Range v. Attorney General: Third Circuit Rules §922(g)(1) Violates Second Amendment for Nonviolent Felons

Introduction

In the landmark case Bryan David Range, Appellant v. Attorney General United States of America, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit delivered a pivotal ruling on June 6, 2023. The case centers on Bryan Range, who challenged the federal "felon-in-possession" law, 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1), alleging that it infringed upon his Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. Range's conviction for making a false statement to obtain food stamps in 1995 rendered him subject to this prohibition. The Third Circuit’s decision marked a significant departure from prior jurisprudence by asserting that such blanket bans may not align with the Second Amendment, especially in cases involving nonviolent offenses.

Summary of the Judgment

The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s summary judgment, which had previously dismissed Range’s claims. However, upon en banc review, the Court reversed this decision, holding that Range remains protected under the Second Amendment despite his misdemeanor conviction. The Court emphasized that the government's burden to demonstrate that firearm regulations like §922(g)(1) align with the nation’s historical tradition was not met in Range’s case. Consequently, the Court remanded the case for further proceedings, effectively reinstating Range’s right to possess firearms.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment heavily relied on pivotal Supreme Court decisions, notably District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen (2022). Heller established the individual right to bear arms unconnected to militia service, while Bruen shifted the analytical framework from a two-step means-end scrutiny to a history-based analysis, emphasizing the need for firearm regulations to align with the nation's historical tradition.

Additionally, the Court referenced its previous rulings in Marzzarella, Binderup, Holloway, and Folajtar, which had employed a multi-factor approach to evaluate Second Amendment challenges. However, Bruen effectively nullified this framework, guiding the Court to focus solely on historical analogues.

Legal Reasoning

The Third Circuit applied the standard set forth in Bruen, questioning whether the prohibition under §922(g)(1) is consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. The Court scrutinized the historical underpinnings of disarming felons, particularly those convicted of nonviolent offenses.

The Court concluded that there is no substantial historical precedent supporting the permanent disarmament of individuals convicted of nonviolent misdemeanors like Range. Earlier legislation, such as the Federal Firearms Act of 1938 and its subsequent amendments, primarily targeted violent felons, unlike Range's nonviolent offense. The Court emphasized that historical bans were often status-based and rooted in broader social distrust, which does not directly correlate with Range's situation.

Furthermore, the Court critiqued the government's reliance on outdated and unrelated statutes, arguing that modern firearm regulations should not mimetize historically distinct laws. The absence of a clear historical analogue for disarming nonviolent felons meant that §922(g)(1) could not be constitutionally justified in Range’s case.

Impact

The decision in Range v. Attorney General has profound implications for federal firearm laws, particularly §922(g)(1). By reversing the lower court's decision, the Third Circuit signaling a potential reevaluation of felon-in-possession bans, especially for nonviolent offenses. This ruling could inspire similar challenges across other circuits, possibly leading to a broader weakening or reinterpretation of §922(g)(1).

Additionally, the decision underscores the judiciary's increasing adherence to Bruen's historical analysis, potentially limiting the scope of firearm regulations that states and the federal government can impose. Lawmakers may need to reassess how firearm prohibitions are structured to ensure they align with constitutional mandates.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Second Amendment: The part of the U.S. Constitution that protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms.

Felon-in-Possession Clause (§922(g)(1)): A federal law that prohibits individuals convicted of certain crimes from possessing firearms.

Summary Judgment: A legal move where one party wins the case without a full trial because there are no material facts in dispute.

En Banc: A session where a case is heard before all the judges of a court (or a significant number) rather than by a panel of selected judges.

Historical Tradition Analysis: A legal approach that evaluates current laws against the nation's historical practices and customs to determine constitutionality.

Conclusion

The Third Circuit's decision in Range v. Attorney General represents a significant development in Second Amendment jurisprudence. By grounding its ruling in historical tradition and deviating from the prior means-end scrutiny, the Court has opened the door for reassessing the constitutionality of felon-in-possession laws, particularly concerning nonviolent offenses. This shift not only highlights the enduring influence of Bruen but also underscores the judiciary's role in balancing individual rights against regulatory frameworks. As this case progresses, it will undoubtedly influence future litigation and legislative efforts surrounding firearm regulation in the United States.