Thread by @mkolken

Breaking 2nd Amendment victory out of the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (NJ, PA, DE). En banc panel finds that a person with a State food stamp fraud conviction punishable with imprisonment up to 5 years should not be deprived of #2A rights. www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/21283…

Court's reasoning:

"We begin with the threshold question: whether Range is one of 'the people' who have Second Amendment rights."

"First, the criminal histories of the plaintiffs in Heller, McDonald, and Bruen were not at issue in those cases. So their references to… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

"—to conclude that Range is not among 'the people' for Second Amendment purposes would exclude him from [having rights to assemble peaceably, to petition the government for redress, and to be protected against unreasonable searches and seizures.]"

"the phrase 'law-abiding, responsible citizens' is as expansive as it is vague. Who are 'law-abiding' citizens in this context? Does it exclude those who have committed summary offenses or petty misdemeanors, which typically result in a ticket and a small fine? No."

"We are confident that the Supreme Court’s references to 'law-abiding, responsible citizens' do not mean that every American who gets a traffic ticket is no longer among 'the people' protected by the Second Amendment."

"At root, the Government’s claim that only 'law-abiding, responsible citizens' are protected by the Second Amendment devolves authority to legislators to decide whom to exclude from 'the people.' We reject that approach because such 'extreme deference gives legislatures… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

"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… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

"Having determined that Range is one of 'the people,' we turn to the easy question: whether § 922(g)(1) [banning those with a conviction of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year from having a firearm] regulates Second Amendment conduct. It does." twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

"Because Range and his proposed conduct are protected by the Second Amendment, we now ask whether the Government can strip him of his right to keep and bear arms. To answer that question, we must determine whether the Government has justified applying § 922(g)(1) to Range 'by… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

"In attempting to carry its burden, the Government relies on the Supreme Court’s statement in Heller that 'nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons.'"

"...since 1961 'federal law has generally prohibited individuals convicted of crimes punishable by more than one year of imprisonment from possessing firearms.'”

"As the First Circuit explained: 'the current federal felony firearm ban differs considerably from the [original] version . . . . [T]he law initially covered those convicted of a limited set of violent crimes such as murder, rape, kidnapping, and burglary, but extended to both… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

"Even if the 1938 Act were 'longstanding' enough to warrant Heller’s assurance—a dubious proposition given the Bruen Court’s emphasis on Founding- and Reconstruction-era sources, Range would not have been a prohibited person under that law."

"Whatever timeframe the Supreme Court might establish in a future case, we are confident that a law passed in 1961—some 170 years after the Second Amendment’s ratification and nearly a century after the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification—falls well short of 'longstanding' for… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

"The Government’s attempt to identify older historical analogues also fails."

"The Government argues that 'legislatures traditionally used status-based restrictions' to disarm certain groups of people. Apart from the fact that those restrictions based on race and religion now would be unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, the… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

"That Founding-era governments disarmed groups they distrusted like Loyalists, Native Americans, Quakers, Catholics, and Blacks does nothing to prove that Range is part of a similar group today."

"That Founding-era governments punished some nonviolent crimes with death does not suggest that the particular (and distinct) punishment at issue—lifetime disarmament—is rooted in our Nation’s history and tradition."

"As one of our dissenting colleagues notes, a felon could 'repurchase arms' after successfully completing his sentence and reintegrating into society."

"Founding-era laws often prescribed the forfeiture of the weapon used to commit a firearms-related offense without affecting the perpetrator’s right to keep and bear arms generally."

"Range’s crime, however—making a false statement on an application for food stamps—did not involve a firearm, so there was no criminal instrument to forfeit. And even if there were, government confiscation of the instruments of crime (or a convicted criminal’s entire estate)… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

"The Government has not cited a single statute or case that precludes a convict who has served his sentence from purchasing the same type of object that he used to commit a crime. Nor has the Government cited forfeiture cases in which the convict was prevented from regaining his… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

"Finally, the Government makes an argument from authority. It points to a decision from a sister circuit court that 'look[ed] to tradition and history' in deciding that 'those convicted of felonies are not among those entitled to possess arms.'”

"As impressive as these authorities may seem at first blush, they fail to persuade. First, the circuit court opinions were all decided before Bruen. Second, the district courts are bound to follow their circuits’ precedent. Third, the Government’s contention that 'Bruen does not… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

"For the reasons stated, we hold that the Government has not shown that the Nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation supports depriving Range of his Second Amendment right to possess a firearm."

"Our decision today is a narrow one. Bryan Range challenged the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) only as applied to him given his violation of 62 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 481(a). Range remains one of “the people” protected by the Second Amendment, and his eligibility to… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…