizes the nation’s “history and tradition,” the government must prove that its gun law aligns with laws and practices in place around the time the Second Amendment was drafted.

The DOJ argued that failure to pay child support should be treated as a form of theft, pointing to historical practices of imprisoning debtors and disarming thieves, but the Fifth Circuit rejected that analogy.

During the Founding era, according to the court’s majority, debtors were typically released once their debts were paid, while thieves could remain incarcerated and permanently disarmed even if stolen property was returned.

“Historical analysis determines whether a particular individual can be disarmed for life,” Judge Ho wrote in the majority opinion. “And we are unable to find a historical basis for disarming Cockerham for the rest of his life, just because he was once convicted of failure to pay child support.”

The majority did acknowledge that other aspects of Cockerham’s background could suggest that he might “indeed be violent.” Court records show prior arrests for aggravated assault and domestic violence, as well as charges related to stalking.

However, the DOJ did not rely on those facts to defend the firearm conviction, instead focusing solely on the child support offense.

Judge Stephen Higginson dissented. Highlighting to the circumstances surrounding Cockerham’s arrest, he urged caution in applying Bruen, reminding his colleagues that the Fifth Circuit was reversed by the Supreme Court last summer in a Second Amendment rights case.

In that case, known as United States v. Rahimi, the high court upheld a federal ban on gun possession by individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders, ruling 8–1 that such restrictions are constitutional. Justice Clarence Thomas, the author of Bruen, was the lone dissenter.

Judge Ho wrote a separate concurring opinion defending the Fifth Circuit’s reasoning in Rahimi, arguing that the Supreme Court had effectively retreated from its own Bruen standard.

“The Supreme Court reversed our court in Rahimi,” he wrote. “In order to do so, it had to reverse what it said in Bruen.”

The decision was praised by pro-Second Amendment groups, including the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

“Being stripped of a fundamental right for nonpayment of what amounts to a financial obligation is legal overreach in the extreme,” Chairman Alan Gottlieb said in a statement to The Epoch Times. “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.”

The DOJ did not respond to a request for comment.