Federal Appeals Court: Some Nonviolent Felons Can Exercise Second Amendment Gun Rights

A federal appeals court recently determined that the nationwide prohibition on firearm possession for individuals with felony convictions may not constitutionally apply to certain people whose past crimes did not involve violence or threats indicating a risk of misusing weapons.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued two distinct judgments, providing clarity on the enforcement of the federal ban on gun ownership by convicted felons under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The court, which includes several judges appointed by former President Donald Trump, affirmed the restriction on firearms for a man convicted in a carjacking incident. However, it concurrently ruled that the ban could not be imposed on another individual whose prior offenses were related to drunk driving.

Upholding Restrictions in a Violent Felony Case

One of the cases decided involved James Bost, who in 2002 pleaded guilty in Pennsylvania state court to terroristic threats, criminal conspiracy, false imprisonment, and simple assault following a carjacking.

Bost later faced federal firearms charges after authorities discovered him possessing a weapon despite his earlier convictions. He attempted to have these charges dismissed, arguing that the federal prohibition infringed upon his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

U.S. Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas, writing the majority opinion against Bost, stated that individuals convicted of crimes demonstrating a propensity for physical violence through the misuse of firearms can be presumptively disarmed solely based on those convictions.

"The right to keep and bear arms has limits, and this is one: Those who pose a risk of physical violence from misusing guns can be disarmed before that risk becomes a reality," Bibas, an appointee of President Donald Trump, wrote.

Restoring Rights for Nonviolent Offenders

In a separate proceeding concerning Edward Williams, the court concluded that the federal firearms restriction could not be constitutionally applied to him due to his past convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol in the early 2000s. One of these convictions triggered the federal ban, which generally applies to offenses punishable by over one year in prison.

Williams had received a sentence of 90 days to two years, which he served under home confinement. Upon learning that this conviction prevented him from owning guns, he initiated a lawsuit seeking a declaration that the law was unconstitutional as applied to his specific offense.

Writing for the court, U.S. Circuit Judge Paul Matey, also a Trump appointee, rejected the Justice Department's argument that historical prohibitions against "habitual drunkards" justified applying the federal firearms ban to Williams.

Matey characterized Williams as "a peaceable citizen, capable of bearing arms consistent with the design of the Second Amendment."

"And with that rehabilitation comes restoration of the civic privileges guaranteed to citizens by the Constitution, and the freedom to again exercise the natural right of armed defense against threats and tyranny," the judge wrote.

Divergent Judicial Views on Public Safety

U.S. Circuit Judge Arianna Freeman, in a separate opinion, expressed disagreement with the majority's rationale, specifically stating she diverged "when it says a prior conviction is disarming on its face only if it involved violence or threats."

Freeman contended that the Second Amendment also permits restrictions on individuals whose criminal behavior indicates a credible danger to public safety, even if their offenses did not explicitly involve violence or direct threats.

The judge asserted that while convictions for crimes involving violence or threats certainly qualify, other offenses, such as drunk driving, should also be included because they demonstrate that a person "poses a credible threat to the physical safety of others."

Implications for Second Amendment Interpretation

Joshua Prince, legal counsel for Williams, commended the decision, noting that it clarified "there does not exist any historical tradition of stripping individuals with non-violent convictions of their Second Amendment rights and whom do not pose a threat to the public in possession of a firearm."

These rulings are part of a broader series of cases assessing the constitutionality of contemporary gun restrictions under a new legal standard established by the Supreme Court's pivotal 2022 Second Amendment decision.

In a 6-3 ruling in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the high court mandated that modern gun regulations must be "consistent with this nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation."