Appeals Court Upholds Ruling that Man Convicted of Non-Violent False Statement Charge Shouldn’t Lose Gun Rights

Last updated on December 23rd, 2024 at 03:25 pm

A U.S. Federal appeals court has reaffirmed its earlier decision that a man convicted over making a false statement to obtain food stamps should lose his gun rights over the felony charge.

The man in question, Bryan Range, had sued challenging the constitutionality of a federal “felon in possession” law that bars access to firearms for those convicted of a felony offense punishable by a term of up to one year in prison. Range had argued his 1995 felony conviction for lying on a food stamp application, should not warrant him losing his gun rights under the Second Amendment.

An en banc panel of the U.S. Third Circuit Court ruled on Dec. 23 that Range should be allowed to retain his gun rights.

Range served three years probation for lying on the food stamp application. He tried to purchase a firearm in 1998, only to learn he was prohibited under the federal “felon in possession” law.

Range sued the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in 2020, seeking a declaration that the “felon in possession” law is unconstitutional as applied in his case. The district court ruled against Range, and he appealed the decision to the Third Circuit. A three-judge panel on the appeals court upheld the lower court’s decision, but Range appealed for an opinion from an 11-judge en banc panel.

The Third Circuit ruled in Range’s favor in a 2023 en banc decision. The U.S. Supreme Court upended the case once more, following its decision this year in U.S. v. Rahimi.

The Supreme Court asked the appeals court to reconsider Range’s case, in light of their decision holding that individuals could be barred from accessing firearms even without a criminal conviction, if a court deemed them to pose a risk of harm to themselves or others.

The parties re-argued the case before the Third Circuit’s en banc panel in October.

“The record contains no evidence that Range poses a physical danger to others. Because the Government has not shown that our Republic has a longstanding history and tradition of depriving people like Range of their firearms, § 922(g)(1) cannot constitutionally strip him of his Second Amendment right,” the Third Circuit’s majority wrote.

Circuit Judge’s Patty Shwartz and L. Felipe Restrepo—both appointees of President Barack Obama—wrote the dissenting opinion. In it, they argued that the appeal’s court decision is at odds with the Supreme Court’s decision in Rahimi.

“The Majority’s analytical framework leads to only one conclusion: there will be no, or virtually no, non-violent felony or felony-equivalent crime that will bar an individual from possessing a firearm,” the dissenters wrote. “Rahimi counsels that cannot be so, which is why the Majority’s broad ruling is contrary to both the sentiments of the Supreme Court and our history.”