In February, John T Dorrance III, an heir to the Campbell’s Soup fortune, took a legal action against US attorney general Pam Bondi complaining he can’t legally hunt with a firearm while visiting his 16,000-acre ranch in Wyoming. This was due to him renouncing his US citizenship in 1993 and subsequently becoming Irish.
In April, lawyers for the attorney general sought to have Dorrance’s case thrown out, claiming he had “forfeited” the rights that went with US citizenship.
Last week, Dorrance’s lawyers responded, stating the government’s motion “must be denied”. They said the ban was unconstitutional as applied to the billionaire.
“While it is true that Mr Dorrance may have forfeited ‘rights as a citizen,’ he has certain constitutional rights as a non-citizen – including the Second Amendment right to bear arms – when he is lawfully in the United States,” the lawyers wrote.
“Mr. Dorrance has those rights notwithstanding his renunciation of citizenship.”
“Nonetheless, the government boldly asserts that even as a law-abiding non-citizen, Mr Dorrance is not entitled to any constitutional protections while present in the United States.
“That position defies significant judicial precedent recognizing noncitizens’ rights,” they added.
In the attorney general’s motion, it said Dorrance “cannot buy his citizenship back” and that he should not be excused from the firearms ban “simply because he has money”.
Dorrance’s lawyers took exception to this, saying the government had inappropriately mocked the billionaire’s reference to his financial contributions in Wyoming.
“He is asserting his constitutional rights as a lawfully admitted non-citizen – rights that the government claims incorrectly he does not have,” the lawyers wrote.
Dorrance’s lawyers also said he had “fulfilled his duty of allegiance” to the US. They said his status as an Irish citizen meant he was considered an “alien friend” – defined as the subject of a foreign state at peace with the US – and that he had “complied with his societal obligation” to follow the law in the US.
The lawyers argued that Dorrance’s claims for relief were viable and, therefore, the government’s motion to dismiss should be denied.
source