Staff Reports
A recent ruling from a federal appeals court has sent shockwaves through the liberal establishment, as it decided that banning felons from owning firearms is, surprisingly, unconstitutional. In a classic case of government overreach, a man named Bryan Range, who was once convicted of food stamp fraud—yes, food stamp fraud—30 years ago, was deprived of his Second Amendment rights despite having committed a nonviolent crime.
Range’s infamous transgression involved misleading the government out of a whopping $2,458 back in 1995. After being sentenced to probation, he was under the illusion that he was just a regular citizen again, only to be hit with the reality check that comes when trying to buy a gun—total denial! He didn’t even realize he was a criminal in the eyes of gun laws until he tried to make his purchase and was promptly turned away. Talk about a bureaucratic surprise party!
The saga didn’t end there. Range embarked on a legal battle to reclaim his rights, challenging the U.S. attorney general and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Initially dismissed, Range wouldn’t take no for an answer and appealed the ruling. It only took until 2023 for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to finally see the light, ruling that laws forbidding gun ownership must be rooted in historical precedent. Since there was no compelling historical evidence to justify stripping Range of his rights, the court managed to strike a blow against the overreaching hand of government.
In a legal world where common sense is often drowned out by bureaucratic nonsense, the court’s conclusion was particularly refreshing. They recognized that the Second Amendment is meant for “the people,” which, surprisingly, includes those who have made past mistakes. But don’t celebrate just yet; while the court opened the door for Range, they still left it ajar for states to impose restrictions like the flimsy arguments of historical precedent that the government tried to conjure up. It turns out the state needs more than just wishful thinking to justify disarming its citizens.
Federal Appeals Court Rules Against Law Barring Nonviolent Felons From Owning Firearms
https://t.co/EWE4dkFlYG— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) December 26, 2024
In a true display of ideological stubbornness, a government attorney tried to equate all felonies to those serious enough to warrant a loss of Second Amendment rights. Yet, even this attorney struggled to define what actually constituted a “credible threat” when a judge posed the absurdity of disarming someone convicted of jaywalking. It’s a mixed bag when the courts have to consider whether library book offenders should be stripped of their rights. The absurdity of it all highlights how far removed some in the government are from rational thought.
Ultimately, the court’s ruling could be a pivotal moment for gun rights and a reminder that even those who have stumbled can reclaim their rights—a concept that might terrify those who believe in controlling the masses through fear. While Range celebrates, one can only hope for more folks to recognize their rights and take a stand against government overreach.
