Hello again everyone. Welcome to Washington Gun Law tv. I'm watching Gun Law President William Kirk. Thanks for joining us. Hey, this ruling came out right before Christmas. It was 164 pages, so I didn't want to just kind of slap something together and I wanted to get a chance to go through and geek out and pull out some pertinent parts. So we didn't have a 35 minute video here, but this is a case. We've talked about it before. This is a case of range versus Attorney General of the United States. It deals with nonviolent felons and whether or not they should ever have the ability to restore their firearm rights moving forward at some point in the future. Well, this case has ricocheted around and then we were really, really worried that somehow or another the Rahimi decision was going to screw everything up. But as it turns out, no, there is a big ruling, a huge ruling, and a fantastic ruling for Mr. Range, and it may turn out to be fantastic for other people who are similarly in his situation. So today, let's spend a few minutes and let's talk about one of the best Second Amendment rulings in a long time.
Okay, so who is today's video sponsor? Taylor Freelance. No, seriously. Who's today's video sponsor? Taylor Freelance. Taylor Freelance. Okay. You realize what Google is going to do to this video if we have Taylor Freelance advertised on this channel? Okay, well, here goes Nothing. Alright. Hey, listen, before we get going too far down the road, we're going down, proud to announce that this video is brought to you by Taylor Freelance. That's right, American owned. American made right there in Bellingham, Washington. They're making some of the best components for your, you know what out there. Now listen, this is normally where I'd put all the cool B-roll up and show you all the cool things that they're making up there at Taylor Freelance. But if I do that, well you YouTube and Google is going to get a little ticked off at us. But listen, if you just want to know what Taylor Freelance is in a nutshell, it's really this simple.
They do not make your firearm got that Google, they do not make firearms, but they will make your firearm a lot better if you're ready to take your firearm to the next level. If you're ready to customize your firearm so that you are more proficient in it, visit all of our good friends at Taylor Freelance. What? Don't mention their website. Oh yeah, that's right. Thank you. Yeah. Hey, listen for more information, go ahead and click on my partner page right there and there. You'll find the link to Taylor Freelance Freelancer. You can check out all the cool things that they're doing. For more information, visit my partner page.
Okay, America, we've talked about this case before. It is case of range versus Attorney General of the United States. I will try to get you up to speed as fast as a possible can. Range got convicted back in the mid 1990s of food stamp fraud. If you take a look at the facts, Henry and his family were in a really tough financial situation. He fibbed a little bit about his income so he could get more food. Alright? He gets convicted of a felony. He doesn't know jail time at all. It's not like it's a violent felony. He pays the fines, he's a good boy. Years later, he tries to go get a firearm denied. He's like crap, realizes it has something to do with that felony. He decides to wait some more time. Couple of years later, goes back, tries to buy again, Nope, denied again, goes to the state of New Jersey, says, Hey, I need to get my firearm rights restarted.
And lo and behold, the state of New Jersey says, Nope, we're not going to be doing that for you. And according to 18 United States Code section 9 22 G one, since he has previously been convicted of a crime which could have resulted in imprisonment for more than one year, he is ineligible under federal law to ever get his firearm rights restored. Okay? Case gets appealed, ricochets around range wins at first range wins at the trial court level, but then it goes up on appeal, it gets bounced around, it comes back after Bruin, it goes up again and it comes back again after Rahimi. And of course, what the United States is arguing is, Hey, Rahimi changed the ball game because we can take a more nuanced approach here. And so the big concern we had in the range case is are we going to get rahimi? Okay, now this case applies only to range.
This is an as applied challenge, so it only applies to MR Range. However, are there hundreds of thousands, if not more, of people who have nonviolent felony convictions way back in the day that is precluding them from being able to possess firearms today? I absolutely, positively know there are people that are in the same position as Mr. Range. So this ruling could turn out to be really, really huge. Now, I decided to go through and just parse out of the 124 pages of opinions, how did the court deal with the United States government's argument that hey, Rahimi changes everything. Rahimi basically says we get to do whatever the heck we want. Okay, here's how the third circuit ruled. Rahimi did bless disarming, at least temporarily physically dangerous people. The law had upheld required a finding that the defendant represents a credible threat to someone else's physical safety.
It did so because the government offered ample evidence of a tradition of disarming people who pose a clear threat of physical violence to another. But the government does not try to justify disarming range on this ground with good reason. It has no evidence that he poses a physical danger to others, or that food stamp fraud is closely associated with physical danger. It conceded as much the first time this court heard the case on bonk. No. Instead, what the United States government wants to do according to Rahim, is we can just cast this wide wide net and anybody that we believe has been unlawful or irresponsible or we just don't like him, that's who we get to. Disarm. Third circuit was not convinced. Rather, the government seeks to stretch dangerousness to cover all felonies and even misdemeanors. That federal law equates with felonies. It notes that Rahimi left open the of banning the possession of guns by categories of persons thought by a legislature to present a special danger of misuse.
