US cannot ban man convicted of nonviolent crime from owning a gun, court rules
A federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that a man who has committed a nonviolent crime cannot legally be prevented from owning a firearm — a potential setback in gun regulation following a Supreme Court ruling last year that vastly expanded the right to bear arms .
In an 11-to-4 ruling, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals overturned lower court decisions that prevented Bryan Range, a Pennsylvania resident who sued the state after he was barred from buying a shotgun for hunting and self-defense over a conviction for lying about a claim for benefits in the 1990s.
In a majority opinion, Justice Thomas M. Hardiman repeatedly cited the Supreme Court ruling last June, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, in which the majority established a new standard dictating that gun laws conform to “historical traditions” that date back to the 18th and 19th centuries. century. centuries.
“In short, we reject the administration’s contention that only ‘law-abiding, responsible citizens’ are counted among ‘the people’ protected by the Second Amendment,” wrote Justice Hardiman, a George W. Bush appointee who served as former President Donald J. Trump’s shortlist to serve on the Supreme Court after Antonin Scalia’s death in 2016.
It is unclear whether the ruling applies to similar cases: Mr. Range, Michael P. Gottlieb, said he brought the case “only for the benefit of my client” and believes it will make its way to the Supreme Court if the Justice Department appeals.
A spokeswoman for the department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Three judges, agreeing with the majority, wrote that the decision “does not do any harm” to a part of federal law which deprives any person “convicted by a court of an offense punishable by more than one year’s imprisonment”.
Judge Hardiman wrote that his opinion was “scary”. But in a strongly worded dissenting opinion, Judge Patty Shwartz, an Obama appointee, said the majority opinion would set a broad and dangerous precedent.
“While my colleagues state their views are limited, the analytical framework they have applied to reach their conclusion renders most, if not all, criminal prohibitions unconstitutional,” she wrote.
Judge Hardiman argued that punishing Mr. Range by revoking his gun rights for a crime that didn’t involve violence gave lawmakers too much power “to manipulate the Second Amendment” by labeling someone a criminal, as Mr. law-abiding life.
Federal laws prohibit people convicted of state or federal crimes punishable by more than one year in prison from purchasing guns. In some states, including Pennsylvania, the federal ban comes into effect upon conviction of a felony carrying a possible sentence of at least one year.
The decision, which has been closely watched by national groups on both sides of the gun debate, is the latest in a series of federal court rulings reversing existing gun regulations.
But most of those cases have been heard in the lower courts and only one other, over a decision that restored gun ownership rights to a man under a domestic violence restraining order, reached a federal appeals court in New Orleans.
Charlie Savage reporting contributed.