A federal appeals court on Tuesday ruled that a federal ban on gun possession by convicted felons cannot be constitutionally applied to some people whose prior offenses did not involve violence or threats indicating a risk of misusing firearms.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued two rulings clarifying when the federal prohibition on gun possession by convicted felons can be enforced under the Second Amendment.
The court, which includes several judges appointed by President Donald Trump, upheld the firearms restriction against a man with a conviction stemming from a carjacking but ruled that the ban could not be applied to another man based on his prior drunk-driving convictions.
One of the cases decided on Tuesday involved James Bost, who pleaded guilty to terroristic threats, criminal conspiracy, false imprisonment and simple assault in Pennsylvania state court following a 2002 carjacking.
Bost was later indicted on federal firearms charges after authorities found him in possession of a gun despite his prior convictions. He sought to dismiss the charges, arguing that the federal ban violated his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
U.S. Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas, writing for the majority in the decision against Bost, said people convicted of crimes demonstrating a risk of physical violence through the misuse of firearms may presumptively be disarmed based on those convictions alone.
“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,” wrote Bibas, an appointee of President Donald Trump.
In a separate case involving Edward Williams, the court ruled that the federal firearms restriction could not constitutionally be applied to him based on his prior convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol in the early 2000s. One of those convictions triggered the federal ban, which generally applies to offenses punishable by more than one year in prison.
Williams had been sentenced to a term of 90 days to two years, which he served under home confinement. After learning the conviction prevented him from owning guns, he sued to secure a declaration that the law was unconstitutional as applied to his offense.
Writing for the court, U.S. Circuit Judge Paul Matey, a Trump appointee, rejected the Justice Department’s argument that historical restrictions on “habitual drunkards” justified applying the federal firearms ban to Williams.
Matey described 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.
U.S. Circuit Judge Arianna Freeman, writing separately in disagreement with the majority’s reasoning, said she parted ways from the majority opinion “when it says a prior conviction is disarming on its face only if it involved violence or threats.”
DOJ THREATENS TO SUE CALIFORNIA OVER ‘GLOCK BAN,’ ARGUING LAW VIOLATES SECOND AMENDMENT
Freeman argued that the Second Amendment also permits restrictions on people whose criminal conduct demonstrates a credible threat to public safety, even when their offenses did not involve explicit violence or threats.
The judge argued that while convictions for crimes that involve violence or threats qualify, other offenses, such as drunk driving, should be covered as well because they show that a person “poses a credible threat to the physical safety of others.”
Joshua Prince, a lawyer for Williams, praised the ruling, saying the decision made it clear that “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.”
The rulings come amid a series of cases evaluating whether modern gun restrictions are constitutional under a new legal standard established by the Supreme Court’s landmark 2022 Second Amendment decision.
In a 6-3 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the high court held that modern gun restrictions must be “consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
Reuters contributed to this report.
