BREAKING 2A NEWS: CRITICAL COURT ORDER JUST ENTERED IN RANGE CASE...

Summary

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has ordered supplemental briefing in the *Brian Range v. Garland ATF* case, which could impact whether non-violent felons can be permanently disarmed under federal law. In a 2023 ruling, the court affirmed that non-violent felons, such as Brian Range, should not lose their Second Amendment rights. With the recent *Rahimi* decision, the court is reconsidering its position. Constitutional attorney Mark Smith predicts the Third Circuit will reaffirm its stance, possibly setting the stage for the U.S. Supreme Court to address the issue in the future.

Takeaways

• 😀 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has ordered supplemental briefing in the Brian Range vs. Garland ATF case, which could have significant implications for the interpretation of gun rights for nonviolent felons.
• 😀 The Third Circuit's previous decision in 2023 ruled that nonviolent felons should not permanently lose their right to bear arms, a decision that is now being reconsidered in light of the Rahimi case.
• 😀 The case centers around the interpretation of 18 USC 922 G1, which prohibits individuals convicted of felonies from owning firearms. However, the definition of 'felony' in federal law is broader than many expect, covering crimes that may not involve violence.
• 😀 Federal law defines a felony as any crime for which the convicted individual could have faced more than a year in prison, regardless of whether they served time.
• 😀 This broad definition of felony has led to concerns that politicians could label trivial offenses (e.g., DUI) as felonies, potentially disarming individuals for life without any violence involved.
• 😀 The Brian Range case specifically involves a man convicted of welfare fraud 20 years ago, who argues that being permanently disarmed due to a nonviolent felony conviction is an unjust violation of his Second Amendment rights.
• 😀 The Rahimi decision, which dealt with disarming individuals who pose a violent threat, will likely not affect the Third Circuit’s decision in the Range case, as it involves nonviolent felons.
• 😀 The Third Circuit’s ruling on the Range case could force the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider its stance on Second Amendment rights for nonviolent felons, especially under the current political climate.
• 😀 The outcome of the Range case could impact future legal arguments about the constitutionality of 18 USC 922 G1 and the federal government's power to define felonies broadly, potentially reshaping gun rights laws in the U.S.
• 😀 The decision in the Range case is expected in late 2024, with a potential Supreme Court review in 2025, depending on the outcome of the Third Circuit’s reaffirmation or modification of its previous ruling.

Q & A

What is the significance of the Third Circuit's recent order in the Brian Range vs. Garland ATF case?

The Third Circuit has ordered supplemental briefing to reconsider the Brian Range case in light of the Supreme Court's Rahimi decision. This could impact the rights of nonviolent felons to possess firearms under the Second Amendment.

What does the case of Brian Range involve?

Brian Range was convicted of a nonviolent felony for welfare fraud. The issue in the case is whether a nonviolent felon can lose their right to possess firearms for life under 18 USC 922(g)(1).

What is the central argument of the Third Circuit's opinion in the Range case?

The Third Circuit argues that nonviolent felons should not lose their right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment, as there is no historical basis for disarming individuals who are not violent.

How does the federal definition of a felony impact the Second Amendment rights of individuals?

Under federal law, a felony is defined as any crime for which the potential sentence is over one year in prison, which means that even nonviolent crimes can result in the permanent loss of firearm rights, irrespective of actual prison time served.

What distinction is made between 'malum in se' and 'malum prohibitum' crimes in the script?

'Malum in se' crimes are inherently evil (e.g., murder, robbery), while 'malum prohibitum' crimes are wrong simply because they are prohibited by law (e.g., owning a firearm with a specific barrel length). The script argues that only violent, 'malum in se' crimes should result in the loss of Second Amendment rights.

How does the script view the idea of disarming nonviolent felons?

The script argues that disarming nonviolent felons is unjust, especially when the underlying offenses do not involve violence. It criticizes the broad interpretation of 'felon' under federal law, which could result in the loss of firearm rights for minor infractions.

Why does the author refer to Merrick Garland as 'milk toast moderate'?

The author refers to Merrick Garland as 'milk toast moderate' to criticize his perceived moderate stance on legal matters, including gun control. The term suggests that Garland is seen as too passive or unwilling to take strong positions on constitutional issues.

What role does the Rahimi decision play in the Range case?

The Rahimi decision, which dealt with disarming individuals involved in violence, is expected to have limited or no impact on the Range case. The Third Circuit is likely to reaffirm its decision in Range, arguing that nonviolent felons should not be permanently disarmed under the Second Amendment.

What potential political impact could the outcome of the Range case have?

If the Third Circuit reaffirms its decision, it could pressure the Department of Justice to reconsider its stance on disarming nonviolent felons. A change in political leadership, such as a new president supporting Second Amendment rights, could further influence the Department of Justice's approach.

How does the script suggest the Range case might progress after the supplemental briefing?

The script suggests that the Third Circuit will likely reaffirm its 2023 decision in favor of Brian Range, allowing him to retain his firearm rights. This could set the stage for the Supreme Court to review the case in the 2024-2025 term.