by Anthony Morelli
This court case was being watched by many.
Observers knew it would have a big impact.
And the court ruled in favor of the Second Amendment.
One of the areas of Second Amendment law that is a bit of a gray area is the extent to which people retain their Second Amendment freedoms after being convicted.
It clearly is not absolute, as someone who is given life without parole for a first-degree triple homicide is not going to be able to own guns in their prison cell.
But when it comes to people convicted of lesser offenses, and who have finished serving their time, there is some legal gray area, and it continues to be fleshed out in court cases.
That leaves the door open for people who do not like guns to pass onerous laws that make it nearly impossible, or even totally impossible, for someone who has ever been convicted of a crime to own a gun.
But thankfully, an appeals court just handed down a ruling that struck back at one of these laws and perhaps will set a precedent for other courts to follow.
According to The Reload, “Given a second bite at the apple, the Third Circuit has once again ruled that a Pennsylvania man can own firearms despite his felony-level conviction.”
“By a 13-2 margin, a full panel of the federal appellate court on Monday reaffirmed its basic holding from last June that a 30-year-old conviction for lying on a food stamp application cannot result in lifetime disarmament. The court’s opinion, made necessary after the Supreme Court vacated and remanded its prior decision in light of US v. Rahimi, remained essentially unchanged in finding no historical tradition supporting the federal gun ban for felons as applied to Pennsylvania man Bryan Range.”
This man was not a triple-murderer. While lying on a food stamp application is a bad thing and should not be done, it happened over 30 years ago and doesn’t nearly rise to the level of taking someone’s guns away for life.
The court agreed, and they struck down this ridiculous ban and allowed the man to own guns once again.
The article continues, “The opinion officially reinstates the first appeals court decision to strike down the nation’s most commonly enforced federal gun-control law. It also highlights the continued uncertainty over what the Supreme Court’s Rahimi ruling actually means for Second Amendment jurisprudence. It may set up the High Court to further refine its framework for gun rights, especially for those convicted of serious crimes.”
Perhaps this ruling will make anti-gun politicians think twice in the future before passing laws meant to bully people who have made one mistake long ago into giving up all of their guns.
Every felony is bad, but not all felonies are equally bad, and not all of them should result in lifetime disarmament.
This Pennsylvania man is certainly thankful that he received his Constitutional freedoms back, and gun owners everywhere are hoping this becomes a trend.