Federal 3rd Circuit Court - Non-violent crimes do not disqualify possessing guns

[ImminentDanger]

US Can't Ban Non-violent Offenders From Owning Guns: Appeals Court
Tuesday, 06 June 2023
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/gu...06/id/1122602/

The U.S. government cannot ban people convicted of non-violent crimes from possessing guns, a federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday.

The 11-4 ruling from the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is the latest defeat for gun control laws in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year expanding gun rights nationwide.

The decision stems from a 2020 lawsuit by a Pennsylvania man, Bryan Range, who was barred under federal law from possessing a gun after pleading guilty to welfare fraud. He claimed the prohibition violated his right to bear arms under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

"We are very pleased that the 3rd Circuit has vindicated the rights of our client by faithfully applying the Supreme Court's decision," Range's lawyer, Peter Patterson, said in an email.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which enforces federal gun laws, declined to comment.

Range pleaded guilty in 1995 to committing welfare fraud in Pennsylvania in order to obtain $2,458 of food stamps, a misdemeanor punishable by up to five years' imprisonment. He was sentenced to three years of probation.

Federal criminal law generally bars people convicted of crimes punishable by more than a year in prison from possessing guns. Such crimes are usually felonies, but the law also includes some state misdemeanors, like Range's.

A federal judge ruled against Range in 2021. Last June, however, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects individuals' right to carry guns in public for self-defense, and that any restrictions on that right must be consistent with the nation's historical tradition of gun regulation.

Circuit Judge Thomas Hardiman wrote for the majority on Tuesday that the government had failed to point to any laws from the United States' founding establishing a tradition of disarming non-violent criminals.

Four judges dissented.

"Where, as here, the legislature has made a reasonable and considered judgment to disarm those who show disrespect for the law, it is not the place of unelected judges to substitute that judgment with their own," wrote Circuit Judge Cheryl Ann Krause, one of the dissenters.

ETA: To add link to Opinion & Dissents (per John_Wick Post)
https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/212835pen.pdf

...

[John_Wick]

I don't know how 4 judges dissented. :x Where is the logic there? Bryan Range is clearly a bottom feeder, but he's one that should retain his right to bear arms.

[huzzar]

There's a link to the actual opinion in this article. https://redstate.com/jeffc/2023/06/0...fender-n757304

It's interesting that the dissenter essentially completely contradicts the opinion of the majority. The logic of the opinion is that legislatures could circumvent the 2A by arbitrarily declaring certain people unprotected by attaching a label to them. Exactly what the gun banners want to do today. Thanks to the Bruen decision, the courts can no longer treat the 2A differently from other constitutional rights. Did Range lose his 1A rights for a non violent crime? No. 4A rights? No.

This will almost certainly be appealed to the Supreme Court so it will be interesting to see how they handle it. Prior to 1937, even violent criminals were not prohibited from owning guns once their sentence was completed. The opinion has a lot of arguing back and forth re historical facts about gun rights and what constituted a felony. They even reference English common law describing a felony as a crime so serious the perpetrator could have his entire estate confiscated or be put to death since that was the standard when the 2A was ratified.

[bogey1]

Get caught with a braced pistol.

[MikeinPhilly]

Hunter is in the clear now

[John_Wick]

The dissenting opinions are ridiculous and it is incredibly disturbing that these people are judges. For example, Judge Krause went on a spiel about "assault rifles" that had absolutely nothing to do with Range's case. Clearly, she is more concerned with using every case to chip away at the Second Amendment than she is with the facts of the individual case at hand. Judge Roth dissented on the basis that Range failed to specify which gun he was prohibited from owning.

[ImminentDanger]

It's good to see BRUEN bearing fruit...

An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification.

The ability to change the 2nd Amendment has always been available. The Constitution _IS_ a living document - but it's care & feeding is the purview of the American People (thru their representatives) requiring a 3/4th majority desire for the change. THE LIE that a plain reading of the Constitution promotes incorrect interpretations of it has been foisted on this country as a means of subverting the valid process of changing it. The LIE has been promoted because those wanting inappropriate changes have never had the votes to accomplish it. Therefore, THE LIE has allowed the courts to alter the Constitution (thru distorted interpretations) without the consent of THE PEOPLE.

The bastardization of the Commerce Clause, to allow the Federal Government to trample the RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE, was a direct result of swallowing that LIE!

THE LIE (that plain language is not understandable) continues to be promoted, even in regard to Congressional acts, in the continued distorted interpretations made by the deep state bureaucracy to alter the laws and regulations to their liking.

...

[Aggies Coach]

I agree with this message.