Locked and Loaded: Third Circuit Declares Federal Gun Law Unconstitutional Over Ex-Felon Rights

Yesterday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit handed down a major ruling in favor of the Second Amendment rights of ex-felons. At issue was the federal “felon-in-possession” law—18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which bars ex-felons from possession of firearms. While it is always risky to bet on granting of review before the Supreme Court, this en banc decision is well positioned for a Supreme Court showdown over the Second Amendment.

The federal law makes it “unlawful for any person . . . who has been convicted in any court, of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” to “possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition.”

In this case, Bryan David Range pleaded guilty in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County to one count of making a false statement to obtain food stamps. He later explained that he was earning between $9.00 and $9.50 an hour to support his wife and three young children on $300 per week. Range’s wife applied for food stamps but understated Range’s income, which she and Range signed. Range later took responsibility for the misrepresentation.

Range received three years’ probation (which he completed) and had to pay thousands in fines. However, when Range pleaded guilty in 1995, his conviction was classified as a Pennsylvania misdemeanor punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment.  That triggered the federal ban. When his wife recently bought him a deer-hunting rifle, he learned that he was barred under federal law. District Judge Gene E.K. Pratter ruled against him.

Judge Pratter looked at five factors to determine whether Range was an “unvirtuous citizen” due to his conviction as a historical justification for the denial of gun possession. Those factors were “(1) whether the conviction was classified as a misdemeanor or a felony; (2) whether the elements of the offense involve violence; (3) the sentence imposed; (4) whether there was a cross-jurisdictional consensus as to the seriousness of the crime,… and (5) the potential for physical harm to others created by the offense.” The government conceded that four of the five favored Range, but Pratter found that he was still properly barred under the “cross-jurisdictional consensus” among other states.

Judge Thomas Hardiman wrote the majority opinion, supported by nine of fifteen judges. Four judges (Shwartz, Restrepo, Krause, and Roth) dissented.

The majority declared:

In sum, we reject the Government’s contention that only “law-abiding, responsible citizens” are counted among “the people” protected by the Second Amendment. Heller and its progeny lead us to conclude that Bryan Range remains among “the people” despite his 1995 false statement conviction. Having determined that Range is one of “the people,” we turn to the easy question: whether § 922(g)(1) regulates Second Amendment conduct. It does. Range’s request—to possess a rifle to hunt and a shotgun to defend himself at home—tracks the constitutional right as defined by Heller. 554 U.S. at 582 (“[T]he Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”). So “the Second Amendment’s plain text covers [Range’s] conduct,” and “the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.” Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2126.

Gene Volokh noted that the Supreme Court could grant cert”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 case has one of the strongest profiles for review by the Supreme Court. There is now a split among the circuits and this is a well-argued en banc decision. It also is an appeal that would be made by the United States over the invalidation of a federal statute. If you were a betting person, this is your best bet for a grant of the writ of certiorari.

If accepted, the case would present a question that I flagged during the confirmation hearings of Justice Amy Coney Barrett. At the time, I was particularly interested in her dissent in Kanter v. Barr. Rickey Kanter was convicted of one count of felony mail fraud for defrauding Medicare in connection with therapeutic shoe inserts. The Seventh Circuit panel split 2-1 with Barrett in dissent. Focusing on the “history and tradition” of such restrictions, Barrett also took on the voting rights and jury service point with a key distinction:

“The problem with this argument is that virtue exclusions are associated with civic rights—individual rights that “require[ ] citizens to act in a collective manner for distinctly public purposes.” See Saul Cornell, A New Paradigm for the Second Amendment , 22 LAW & HIST. REV. 161, 165 (2004). For example, the right to vote is held by individuals, but they do not exercise it solely for their own sake; rather, they cast votes as part of the collective enterprise of self-governance. Similarly, individuals do not serve on juries for their own sake, but as part of the collective enterprise of administering justice…

Heller , however, expressly rejects the argument that the Second Amendment protects a purely civic right. Moore v. Madigan , 702 F.3d 933, 935 (7th Cir. 2012). It squarely holds that “the Second Amendment confer[s] an individual right to keep and bear arms,” Heller , 554 U.S. at 595, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (emphasis added), and it emphasizes that the Second Amendment is rooted in the individual’s right to defend himself—not in his right to serve in a well-regulated militia, id. at 582–86, 128 S.Ct. 2783.”

