PHILADELPHIA, June 7 (AP) – A U.S. appeals court ruled Tuesday that nonviolent offenders should not be banned for life from guns, the latest in a recent Supreme Court decision directing judges to weigh guns against history and tradition Regulatory constitutional law.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit voted 11-4 in favor of a man who admitted to underreporting his income in 1995 to receive about $2,500 in food stamps for his family.
While the case involved misdemeanors and Bryan Range received only probation, he faces up to five years in prison. The potential penalty sparked a Pennsylvania ban on gun possession for those facing at least a year in prison.
The 11-4 majority — which overturned a lower court ruling after the Supreme Court ruled against Bruen — was guided by gun laws dating back to the 18th century, but found none of them considered a threat to nonviolent offenders. Implement a lifetime arms ban.
Circuit Judge Thomas Hardiman noted in a footnote to his majority opinion that even rebels who participated in the Massachusetts Tax Rebellion of 1787, known as Shay’s Rebellion, could usually get their weapons back three years later, the The opinion said the ruling was narrow in scope.
“Scope remains one of those persons protected by the Second Amendment whose eligibility to legally purchase rifles and shotguns is protected by his right to keep and bear arms,” wrote Hardiman, who is on the Supreme Court shortlist Nominated in 2017, when President Trump selected Justice Neil Gorsuch.
In its Brune decision last year, the Supreme Court dropped the balancing test that lower courts have long used to decide gun control cases. Instead of considering whether the law serves the public interest, such as promoting public safety, judges must find that the ban is in line with the country’s “historic tradition of gun control.” The ruling led the court to overturn gun bans designed to keep weapons away from domestic abusers, felony defendants and marijuana users.
Legal experts say the ensuing confusion and conflicting opinions could lead the High Court to reopen the issue.
On Tuesday, Judge Cheryl Ann Krause, an Obama appointee, said in her dissent that history and tradition might be appropriate if the weapons ban involves “smooth-bore and flintlock pistols.”
Instead, she said, our divided country is awash with assault rifles, high-capacity magazines and semi-automatic pistols, while mass shootings “happen every day.” In her view, lawmakers, as elected representatives, “have the burden of enacting legislation that both protects the right to armed self-defense and ensures public safety.”
“Despite the changing challenges they face in pursuing these two goals, achieving this delicate balance has long been a core function of the legislature in our system of separation of powers, and legislatures Agencies have the authority to disarm those who cannot be trusted. The law has long been central to this effort.” (AP)
(This is an unedited and auto-generated story from a Syndicated News feed, the content body may not have been modified or edited by LatestLY staff)