Bryan Range had been denied his right to keep and bear arms for nearly 30 years. But on December 23, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals reaffirmed its earlier ruling that a person who commits a “nonviolent, nondangerous misdemeanor” and hasn’t been incarcerated cannot be deprived of his or her Second Amendment rights.

Range’s conviction was classified as “a Pennsylvania misdemeanor punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment.” Since federal law generally makes it illegal for anyone convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for over one year, Range wasn’t able to possess or purchase a firearm.

In June 2023, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals restored Range’s right to keep and bear arms. But because of a circuit court split, the case was sent to the U.S. Supreme Court, which remanded the case back down to the 3rd Circuit. The latest decision sends the matter back to the Supreme Court for consideration.

The pre-Christmas court ruling stated: “Range remains one of ‘the people’ protected by the Second Amendment, and his eligibility to lawfully purchase a rifle and a shotgun is protected by his right to keep and bear arms.”

According to court documents, In 1998, Range tried to buy a firearm but was rejected by Pennsylvania’s instant background check system. Range’s wife, who thought the rejection was a mistake, gave him a rifle.

Years later, Range tried to buy a firearm and was again rejected. After doing some research, Range learned he was banned from buying a firearm because of his 1995 conviction. Upon learning that, Range sold his rifle to a gun dealer.

Part of the discussion in the case was whether Range was one of the “people” referred to in the part of the Second Amendment stating “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

“In sum, we reject the Government’s contention that ‘felons are not 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.

The court then turned to the second aspect of the Bruen standard—whether the government could prove a similar precedent at the time of the founding.

“Because the Government has not shown that our Republic has a longstanding history and tradition of depriving people like Range of their firearms, § 922(g)(1) cannot constitutionally strip him of his Second Amendment rights,” the ruling stated. “More than two decades after he was convicted of food stamp fraud and completed his sentence, he sought protection from prosecution under § 922(g)(1) for any future possession of a firearm. The record contains no evidence that Range poses a physical danger to others.”