Range has obviously strong analogies to Kanter and could allow now Justice Barrett to revisit the issue in a major new Second Amendment opinion.

Here is the opinion: Range v. Attorney General United States

N.B.: The original column was corrected when a quote from Gene Volokh was merged by accident with the indented quote from the court.

110 thoughts on “Locked and Loaded: Third Circuit Declares Federal Gun Law Unconstitutional Over Ex-Felon Rights”

  1. Jonathan: Sorry to intrude but there is BREAKING NEWS!. The Independent is reporting today that Jack Smith’s prosecutors are ready to ask for Trump’s indictment on obstruction and Espionage Act charges. Trump has already been notified he is a “target” of Jack Smith’s investigation. And Mark Meadows, Trump’s former chief of staff and all around “fixer”, has flipped. That’s right. Meadows has agreed to plead guilty to lesser charges in exchange for an immunity deal that will require him to testify against Trump. And Meadows knows where all the bodies are buried!

    And what was Trump’s reaction? He claims Jack Smith’s investigation is a big witch hunt to deprive him of winning the presidential election next year. Trump promises his supporters that WHEN elected next year he will purge the FBI and DOJ of the “Rogue Bureaucrats”. Trump is asking Republicans in Congress to intervene on his behalf. As if Jim Jordan could stop Jack Smith. That’s how bizarre this has become!

    But the GOP sees the handwriting on the wall. Trump will be indicted so Mike Pence, Chris Christy and other GOP hopefuls are jumping into the campaign with their announcements. They know Trump is toxic and will only appeal to his dwindling cadre of MAGA supporters. For those on this blog who thought Jack Smith would drop his case and not indict Trump–I’ve got news for you!

    1. Dennis – Does this mean that Hillary Clinton will also be indicted for obstruction of justice in connection with the investigation of her 33k emails? After all, no one is “above the law.” And of course, James Comey should be indicted for taking classified documents our of the FBI and leaking their contents to the media. And of course, Joe Biden should be indicted for taking classified documents without any right to do so, and then leaving them in insecure locations for several years. And of course Barack Obama should be indicted for taking classified documents with him when he left the White House and keeping them in a warehouse in Chicago. And then there’s Adam Schiff . . .

    2. “Meadows has agreed to plead guilty to lesser charges in exchange for an immunity deal that will require him to testify against Trump.”

      Where do you get that garbage? No doubt from the Leftist rag “The Independent” — a propaganda mouthpiece owned primarily by a Russian oligarch and a Saudi. Who’s the “Putin stooge” now? And good luck practicing your liberal values in Saudi Arabia.

      For the record. Your garbage is BS:

      “Terwilliger [Meadows’ attorney] called the allegations ‘complete bullshit’ in a brief interview with the publication.”

    3. “Meadows has agreed to plead guilty to lesser charges in exchange for an immunity deal that will require him to testify against Trump.”

      Where do you get that garbage?

      For the record:

      “Terwilliger [Meadows’ attorney] called the allegations ‘complete bull****.’”

      You might want to try a source not owned by a Russian oligarch and the Saudi monarchy. The Left always has such “interesting” bedfellows.

    4. Espionage act doesn’t apply to Trump – he’s covered under the Presidential records act.

      1. Know why they raided Maralago ?
        Fact : because the Archivest wanted 1) the letter Obama left for Trump. 2) The letters between Trump and NK’s Kim.

  2. People convicted of violent crimes who are hell-bent on committing more violent crimes are going to have no problem getting a gun, regardless of any legal prohibitions.

    On the other hand, when people convicted of violent crimes become law-abiding citizens and are prohibited from possessing firearms, they are going to be less able to protect themselves, their families, and other members of their communities.

