In a 13-2 ruling on Monday, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reaffirmed its decision that Bryan Range, a Pennsylvania man convicted of food stamp fraud, cannot be barred from owning firearms under federal law. The decision comes after the U.S. Supreme Court directed the appellate court to reconsider its prior ruling in light of recent guidance on firearms regulations.
Background
Range, who pleaded guilty in 1995 to welfare fraud for obtaining $2,458 in food stamps, had completed his probation sentence. Federal law generally prohibits firearm possession by individuals convicted of crimes punishable by more than a year in prison, a category that includes some state misdemeanors like Range’s.
In 2020, Range filed a lawsuit seeking to restore his gun ownership rights, arguing that the prohibition violated the Second Amendment. While lower courts initially ruled against him, the 3rd Circuit reversed its position in 2023, stating there was no historical precedent for disarming non-violent felons at the time of the nation’s founding.
The Biden administration urged the Supreme Court to overturn the ruling following its decision in United States v. Rahimi, which clarified the framework established in the 2022 Bruen decision for assessing firearm regulations. However, the Supreme Court instead remanded the case to the 3rd Circuit.
Court’s Reasoning
Writing for the majority, Judge Thomas Hardiman asserted that Rahimi reaffirmed the principle that the government could disarm only “physically dangerous people,” a category that does not include Range. The court found that disarming non-violent offenders like Range lacked a historical basis consistent with the nation’s traditions of firearm regulation.
Hardiman emphasized that Range’s decades-old, non-violent offense did not justify permanently stripping him of his Second Amendment rights.
Divergent Opinions
- Majority View: Judges Cheryl Ann Krause and Jane Roth, who had previously dissented, sided with Range this time, agreeing that non-violent felons must have an opportunity to petition for the restoration of their gun rights if they can demonstrate they are no longer dangerous.
- Dissenting View: Judges Patty Shwartz and L. Felipe Restrepo dissented. Shwartz argued that there was a historical tradition of disarming certain categories of people—though she acknowledged such laws were discriminatory and “repugnant.” She maintained that these historical precedents supported the government’s ability to disarm felons categorically.
Broader Implications
This ruling underscores the ongoing judicial debate over the scope of the Second Amendment in light of Bruen and Rahimi. The decision is likely to fuel further challenges to federal and state firearms laws, particularly those affecting non-violent offenders.
For now, the 3rd Circuit’s decision sets a significant precedent within its jurisdiction, potentially influencing how other courts address similar cases involving non-violent felons and firearm restrictions.
