A federal appeals court has reaffirmed that non-violent offenders cannot be broadly barred from owning firearms, marking a significant legal interpretation of the Second Amendment. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Bryan Range, a Pennsylvania man convicted of welfare fraud nearly three decades ago, concluding that his conviction does not disqualify him from gun ownership under federal law.
The 13-2 decision comes after the Supreme Court had asked the 3rd Circuit to reconsider its earlier ruling in light of a precedent-setting case, United States v. Rahimi, which refined the constitutional test for gun regulations. Despite the high court’s directive, the appeals court maintained its stance, emphasizing that Range’s non-violent offense did not align with historical firearm restrictions aimed at preventing dangerous individuals from possessing guns.
Judge Thomas Hardiman, writing for the majority, highlighted that the Rahimi decision clarified the scope of permissible gun regulations but did not extend to disarming non-violent offenders like Range. “The historical tradition of firearm regulation does not support such a broad disarmament,” Hardiman asserted.
The decision underscores a nuanced interpretation of the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which required modern gun laws to align with historical precedents. Rahimi further refined this, asserting that contemporary regulations do not need an exact historical parallel but must still adhere to the principle of addressing tangible threats.
Range’s case, rooted in a 1995 conviction for fraudulently obtaining $2,458 in food stamps, had previously seen conflicting rulings. After a federal judge and a three-judge appeals panel ruled against him, the full 3rd Circuit reversed course last year, stating that disarming non-violent felons lacked historical precedent.
The Biden administration, citing Rahimi, had sought to overturn this decision, arguing for the broader applicability of firearm restrictions. However, the appeals court reaffirmed its position, emphasizing that the government’s authority to disarm must be narrowly tailored to individuals posing a clear physical danger.
Concurring opinions suggested room for a case-by-case review, where non-violent offenders could petition for reinstating their gun rights if they demonstrate no present danger. However, dissenting judges warned of the broader implications, citing historical examples of categorical disarmament, albeit acknowledging their discriminatory origins.
The ruling marks a pivotal moment in the evolving landscape of U.S. gun laws, balancing constitutional protections with public safety concerns.
