Nonviolent Felon Gains 2nd Amendment Protections, 3rd Circuit Court Decides

A recent ruling by the Third Circuit Court reinforces the notion that a nonviolent conviction from the mid-1990s should not impede an individual’s right to own firearms. This decision involved Bryan Range, a Delaware resident whose past offense revolved around welfare fraud three decades ago.

Following the court’s decision, Range’s attorney, Peter Patterson, expressed satisfaction with the outcome. He described the court’s stance as a reaffirmation that disarming Range based on a decades-old nonviolent crime was unconstitutional. The panel, comprised of thirteen judges, overturned a previous federal ruling that had denied Range the ability to own firearms.

Range’s troubles began when he unknowingly relinquished his firearm rights following a guilty plea for fraudulently obtaining food stamps worth $2,458 in 1995. As the law stands, felonies that carry sentences exceeding one year can result in the loss of Second Amendment rights. However, the court found that the government failed to present a longstanding tradition of depriving individuals with nonviolent convictions of their firearm rights.

U.S. Circuit Judge Thomas M. Hardiman, a George W. Bush appointee, argued against the government’s position that felons fall outside the protection of the Second Amendment. He explicitly stated that without clear historical precedent justifying such a restriction, the law in question, 18 U.S. Code §922(g)(1), cannot constitutionally strip Range of his rights.

The ruling came after a series of legal battles. Range discovered his disqualification from gun ownership while attempting to purchase a firearm, prompting him to challenge the decision in federal court. After an initial dismissal in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, he appealed, only to have the Third Circuit initially uphold the lower court’s ruling. Following a successful request for an en banc rehearing, the court reversed its decision.

This turnaround was short-lived, however, as the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the ruling after its decision in United States v. Rahimi, which allowed temporary removals of firearm rights for individuals deemed physical threats. In light of this precedent, Range’s argument must be revisited in the context of Rahimi’s interpretation of “relevantly similar” past legal principles.

Patterson argued that unlike Rahimi, Range’s actions were nonviolent, emphasizing the potential dangers of broadening Second Amendment restrictions to include nonviolent offenders. He cautioned against a slippery slope, whereby individuals could be denied various constitutional rights beyond the Second Amendment.

Government attorney Kevin Soter claimed that all felonies constituted serious crimes warranting disarmament. However, judges expressed skepticism regarding this viewpoint, seeking clarity on what constitutes a credible threat to public safety, a vital standard established under Rahimi.

Judge David Porter raised a hypothetical scenario questioning if minor felonies would lead to analogous permanent disarmament, indicating the complexity and potential pitfalls of applying such broad interpretations. Soter responded, advocating for legal avenues like expungement for regaining firearm rights but acknowledged it is a challenging process.

This ruling highlights ongoing legal debates surrounding Second Amendment rights, particularly following the 2022 Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen. That decision stressed that any firearm regulation must align with the nation’s historical traditions of firearm ownership, setting stringent standards for disarmament.

The Department of Justice has not yet commented on this recent ruling, leaving its implications for future Second Amendment cases still uncertain.