And it argues that those convicted of serious crimes as a class can be expected to misuse firearms. So if you get convicted of a nonviolent felony having nothing to do with violence whatsoever, obviously having nothing to do with firearms, the United States government still believes that you now have a much greater propensity to misuse firearms. What else did the court rule? Even if that categorical argument could suffice to uphold the original 1938 felon in possession ban, it does not support the current one. Again, it is far too broad. Now I need you to understand a couple things. Number one, the offense for which Mr. Range was convicted was actually not a felony in his home jurisdiction, but many other jurisdictions in the country would have treated it as a felony. Again, still a nonviolent felony, okay? And that is how the United States government had prevailed at the upper courts on this particular argument.
What the United States government is arguing back on remand now and say, Hey, if we go way back into history, you'll see that we used to have some very harsh penalties for crimes that we don't really think are that serious today. In fact, we even were able to put people to death more frequently for crimes in the late 17 hundreds, early 18 hundreds than we are today. And since that's the historical tradition, of course we get to disarm range. This is how the third circuit dealt with it. Yet the founding era practice of punishing some nonviolent crimes with death does not suggest that the particular and distinct punishment at issue here, defacto lifetime disarmament for all felonies and felony equivalent misdemeanors is rooted in our nation's history and tradition. And for that reason, and again, this is not new, the court has previously ruled this, okay?
But the third circuit has ruled that there is just simply no historical tradition that justifies disarming an individual such as Mr. Range. The court ruled for the reason stated, we hold that the government has not shown that the principles underlying the nation's historical tradition of firearms regulation support depriving range of a Second Amendment right to possess a firearm. Alright? But as I pointed out at the beginning of the video, and this is important, America, this does not just poof, all of a sudden, every nonviolent felon with a person who's got a conviction from 25 years ago is going to be able to go run out to a gun store in the next week or so and be able to purchase firearm. No, this is a process. And this particular case applies only to Mr. Range. Okay? This was an as applied challenge. Basically, his attorneys are saying, judge, I'm not saying the whole law is unconstitutional.
I'm saying when you apply it to my client, it has an unconstitutional effect. The court has agreed with that. A facial challenge is where a person would have to argue that this law is unconstitutional and there is no factual scenario whatsoever under the sun in which it could be constitutionally. That was not the focus of this. So understand that the third Circuit is specifically ruled, our decision today is a narrow one. Brian range challenged the constitutionality of 18 United States Code Section 9 22 G one, only as applied to him, given his violation of the Pennsylvania statute 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. More than two decades after he was convicted of food stamp fraud and completed his sentence, he sought protection for prosecution under Section 9 22 G one for any future possession of a firearm.
The record contains no evidence that range poses a physical danger to others because the government has not shown that our republic has a longstanding history and tradition of depriving people like range of their firearms. Section 9 22 G one cannot constitutionally strip him of his Second Amendment rights. America. It is a huge win. It is a huge win because there are likely hundreds of thousands of people who fall into the same category of Mr. Range. And listen, I can certainly understand having been a criminal defense attorney now for 26 years, that yes, people can do a lot of stupid things and sometimes people do stupid things because well, they're stupid. But other times people do stupid things because there are other external factors going on in their life, whether it's addiction, mental health, economic problems, or things such as that. I also understand that many of those people, especially when they get a little older, get a little bit more responsibility and a little bit more maturity in 'em can absolutely, positively change who they are.
And for that reason, there are millions of Americans who made mistakes that have absolutely changed who they are. They learn from that mistake, and they have every right in the world to defend their lives the same as you and me. This is a huge win. We finally get to talk about a huge win, but so often around here we're talking about whether we got punched in the mouth or kicked in the shins. But this is a big ruling, a ruling that is going to have very far, far-reaching implications in a good way for many otherwise lawful and responsible Americans. The case once again is range versus Attorney General of the United States. It comes out of the third circuit. We're going to link up the ruling below so that you guys can geek out on it for yourself. Maybe you got some questions about this or anything else related to what's left of our Second Amendment rights.
You guys should know how to get ahold of Washington gun law by now, but if you don't, that's okay. That information, it's right down there in the description box. Maybe you got an idea for a video we should be doing around here. Cool. Tell us all about it by clicking on that link right there and letting us know if you just want to subscribe to our monthly newsletter. All the information on how to do that is right down there in the description box. And then finally, and most importantly, let's remember that part of being a lawful and responsible gun owner, like we talk about all the time here, is to know what the law is in every situation and how it applies to you in any instance that you may find yourself. Until next time, thanks for watching and stay safe.
Credit: William Kirk, Esq., Washington Gun Law