In Range v. Attorney General, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled on December 23, 2024 that the federal lifetime ban on firearm possession is unconstitutional as applied to a person whose only disqualifying conviction was non-violent. The en banc court voted 10-2 in favor of Bryan Range, with three additional judges concurring in the result, and held that the government failed to justify permanently disarming him for a decades-old food-stamp fraud conviction.1U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Range v Attorney General The decision binds federal courts in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Elsewhere, the federal appeals courts remain sharply divided.
Who Bryan Range Is and Why He Lost His Gun Rights
In 1995, Bryan Range pleaded guilty under Pennsylvania law to making a false statement to obtain food stamps. The offense was classified as a state misdemeanor, and he received three years of probation, which he completed without incident.
Years later, Range tried to buy a firearm and was denied. His misdemeanor carried a maximum possible sentence of five years in prison, even though he never served a day. Under federal law, anyone convicted of an offense punishable by more than one year in prison is permanently prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition, regardless of the actual sentence or whether the crime involved violence.2Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 922 – Unlawful Acts
Federal law does exempt state misdemeanors punishable by two years or less. Range’s five-year maximum sat well above that threshold, so federal law treated his misdemeanor the same as a felony.3Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 921 – Definitions The label a state uses does not control. The potential prison exposure does.
What the Third Circuit Actually Decided
The court made two findings, and the second is where the ruling lives.
First, Range remained part of “the people” protected by the Second Amendment despite his conviction. The majority rejected the government’s argument that any qualifying conviction strips a person of constitutional protection, reading the Supreme Court’s earlier references to “law-abiding, responsible citizens” as descriptive rather than a categorical exclusion.1U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Range v Attorney General
Second, the government failed to identify a historical tradition of permanently disarming people for non-violent offenses like fraud. Under the framework the Supreme Court set in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the government must show that a modern firearm restriction is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.4Supreme Court of the United States. New York State Rifle and Pistol Association Inc v Bruen The Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in United States v. Rahimi softened that test by clarifying that a “historical twin” is not required, only an analogous law reflecting a comparable principle, and it upheld disarming people subject to domestic violence restraining orders because founding-era laws disarmed those who posed a credible physical threat.5Supreme Court of the United States. United States v Rahimi Range’s panel read that distinction as helping him. Historical disarmament targeted dangerousness. Food-stamp fraud is not that.
The ruling is narrow on purpose. It did not strike down the federal firearm ban, and it did not automatically restore rights to anyone besides Range. Other people with non-violent convictions in the Third Circuit’s territory would need to bring their own challenges and win them on their own facts.
Where the Decision Applies, and Where It Doesn’t
The Third Circuit’s authority covers Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.6United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. About the Court Outside those jurisdictions, the answer to whether a non-violent conviction permanently strips gun rights depends on which federal circuit you live in.
The First, Third, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Circuits have all recognized that the federal ban may be unconstitutional as applied to certain individuals, though they differ on how to evaluate the challenge.7Congress.gov. Congressional Court Watcher – Circuit Splits from November 2025 The Fifth Circuit, for instance, held in United States v. Hembree that permanently disarming someone for simple drug possession was unconstitutional, and it focused its analysis on the triggering offense rather than the person’s entire criminal history.
The Second, Fourth, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits have upheld the ban categorically, treating any qualifying felony as sufficient to justify permanent disarmament.7Congress.gov. Congressional Court Watcher – Circuit Splits from November 2025 In those circuits, an as-applied challenge is almost certainly a losing effort under current precedent. The Tenth Circuit, after being told by the Supreme Court to reconsider one such case in light of Rahimi, concluded that Rahimi did not change its analysis and reaffirmed that felon disarmament laws are presumptively valid.
Even among the circuits that allow challenges, there is a meaningful split over what a court should examine. The Third and Sixth Circuits look at the person’s full criminal history and post-conviction conduct to assess continuing dangerousness. The Fifth Circuit focuses only on the specific felony that triggered the ban. Same record, different standard, depending on geography.