    1. And there are a lot of these “felonies” which are felonies in name only. A business acquaintance wrote a $800 hot check in 1980 and visited the recipient the following week to make restitution over a period of three weeks. The owner of the grocery supply company refused to let him pay it out and wanted the total amount. He did not have it and that was the end of it for ten years. The acquaintance had gone out of business and moved to a neighboring state to work, when he was arrested by the local sheriff and turned over to the previous state’s sheriff’s office for extradition. Longer story shorter, he was charged and convicted of class a misdemeanor theft by check and after paying $400 court costs and attorney fees (for a five minute appearance before the judge), was sentenced to five years probation during which time he was to make restitution of the $800 check and probation office fees–$40 a month. Because he lived out of state, the judge told him if he stayed in the original jurisdiction, it would be adjucated a misdemeanor and expunged upon completion of the restitution. But since he was going home out of state, it would be adjudicated a felony and remain on his record.
      Fast forward another twenty years and the acquaintance went to purchase a 12 gauge mossburg shotgun from a local sports chain. After ten days the fbi background check returned a “Deny” for him to buy the gun because he had committed a felony. So that is how the government uses these “felonies” to keep guns out of the hands of otherwise law-abiding citizens. For writing a check that he was unable to cover, one time, 30 years ago, he will never be able to purchase nor own a firearm to protect his family and himself, or for any other purpose. That is not right. By the way, he wrote a letter to the governor’s office a couple of times since attempting to get the only run-in he ever had with the law expunged so that his constitutional rights could be rightfully restored, but has not heard back in two years since.

  3. It appears the SPLC (Stalin Politburo Leftist Communists) has declared war on Parents of children. Yet the Left argues public schools deserve our unfettered support. If parents love their children, they would do well to pull them from public schools and seek alternatives. Otherwise the SPLC and Attorney General Merrick “payback SCOTUS nominee” Garland will put a target on your back.

    The SPLC is a Marxist, hate group that undermines families, parents, children and America’s once hallowed institutions.

    Returning to the Schoolhouse Steps, Extremist Groups’ Reactionary Anti-Student Inclusion Efforts

    Thanks in part to its grand disruptions at school board meetings, political alliances and extremist ties, Moms for Liberty has quickly become one of the most recognized names in the anti-student inclusion movement. Founded in early 2021, the organization claims to have a membership of over 100,000 in 250+ chapters in 42 states.


  4. Looks like the J-6 seditionists will get their guns back before ex-felons get their voting rights back.

  5. Some top Bush officials violated Ronald Reagan’s Torture Treaty and violated the FISA Act the misled the FISA Court numerous times. Under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution this was and is “the supreme law of the United States” codified into federal criminal statutes.

    Those Bush officials didn’t lose their rights when they had a pattern & practice of public corruption, some felony violations under federal color of law statutes. Also a disloyalty to their Oath of Office which grants them authority.

    One Bush attorney was promoted to a federal appeals court – hearing cases like this one!

    1. Hey “Reagan”, couple of things: 1) Any issue with Obama droning weddings? Droning Americans? No, I didn’t think so. You think you are moral but you are just a partisan hack who likes to virtue signal. The kind of creep that will support the burning down of black businesses if a cop shoots a felon with a rap sheet 40 entries long but never utters a peep about black on black crime. You know…a phony.

      2) Still going after Reagan and Bush which I find surprising because usually you bald, pony-tailed old state school professors usually still go after Nixon and Kissinger.

      1. re: Hullbobby

        My point was Bush officials betrayed the values of Ronald Reagan, Eisenhower, Teddy Roosevelt and the GOP founder Abraham Lincoln.

        So I was praising the backbone of Ronald Reagan, unlike many of today’s Republicans . Yes it’s wrong no matter who violates their Oath of Office. On a recent post I strongly condemned Democrat FDR for throwing U.S. citizens into detention camps.

        My point is this is not our grand-daddy’s Republican Party! I wasn’t criticizing Reagan in this post. Reagan actually believed in a strong and independent Judiciary to “check & balance” the political branches. Reagan would have likely indicted and convicted Bush torture leaders, Bush torture attorneys would likely have been disbarred from practicing law by Reagan Republicans.

        1. Reagan, nobody is a bigger fan of Reagan than I am, he is the greatest president of my long life, but even I don’t think he would have gone after Bush for torturing terrorists after 9/11.

          I am sorry if I accused you of not complaining about Obama, but it seems as though I never actually see you criticize Democrats???? Odd.

  6. How is this any different from the ban in the 90’s on anyone convicted of Domestic Violence from owning a gun? That one made police, military members lose their jobs and careers. Even if it was a misdemeanor. Talk about ex-post facto penalties…….

    The only appellate case i saw was the 6th circuit, saying the guy’s case “was not well plead” What ever that means.

    These look the same to me.

