3rd Circuit Appeals Court: Potential Big Changes To Firearm Laws

Analysis of Range v. Attorney General United States of America

A recent decision in the U.S Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit could have wide-ranging consequences for criminal defendants accused of illegally possessing a firearm.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit (hereinafter “3rd Circuit”) is the federal appeals court for Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey and the Virgin Islands. This Court is very influential in American law and one step away from the U.S Supreme Court.

In the case of Range v. Attorney General United States of America, the 3rd Circuit examined a challenge to laws which make it a criminal offense for anyone convicted of a felony or certain misdemeanors to purchase or possess a gun.

In the instant case, back in 1995, Bryan Range had been convicted of food stamp fraud and had served three years of probation plus other fines and penalties. Years later, Range learned that he was banned from owning firearms due to his prior conviction and he brought suit against the government to declare such a prohibition unconstitutional. Range argued that the firearm prohibition against people convicted of crimes such as his was unconstitutional under the 2nd Amendment. The Third Circuit agreed.

Judge Thomas Hardiman, writing for the 3rd Circuit, looked at the historical tradition of the 2nd Amendment and the text of the Amendment itself. In so doing, the Court reasoned that the 2nd Amendment did, in fact, provide rights and protections to individuals such as Range. The key distinction being that Range’s prior criminal conviction was not of a dangerous or violent nature. Therefore, the court reasoned that individuals with dangerous or violent criminal convictions could be prohibited from possessing firearms. However, individuals convicted of non-violent offenses, such as the fraud that Range was convicted of, should not be disarmed. Those individuals are, in fact, protected by the 2nd Amendment.

The Court mentioned that the decision is a narrow one, protecting individual’s firearm rights if they were convicted of fraud. However, the reasoning applied may, ultimately, be used to allow anyone convicted of non-violent felonies to be allowed to possess firearms. Subsequent cases interpreting this decision could pave the way to significant changes in gun laws nationwide, but the exact effect of this decision is as yet undetermined.

If you or someone you know is being charged with illegal possession of a firearm, this case, and knowledge of other cases like it, may help you defend your case.