The Third Circuit’s decision in Range is noteworthy for several reasons and likely sets up one of the next major Second Amendment battles at the Supreme Court. So, what, exactly, was this case about, and what can we expect next?
Wednesday, June 14, 2023
Commentary: Court Rules Government Can’t Strip Second Amendment Rights from Those Convicted of Minor, Nonviolent Offenses
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held this week in Range v. Garland that the government cannot disarm people convicted of minor, nonviolent offenses. In doing so, it handed down perhaps the most significant Second Amendment victory since the Supreme Court’s landmark decision last year, where it held that Americans have a constitutional right to carry handguns in public for self-defense.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What was this case about? It was about Hunter Biden not going to jail for lying about drug use when he purchased a gun. Otherwise it would have been decided completely different.
ReplyDeleteTo be fair, the case was decided correctly and I am more concerned with other people being unfairly stripped of their rights than I am with Hunter escaping prosecution. This is an easier decision to make with weed than it is with Crack but the less restrictive power a government has over 2A the better.
DeleteThe 2A rights of a convicted felon are unchanged as well. When the country adhered to the constitution, one of the things a prisoner got when released was his guns back.
ReplyDeleteIrrelevant.
ReplyDeleteNon sequitur -- one has zero relation to the other.
* Why would a bad check invalidate my right to freely assemble, go to church?
* Why would an exaggerated insurance claim prohibit my right of free speech?
* Why would leaving the scene of an accident allow troops to be quartered in my home?