Today, the federal appeals court in Philadelphia issued a ruling saying that non-violent felons don’t lose their right to bear arms even after being convicted. 12 of the 15 judges on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that non-violent felons have Second Amendment rights. Three judges dissented.
The majority opinion in Range v. Attorney General was written by Judge Thomas Hardiman. Eight other judges joined his opinion. The challenger in this case pleaded guilty in 1995 to making a false statement to obtain food stamps, a felony punishable by up to five years in prison under Pennsylvania state law. That made him a felon for federal gun law purposes, which forbid felons from owning guns, even though he actually was only sentenced to three years probation, and about $3,000 in restitution and fines.
The majority opinion left open the possibility that lifetime bans on firearm possession might also be invalid as to some people convicted of violent felonies. Three other judges concurred, but said the Second Amendment doesn’t cover felons whose crimes suggest that they “would, if armed, pose a threat to the orderly functioning of society,” such as “murderers, thieves, sex offenders, domestic abusers, and the like.” Such felons, they said, can validly be subjected to lifetime bans on firearm possession.
It seems to me nearly certain that the Supreme Court will agree to hear the case, perhaps in conjunction with the Fifth Circuit domestic civil restraining order automatic disarmament case, U.S. v. Rahimi. As a practical matter, this is a much more important case than Rahimi (which itself is quite important); the federal government is nearly certain to seek review by the Supreme Court; the decision invalidates a federal statute; there is a circuit split; the broad reasoning of the decision is in tension with the Court’s statements that felon disarmament laws are presumptively constitutional. All of these are factors cutting in favor of Supreme Court review, and put together they make such review extremely likely.