  7. Jonathan: Speaking of important court decisions you didn’t mention that FL Gov. DeSantis just lost a major case over his law banning trans-gender health care. In a scathing decision federal judge Robert Hinkle blocked portions of a new FL law that bans trans-gender minors from receiving puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. Hinkle ruled that there was no rational basis for denying patients treatment–saying “gender identity is real!”. Hinkle said: “The overwhelming weight of medical authority supports treatment of transgender patients …in appropriate circumstances”. Hinkle’s ruling was narrowly focused on 3 children who were the plaintiffs. The law remains in effect until a trial later in the year.

    And DeSantis is facing other legal challenges. Remember his antic in kidnapping migrants and flying them to Martha’s Vineyard? DeSantis just repeated that cruel stunt. On Friday he flew 16 migrants and dropped them off in California. On Monday he did the same thing by picking up 20 migrants in Texas and dropping them off in Sacramento, the capitol of the Golden State. The state’s AG is investigating these latest stunts and considering kidnapping charges. Gov. Newsom says DeSantis is a “small, pathetic man”. That’s an understatement!

    The problem for DeSantis’ anti-immigration laws and policies is they are having an adverse effect on FL’s economy. Florida lawmaker Rick Roth is complaining that the governor’s policies are causing migrants to flee Florida for other states. Roth says the migrant flight is a “major problem for the agriculture, construction, and tourism, which just happens to be most of the jobs in Florida”. Apparently, Roth is getting a lot of complaints from those industry leaders that depend on low-wage migrant labor.

    The Q is whether the CEOs of the named industries will want to contribute to DeSantis’ presidential campaign when the Gov’s policies are adversely affecting their pocketbooks. Despite his Harvard degree DeSantis apparently never learned some basic principles–Don’t bite the hand that feeds you and always keep in mind the law of unintended consequences.

      1. Upstate, the Feds should have sent them from where they crossed into the country illegally directly to Blue cities, since, you know, they’re obviously always welcome there. 😊

        1. JAFO,
          The Biden admin has been doing everything they can to undermind the Border Patrol and ICE to keep the illegals in Red States and force them to deal with them.

          Then there is this,
          Black residents of Chicago slam city over $51 million in migrant care, demand reparations

          It has been mentioned in other of the good professor’s posts about how other minority groups would feel if reparations were given out. Here we are seeing some of that when massive amount of “aid” is given to a certain group.

          1. I propose we force illegal aliens to pay those reparations. You know, two birds/one stone.

    1. RFK Jr. has the White House sweating, and rightly so
      “Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has the White House worried, and rightly so: Boys who shout “The emperor has no clothes” have an impact.

      So far, the Bidenites are relying on their media allies to maul RFK Jr., Politico reports.

      Problem is, the reason the challenger’s running at 20% in primary polls has less to do with his last name (even Marianne Williamson’s at 8%) than with President Biden’s incredible weakness.

      Biden’s record is beyond atrocious, and at 80, he’s showing signs of serious decline. Voters — most definitely including Democrats — know it.”

  8. The guy lied to get food stamps to feed his wife and kids and the same goofs that scream for no bail for VIOLENT criminals want him to lose a Constitutional right????? AOC and other liberal morons claim that all of the looting and other mass robberies we see are just because people are hungry…as if you could eat a television or liquor.

  9. If we have the right to defend ourselves, and our families, then we should have the power to deprive dangerous people of firearms. It is a more effective means of self-defense than a shoot-out.

      1. mespo727272 – the Legislature, whether state or federal, would need to define “dangerous”. I suggest that they might look at a history of violence, such as three or more cases of assaultive acts, proven in court, before the age of 21. Or, an internet history of fantasizing about violent attacks. Or, perhaps gang membership, where the gang has a history of violence. It should be possible to construct a picture of the type of person most likely to commit acts of violence.

  10. It’s an easy case. So long as you have the right to defend yourself, you have the right to a firearm to do it unless you’re incarcerated. Other than that, the most basic human right applies.

  11. There is a bad argument that keeps getting made, mindlessly and reflexively, by those who probably consider themselves critical thinkers: “If you want to stop a war, go over there and stop it yourself.” But civilians should not need to fight in wars, soldiers should. Soldiers are specialized service providers, and civilians are their customers. Soldiers are paid, armed, and equipped by the civilians to do their bidding. It would defeat the purpose of having a military of professional soldiers if the civilian customers were expected to fight the wars that need to be fought. It is irrational to expect a customer to be willing to do what a service provider does before the service provider provides the service. This absurd notion defeats the purpose of specialization in a service economy. “You shouldn’t expect a plumber to unclog your toilet unless you’re willing to get in there and unclog it yourself”. I can’t wire my house, so I hire an electrician to wire it for me. I can’t roof my home, so I hire roofers to roof it. I can’t pull my own wisdom teeth, so I hire a dentist to pull them. I can’t fight fires, so I hire fire fighters to put out fires. I can’t fight wars, so I hire soldiers to fight wars.

