A nonviolent conviction from the mid-1990s shouldn't interfere with a Delaware man's right to arm himself, the IU.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled, doubling down on a previous finding that was vacated by the U.S. Supreme Court. "We are pleased that the en banc Third Circuit has once again held that it is unconstitutional to disarm Bryan Range on the basis of a decades-old, nonviolent offense," said Peter Patterson, Range's attorney, Courthouse News Service reports. In its 13-2 ruling, the appellate court reversed a lower court decision that barred Range from gun ownership after he fraudulently obtained $2,458 in food stamps three decades ago. The circuit court favored reinstating Second Amendment rights to Range, who pleaded guilty to welfare fraud in 1995, was put on probation and was unknowingly stripped of those rights by federal law because the crime was punishable by over a year in prison. “In sum, we reject the government’s contention that ‘felons are not among “the people” protected by the Second Amendment,’” said Circuit Judge Thomas Hardiman. “Because the government has not shown that our Republic has a longstanding history and tradition of depriving people like Range of their firearms, [federal law] cannot constitutionally strip him of his Second Amendment rights,”
In 2020, Range filed a challenge on the gun issue. The court dismissed his complaint and Range appealed. The Third Circuit affirmed the lower court two years later, finding the government had shown that the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation justified barring Range from Second Amendment right entitlements. Range successfully petitioned for an en banc rehearing, and in 2023 the circuit reversed the lower court. According to the Third Circuit, the government failed to establish any historical tradition of firearm regulation that would apply to Range. That ruling would only last briefly. The U.S. Supreme Court quickly vacated the judgment under United States v. Rahimi, in which the justices ruled 8-1 to allow for the temporary restriction of gun possession for individuals considered a physical threat. Because Rahimi’s decision emphasized that courts need only find “relevantly similar” past legal principles to prove historical tradition, Range would have to present his argument again for rearmament During his October rehearing Patterson, Range’s attorney asserted that Rahimi differed significantly from Range’s case — his client’s crimes were nonviolent, whereas Rahimi was disarmed as a result of a civil domestic violence restraining order. Warning of “startling consequences” for extending Second Amendment restrictions to nonviolent offenders, Patterson suggested doing so could create a slippery slope in legal precedent.