Governments Can't Ban Non-violent Offenders From Owning Guns: 3rd Circuit Appeals Court

[army judge]

Jurisdiction

US Federal Law

The U.S. government cannot ban people convicted of non-violent crimes from possessing guns, a federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday.

The 11-4 ruling from the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is the latest defeat for gun control laws in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year expanding gun rights nationwide.

The decision stems from a 2020 lawsuit by a Pennsylvania man, Bryan Range, who was barred under federal law from possessing a gun after pleading guilty to welfare fraud. He claimed the prohibition violated his right to bear arms under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

"We are very pleased that the 3rd Circuit has vindicated the rights of our client by faithfully applying the Supreme Court's decision," Range's lawyer, Peter Patterson, said in an email.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which enforces federal gun laws, declined to comment.

Range pleaded guilty in 1995 to committing welfare fraud in Pennsylvania in order to obtain $2,458 of food stamps, a misdemeanor punishable by up to five years' imprisonment. He was sentenced to three years of probation.

Federal criminal law generally bars people convicted of crimes punishable by more than a year in prison from possessing guns. Such crimes are usually felonies, but the law also includes some state misdemeanors, like Range's.

A federal judge ruled against Range in 2021. Last June, however, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects individuals' right to carry guns in public for self-defense, and that any restrictions on that right must be consistent with the nation's historical tradition of gun regulation.

Circuit Judge Thomas Hardiman wrote for the majority on Tuesday that the government had failed to point to any laws from the United States' founding establishing a tradition of disarming non-violent criminals. Four judges dissented.

"Where, as here, the legislature has made a reasonable and considered judgment to disarm those who show disrespect for the law, it is not the place of unelected judges to substitute that judgment with their own," wrote Circuit Judge Cheryl Ann Krause, one of the dissenters.

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/guns/2023/06/06/id/1122602/

 

[cbg]

I'm sure PayrollDude will be surprised to learn that I have no problem with this decision.

 

[army judge]

I'm sure PayrollDude will be surprised to learn that I have no problem with this decision.

I've often wondered what was behind the previous decision to ban everyone convicted of a felony from owning/possessing a firearm.

Heck, I know many people charged with felonies, allowed to plead to misdemeanors avoiding the ban.

This decision, IF IT SURVIVES ADDITIONAL APPEALS, seems fair.

I've long held the belief that anyone convicted of using or brandishing a firearm during the commission of a felony should be doomed to suffer a lifetime firearms ban.

In addition to those mentioned above, rapists, pedophiles, and their kindred ilk; should also suffer lifetime firearms bans.

 

[Tax Counsel]

I've often wondered what was behind the previous decision to ban everyone convicted of a felony from owning/possessing a firearm.

I've wondered that too. They lumped all felons together as though they all pose the same risk of violence when clearly that's not the case. The law should separate those whose crimes did not involve violence towards others.

I've long held the belief that anyone convicted of using or brandishing a firearm during the commission of a felony should be doomed to suffer a lifetime firearms ban.

In addition to those mentioned above, rapists, pedophiles, and their kindred ilk; should also suffer lifetime firearms bans.

I have no problem with any of those folks losing their gun rights. But denying people convicted only of economic crimes like fraud, tax evasion, etc, strikes me as just wrong.

 

[mightymoose]

I agree. There is no reason to believe this makes anyone less safe.

 

[army judge]

I have no problem with any of those folks losing their gun rights. But denying people convicted only of economic crimes like fraud, tax evasion, etc, strikes me as just wrong.

I agree, non-violent offenders shouldn't lose their right to own a firearm. I once discussed the issue with several elected federal legislators.

They wondered why, promised to look further into the matter. Twenty some years later, nary a word. Go figure, politicians, all hat, no cattle.

 

[stealthy1]

Agreed - no issue with this.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

The only problem I have with the decision is that a not-insignificant number of people who are convicted of non-violent felonies were originally charged with violent felonies and the NV is simply the result of a plea agreement.

Then when these folks re-offend violently with a firearm the anti-gunners all scream we need more anti-gun laws.

 

[Zigner]

The only problem I have with the decision is that a not-insignificant number of people who are convicted of non-violent felonies were originally charged with violent felonies and the NV is simply the result of a plea agreement.

That can be addressed when legislation is crafted.

Then when these folks re-offend violently with a firearm the anti-gunners all scream we need more anti-gun laws.

Awww man. You were so close to an unbiased post, but then you finished with that drivel...

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

That can be addressed when legislation is crafted.

There is no legislation at work here. The court isn't and can't require a legislature to pass a law.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

---

 

[Zigner]

There is no legislation at work here. The court isn't and can't require a legislature to pass a law.

The point I was making is that any restrictions based on violent vs non-violent felonies should include wording that requires the prior base crime (before pleading down) to be considered when applying such restrictions. It's more of a thought experiment/hypothetical, much like your post that I was responding to.

 

[Tax Counsel]

The only problem I have with the decision is that a not-insignificant number of people who are convicted of non-violent felonies were originally charged with violent felonies and the NV is simply the result of a plea agreement.

It doesn't take much to charge someone with a crime. It's much more challenging to go to trial and secure a conviction. We should not base our decisions of who gets banned from using one of their constitutional rights merely because someone accused the defendant of a violent act. Any DA who pleas down a solid case of a violent offense to some non violent misdeameanor is in the wrong job. The fact that some DAs don't do their jobs correctly shouldn't result in a law that punishes all felons by depriving them of a Constitutional right regardless of whether the conviction was for a violent offense or not. If the evidence is shaky, it may well be that accusations of violence are untrue or greatly exaggerated. Some of the public equate being arrested as meaning the person is guilty of the crime he/she was arrested for. That's an illogical connection to make given how our system is set up.

 

[Tax Counsel]

The point I was making is that any restrictions based on violent vs non-violent felonies should include wording that requires the prior base crime (before pleading down) to be considered when applying such restrictions.

We ought not do that for the reasons I stated in my post above. Charges are merely accusations; they are not proof of that crime was committed. I don't think we should punish people merely for the accusations of what they might have done. However, I think that the defendant's prior conviction record is fair game to consider as one factor among many in sentencing. And that happens all the time with repeat offenders.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

Any DA who pleas down a solid case of a violent offense to some non violent misdeameanor is in the wrong job.

Are you not keeping up with the news? There are a number of liberal prosecutors doing exactly that. To the point that AGs, governors, and the people are trying to get them kicked out of office.

 

[Zigner]

We ought not do that for the reasons I stated in my post above. Charges are merely accusations; they are not proof of that crime was committed. I don't think we should punish people merely for the accusations of what they might have done. However, I think that the defendant's prior conviction record is fair game to consider as one factor among many in sentencing. And that happens all the time with repeat offenders.

It already happens in DUI cases. A plea agreement can be entered into in which the defendant pleads to a lesser charge with the caveat that the plea will be treated as a prior conviction for subsequent DUI charges.

 

[Tax Counsel]

Are you not keeping up with the news?

I guess you didn't read my post at all carefully. Nowhere in it do I opine on how often DAs plead down solid cases of violent crimes to misdemeanors. I only stated my view that such a DA is in the wrong job. I'll also guess that you don't know the details of those cases you are complaining about "liberal prosecutors" settling violent crime charges down to misdeameaners to know how many of those were truly solid cases. The truly solid cases are not the majority of the cases they see.