Posted on 06/12/2023 7:02:17 AM PDT by marktwain
On June 6, 2023, The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in the case Range v Lombardo, issued an opinion:
The opinion was agreed to by nine of the fifteen judges in the circuit. Readers are urged to read the entire 107 pages. Excerpts of the main opinion are included below. From the en banc decision:
On page 4, the majority opinion gives a summation:
Bryan Range appeals the District Court’s summary judgment rejecting his claim that the federal “felon-in-possession” law—18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)—violates his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. We agree with Range that, despite his false statement conviction, he remains among “the people” protected by the Second Amendment. And because the Government did not carry its burden of showing that our Nation’s history and tradition of firearm regulation support disarming Range, we will reverse and remand.
On page 5, a short explanation of the case:
The material facts are undisputed. In 1995, Range pleaded guilty in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County to one count of making a false statement to obtain food stamps in violation of Pennsylvania law. See 62 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 481(a). In those days, Range was earning between $9.00 and $9.50 an hour as he and his wife struggled to raise three young children on $300 per week. Range’s wife prepared an application for food stamps that understated Range’s income, which she and Range signed. Though he did not recall reviewing the application, Range accepted full responsibility for the misrepresentation.
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
If the States can define "felonies" at will, and felons are categorically denied Second Amendment rights, then the States can deny Second Amendment rights to large segments of the population at will.
shall...
not...
be...
infringed.
FL had such a problem with crack cocaine that they made possession of any amount a felony. Whole lot of people became felons over $20 worth.
>>The other [dissenting opinion] is the power granted by modern interpretations of the Commerce Clause overrides the Bill of Rights.
Whoever that “judge” is, should be removed from the bench. That’s just criminally ignorant.
Here is part of the dissent from Judge Roth of the Third Circuit:
In Bruen, the Supreme Court considered whether a regulation issued by a state government was a facially constitutional exercise of its traditional police power. Range presents a distinguishable question: Whether a federal statute, which the Supreme Court has upheld as a valid exercise of Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause,2 is constitutional as applied to him. The parties and the Majority conflate these spheres of authority and fail to address binding precedents affirming Congress’s power to regulate the possession of firearms in interstate commerce. Because Range lacks standing under the applicable Commerce Clause jurisprudence, I respectfully dissent.
“Shall not be infringed…”
Ironically, those felons who spent time in prison are very familiar with the importance of self defense. Even once freed, they are likely surrounded by many other criminals who know them and that use violent means for many reasons.
This is why the #1 rights restoration sought by them from judges, when allowed, is their right to keep and bear arms.
It is tragic that such people, when defending themselves against violent offenders, would have been well within their rights to shoot them otherwise, but are arrested for being a “felon with a gun”.
Perhaps most notable for the stunning, horrifying argument asserted by the minority that the Commerce clause over-rides the Bill of Rights.
Ask yourself this: Does the Commerce clause enable the federal government to prohibit abortion, which, unlike self-defense, (1) is commerce, (2) is not explicitly established as a right in the Constitution at all, (3) was generally illegal at the time of the nation’s founding and (4) would be an action by the U.S. Congress?
If the 2nd amendment can be brushed aside by the Commmerce clause, what liberty can withstand the whims of Congress asserting the Commerce clause? Does not a Church need to raise money?
Before the CGA of 68 and later expansion by Brady 93... Felons weren’t a “second class Citizen” once their sentences were served and any probationary periods expired.
“Do the crime, do your time” has literally become a life sentence for even non-violent felons like Wesley Snipes and Martha Stewart.
Beyond that, we have so many State and Federal laws that can make you a felon without even knowing it that people have literally written books about it.
https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229
This is an injustice that is long overdue for correction.
It is just Progressive ideology at work. The whole "commerce is everything" application of the Commerce clause is absurd. The basic philosophy of Progressivism is any restraint on the power of the government is bad. The Constitution is outdated and must be ignored or worked around.
The Commerce Clause is a major one of those "workarounds".
THanks for including a direct link to the decision iteself!
If you can’t be trusted to be armed, you should not be running around loose.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.