    1. Depending on code. I can do my own wiring and put in my own plumbing, and septic system. A SCOTUS decision just banned manufacturers from denying the public the ability to by parts and specialized tools to do their own repairs.

      you are much to comfortable with govt regulating competition our of existence.

    2. No. What you are claiming is the US/NATO needs to escalate the war to WWIII levels and risk nuclear war. If that is what you want, then get your sorry butt to the recruiting center, enlist in a combat MOS. They will train you to be a professional solider. Then you can go overseas, to a combat zone and fight on the front lines.
      If you cannot do it, get your kids or grandkids to the recruiting center, enlist in a combat MOS.
      All you, “I stand with the Ukraine!” types are a okay with sending other people’s kids into harms way as long as you get to stay behind, virtue signaling your support while others die.
      I got my DD214.

      1. “Don’t kid yourself. If we send tanks and F 16s to Ukraine that’s called WWIII!” Biden/Blinken 6 mo. ago.

        “With our allies and partners, we are sending Ukriane F 16s to Ukraine.” Biden/Blinken today

        *don’t kid yourself, these people will say and do anything.

  12. Jonathan: You don’t have to be a “betting person” to know the the conservative majority of the SC will grant a writ of certiorari in the Range case. There is no doubt Justice Comey Barrett will support a reconsideration and will want to carve out an exception to the Court’s ruling in Heller that ruled that “nothing in our opinion should be taking to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons”. This means the Court will soon rule that non-violent felons, like Range, will be able to possess firearms.

    But this would open a Pandora box. The Q is what other types of “non-violent” crimes might qualify as exceptions to 18 USC, Sec. 922(g)(1)? As the Third Circuit Court of Appeals said in Range: “The Government has not cited a single statute or case that precludes a convict who served his sentence from purchasing the same type of object that he used to commit a crime” Does this mean a person, who is convicted of massive election fraud and other crimes, or who is convicted of federal and state crimes in possessing top secret docs, could still go out and buy an AR-15 style firearm? What about an office holder who committed crimes during his campaign and lied his way into office? And what about a person who uses an AR-15 to rob a bank, serves his sentence and now wants to buy another AR-15? Could we trust any of them with firearms?

    1. Dennis in your haste you forgot to ask, what about drug addicted, serious drug purchaser, money launderer, tax cheat deadbeat dad, who lies on his federal gun form and who processes bribes by foreign countries, including our enemies? Does HUNTER BIDEN get to have a gun? How about Joe Biden? How about Bill Clinton, a guy who was convicted of lying under oath?

      1. How about a man whose ego is so fragile that when an SNL writer (who had just written such a comedy sketch for Bill Shatner to perform on SNL) humorously suggests trying on womens’ lingerie over his clothes, he pushes her into a dressing room and sexually assaults her? Or, how about someone who cannot stop lying about losing a free and fair election, and who went on a national “Stop the Steal” tour to fire up his fans by telling them to “fight like hell or you’re not going to have a country any more”, so they break down doors, smash windows, defecate and urinate in public spaces, and deface the US Capitol to try to prevent the peaceful transfer of power? Or, how about someone who wants to win over Evangelicals, so he pays hush money to an adult actress with whom he had a sexual liaison, through his attorney, who got convicted of election fraud and tax evasion and who is now facing the same charges? Or, how about stealing classified documents, after being told they couldn’t be taken from the White House, and being told of the process for declassification, who not only lied about returning all of them in response to a subpoena, but who actually moved the documents around to different locations to prevent their return? How about lying to his supporters about the “injustice” of the FBI “raiding” his home to compel the return of the documents, just to raise money by falsely portraying himself as a “victim” of his own conduct? How about trying to rig an election by calling the GA Secretary of State and asking him to “find” 11,780 votes, while admitting this is “one more than we have”? Hunter Biden is not a candidate for public office. Neither is Bill Clinton. The one I described IS a candidate for the US Presidency, and he is literally rotten through and through. Where’s the proof that any “bribes” were paid “by foreign countries, including our enemies”?

