Introduction

Range v. Attorney General is a landmark decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued on December 23, 2024. The appellant, Bryan David Range, challenged the federal "felon-in-possession" statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), arguing that it infringed upon his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The case delves into the intersection of criminal law and constitutional rights, particularly focusing on whether convictions for certain offenses should categorically bar individuals from firearm possession.

Summary of the Judgment

Bryan David Range was convicted in 1995 of making a false statement to obtain food stamps, a Pennsylvania misdemeanor offense punishable by up to five years of imprisonment. Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), Range was prohibited from possessing firearms due to his conviction. Attempts to purchase firearms were denied based on his criminal record. In 2020, Range sought a declaratory judgment in federal court, asserting that § 922(g)(1) violated his Second Amendment rights.

The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the government, applying the Marzzarella two-step framework to determine that Range's offense was "serious" enough to exclude him from Second Amendment protections. Range appealed, and the Third Circuit initially affirmed the lower court's decision in 2022. However, after the Supreme Court's decisions in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen (2022) and United States v. Rahimi (2024), the Third Circuit vacated its prior judgment and remanded the case.

Upon rehearing, the Third Circuit, led by Circuit Judge Hardiman, concluded that while Range's conviction did place him under § 922(g)(1)'s restrictions, the government failed to demonstrate that this prohibition was consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation as required by Bruen and Rahimi. Consequently, the Court reversed the summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings, emphasizing that Range remains among "the people" protected by the Second Amendment.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment heavily references seminal Second Amendment cases:

• District of Columbia v. Heller (2008): Affirmed an individual's right to possess firearms unconnected with service in a militia.
• McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010): Incorporated Second Amendment protections against state infringement via the Fourteenth Amendment.
• New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen (2022): Established a historical framework for evaluating firearm regulations, emphasizing the need for laws to align with historical traditions.
• United States v. Rahimi (2024): Upheld firearm restrictions for individuals deemed a credible threat, reinforcing the presumption of lawfulness for felon-in-possession bans.

These cases collectively underscore a trend towards defining firearm rights based on historical understandings and permissible regulatory frameworks.

Legal Reasoning

Judge Hardiman, delivering the opinion of the Court, applied the principles established in Bruen and Rahimi to assess the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) as applied to Range. The Court acknowledged that while § 922(g)(1) generally upholds felon-possession bans, it must still conform to the historical traditions that delimit Second Amendment rights.

The Court found that the government did not sufficiently demonstrate that permanent disarmament for Range’s non-violent offense aligns with historical firearm regulations. Historically, while firearm restrictions for felons were widespread, they were often tied to violent offenses or specific threats to public safety, aligning with traditional justifications for such prohibitions.

Furthermore, the Court emphasized the importance of allowing individuals like Range the opportunity to challenge their disarmament status, a mechanism that was sometimes present historically but was lacking in modern legislative frameworks.

Impact

This decision has significant implications for both federal and state firearm regulations:

• Federal Level: Reinforces the necessity for laws like § 922(g)(1) to be grounded in historical tradition, limiting arbitrary disarmament.
• State Level: States may need to reassess their felon-possession statutes to ensure they align with historical principles or provide avenues for restoration of firearm rights.
• Legal Challenges: Potential increase in challenges to firearm possession bans, particularly for non-violent felons, necessitating clearer legislative intent and historical justification.
• Judicial Consistency: Courts may follow the Third Circuit's approach in scrutinizing firearm regulations, promoting a more uniform application of Second Amendment protections.

Overall, the decision emphasizes a balanced approach, acknowledging both the regulatory authority of the government and the protected rights under the Second Amendment.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Felon-In-Possession Laws

Definition: Federal and state laws that prohibit individuals convicted of certain crimes, typically felonies, from owning or possessing firearms.

18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1): A federal statute that makes it unlawful for any person who has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year to possess firearms or ammunition.

Second Amendment Protections

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms. However, this right is not absolute and can be subject to certain restrictions, especially those rooted in historical context and tradition.

Historical Tradition Framework

Established by Bruen, this framework requires that firearm regulations align with the nation's historical practices. To evaluate a regulation's constitutionality, courts must determine whether it fits within the historical tradition that the Second Amendment was intended to protect.

Declaratory Judgment

A legal determination by the court that resolves legal uncertainty for the parties involved. In this context, Range sought a declaratory judgment to clarify his status regarding firearm possession under § 922(g)(1).

Conclusion

The Range v. Attorney General decision intricately weaves the threads of constitutional law, criminal regulation, and historical analysis to affirm the presumptive lawfulness of felon-in-possession firearm bans. By requiring that such laws align with historical traditions and allowing for individual challenges, the Third Circuit has set a precedent that balances public safety concerns with the constitutional rights enshrined in the Second Amendment.

Moving forward, legislatures must ensure that firearm regulations are not only grounded in prudent regulatory practices but also resonate with the nation's historical context. Courts, in turn, will play a pivotal role in scrutinizing these laws to maintain the delicate equilibrium between individual rights and societal safety.