Bryan David Range v. Attorney General of the United States

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania constitutional law lawyer represented the Plaintiff in challenging the constitutionality of the federal "felon-in-possession" law—18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)—violates his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.



The material facts are undisputed. In 1995, Range pleaded guilty in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County to one count of making a false statement to obtain food stamps in violation of Pennsylvania law. See 62 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 481(a). In those days, Range was earning between $9.00 and $9.50 an hour as he and his wife struggled to raise three young children on $300 per week. Range's wife prepared an application for food stamps that understated Range's income, which she and Range signed. Though he did not recall reviewing the application, Range accepted full responsibility for the misrepresentation.



Range was sentenced to three years' probation, which he completed without incident. He also paid $2,458 in restitution, $288.29 in costs, and a $100 fine. Other than his 1995 conviction, Range's criminal history is limited to minor traffic and parking infractions and a summary offense for fishing without a license.



When Range pleaded guilty in 1995, his conviction was classified as a Pennsylvania misdemeanor punishable by up to five years' imprisonment. That conviction precludes Range from possessing a firearm because federal law generally 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." 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Although state misdemeanors are excluded from that prohibition if they are "punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years or less," 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20)(B), that safe harbor provided no refuge for Range because he faced up to five years' imprisonment.



In 1998, Range tried to buy a firearm but was rejected by Pennsylvania's instant background check system. Range's wife, thinking the rejection a mistake, gifted him a deer-hunting rifle. Years later, Range tried to buy a firearm and was rejected again. After researching the reason for the denial, Range learned he was barred from buying a firearm because of his 1995 conviction. Range then sold his deer-hunting rifle to a firearms dealer.



* * *



Legal issue Does the federal felon-in-possession law violate the Second Amendment rights of an individual convicted of a nonviolent misdemeanor?

Headnote



**FIREARMS LAW. SECOND AMENDMENT. The case addresses the constitutionality of the federal felon-in-possession law, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), as applied to an individual previously convicted of a non-violent misdemeanor, determining that the individual remains part of the group protected by the Second Amendment, hence the law's application is unconstitutional in this instance.**



**FIREARMS LAW. HISTORICAL TRADITION OF REGULATION. The court assesses whether there exists a historical tradition to support the disarming of individuals with non-violent convictions under the Second Amendment, ultimately concluding the government failed to demonstrate a consistent historical basis for such disarmament.**



**FIREARMS LAW. MEANS-ENDS SCRUTINY. The court finds that after the Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, the previous two-step means-ends scrutiny framework is no longer applicable in Second Amendment cases, shifting the burden to the government to prove consistent historical precedent for restrictions on firearm possession.**



**FIREARMS LAW. LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS. The determination hinges on the interpretation of "the people” in the Second Amendment, leading to the conclusion that even those with minor non-violent offenses are included among those entitled to possess firearms.**



Key Phrases Second Amendment rights. Felon-in-possession law. Historical tradition of firearm regulation. Summary judgment appeal. Cross-jurisdictional consensus.



See: U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit





Bryan David RANGE, Appellant v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; Regina Lombardo, Acting Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives





69 F.4th 96 [Click to copy]

Reversed