      2. Hullbobby: I don’t write my comments in “haste”. Haste makes waste. In your own “haste” you forget neither Hunter Biden nor Joe Biden or Bill Clinton are convicted felons. When Hunter was high on drugs and alcohol 24/7 he should never should have allowed to posses a gun. But he lied on his licensing app. If David Weiss successfully charges Hunter with that offense Hunter would be prohibited from possessing a gun. Since Hunter is now a recovering drug/alcohol addict I’m not sure that would have any salutary effect. None of your allegations against Hunter have been proved in a court of law. Weiss is apparently not considering charging Hunter with being a “serious drug purchaser, money launderer” or “who processes bribes by foreign countries”. These are allegations being made frequently by Prof. Turley who has yet to provide any solid
        evidence to support his claims–it’s mostly speculation and innuendo. In your “haste’ you swallow everything Turley says without ever questioning his assumptions and motives. That’s HASTE in capital letters!

  13. Why is this a federal matter when states have different qualifiers for what constitutes a felony? Our tradition of a case by case basis is as much anathema to modern progressives as our pesky Constitution is. It is astonishing how many younger folks (and the usual not so young) have no idea the (very wise, though with this admin/cabal, seemingly hypothetical) jurisdictional limits on federal power in individual states, counties, and districts.

    Let’s be honest: if the Marxists ever get what they want, not realizing they ARE the peasant class, not ‘upper middle class’, to the astronomically wealthy, they would likely last about five minutes.

    If the dems were sane and fair, I’d register as dem instead of independent. I have never in my life been compelled to think they are, and now they are simply persona non-grata to me, likely forever.

  14. I find this judge’s practice of literally parsing a citizen’s rights to be offensive. I am okay with withholding a felon’s RKBA, but for the non-violent who stumble into a crime there needs to be a path for redemption. Only one example: a kid convicted of drunk driving convicted of a lower class felony who does his time and probation should have an avenue for eventual restoration of his rights over a time of proper behavior.

  15. Criminal laws vary wildly between states. Misrepresenting your income on a food stamp application to get assistance feeding your children is definitely NOT the same as shooting at someone during a road rage incident. I really hope that Mr. Range’s case is granted certiorari for a full review. Thank you, Jonathan, for an excellent article.

  16. I think this hinges on two factors.

    One: Is it a felony? No it is not. It was a misdemeanor.

    Two: was there violence or even the potential for violence? Not in this case.

    While I do understand the timeframe for jail potential being the cause of the ban, I am also hard pressed to understand how a non-violent crime without any potential for violence leads to the ban. I am not a fast to strip anyone of their Constitutional rights over a technicality, especially for a misdemeanor. This goes to both individual rights for personal good and individual rights used for a collective good.

    This is the natural outcome of writing laws where the unintended consequences harm individual liberties. While I do not defend the actions of fraud no matter how understandable they may appear on the surface, I can see no reason the grind that person into the ground just because the government can. Seemingly it is this type of action that makes one feel the government is overbearing.

  17. This federal law is wrong on many levels. A felony in one state may be a misdemeanor in another. Without uniformity in the rules there is no equality of enforcement. Then there is that little matter of powers not expressly given to the feds belong to the states and the people.

  18. Lied on a food stamp application to feed his wife and three kids — sounds like something out of a Dickens novel. Terrible. These are the actual oppressed people in America — not the freaks who prance around pretending to be what they never can be and screaming about how “victimized” they are.

    1. Since when does being poor make you “oppressed”? Poverty is often the result of circumstances and or choices.

  19. . . . the federal government is nearly certain to seek review by the Supreme Court . . .

    Is that really the case? I would think the JB admin would not seek review for fear of a decision that strengthens gun rights nationally.

    1. Bingo. There is no way this administration will allow a gun case to get to this court. They will look for a case in another Circuit to get a split decision. Then slow walk everything until they can change the court. See, assault weapons and high capacity magazines.

  20. I on’t see a problem. The conviction was non violent, classed as a misdemeanor in the jurisdiction that convicted him and he served no time except probation, and he paid fines. Somehow i don’t think this gentleman is any threat to society and he was, said again, not convicted of a violent crime or a felony. Now if he beat the snot out of someone and was convicted of misdemeanor battery, I would prohibit firearms because of the violence. Past is prologue, violence is the key.

Leave a Reply