What Range Does Not Do
A favorable ruling for one plaintiff is not a blanket exemption for anyone else. Until a court issues an order that specifically applies to you, the federal ban remains in full force against you, and possessing a firearm in the meantime is a federal felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison. Repeat offenders with three or more prior convictions for violent felonies or serious drug offenses face a mandatory minimum of 15 years under the Armed Career Criminal Act.8Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 US Code 924 – Penalties
The ban also reaches further than many people realize. A prohibited person cannot legally possess any firearm or ammunition, and constructive possession counts. If you know a firearm is in your home and can access it, a court can treat that as possession, even if the gun belongs to a spouse or roommate. Storing a friend’s shotgun is possession. Keeping an old hunting rifle in a closet is possession.
Bringing an As-Applied Challenge After Range
Within the Third Circuit, the practical use of Range is what lawyers call an as-applied challenge: a lawsuit arguing that the federal ban is unconstitutional when applied to you specifically, given the nature of your conviction and your history since.
Courts in the Third Circuit evaluating such a challenge make individualized factual findings about whether the person still presents a danger of misusing firearms. That inquiry looks at:
- The nature of the original offense and the conduct behind the conviction.
- The person’s full criminal history, including misdemeanors.
- Post-conviction behavior bearing on whether the person remains dangerous.
A single non-violent conviction followed by decades of clean living makes a strong case. Multiple convictions weaken it, even if all are non-violent. Any post-conviction conduct suggesting dangerousness can sink the challenge. The core question is not whether the original crime was violent, but whether disarming this person today fits a restriction with historical support.
These cases are slow and expensive. They require attorneys experienced in Second Amendment litigation, involve extended fact-finding at the trial level, and can take years. Fees range from under a thousand dollars for a straightforward state-level restoration petition to many thousands for a contested federal constitutional challenge. There is no guarantee of success.
Faster Routes to Restoring Firearm Rights
For most people, a federal lawsuit is not the first option to consider. Several alternatives can remove the federal disability without new constitutional litigation, and their availability depends on the type of conviction and the state involved.
An expungement, pardon, or restoration of civil rights generally erases the disqualifying effect of a conviction under federal law. The exception is important: if the pardon, expungement, or restoration order itself says the person may not possess firearms, the federal ban stays in place.3Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 921 – Definitions
For federal convictions, a presidential pardon removes the firearm disability entirely. For state convictions, a governor’s pardon or a state restoration of civil rights removes the federal disability, so long as it fully restores the right to possess firearms under that state’s law.9Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. 27 CFR 478.142 – Effect of Pardons and Expunctions of Convictions
Federal law also technically allows a petition to the ATF for relief from the firearm ban. In practice, Congress has refused to fund the program for decades and the ATF cannot process applications. That path is effectively closed.
The availability of expungement, pardon, and civil-rights restoration varies widely by state. Some states have accessible petition processes; others make it extremely difficult. Anyone weighing options should start with the specific procedures in the state where the conviction occurred.
Updating Your Background Check Record After a Win
A favorable court order does not automatically update the databases used for firearm background checks. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System pulls records from federal, state, and local agencies, and those records do not correct themselves.
If you obtain an order in your favor, submit it to the FBI’s NICS Appeal Services Team along with your name, mailing address, and any transaction number from a prior denial. The appeal can be submitted by mail or online. If the FBI confirms eligibility, you will receive written notification that you may proceed with a purchase, and that documentation must be presented to the licensed dealer who ran the background check. You may also need to contact the agency that maintains the underlying criminal record. If NICS cannot resolve the issue with what you submit, it will refer you to that agency directly.10FBI. NICS Guide for Appealing
What Remains Unsettled
Range answered one question cleanly: the federal firearm ban cannot constitutionally be applied to Bryan Range for a food-stamp fraud conviction. Almost everything else is open. Courts are still working out how dangerous a prior offense must be to justify permanent disarmament, whether drug offenses fall on the violent or non-violent side of the line, and how much weight rehabilitation carries.
The Supreme Court has so far declined to take up a case that would directly resolve whether non-violent felons can be permanently disarmed. Rahimi confirmed that dangerousness matters but stopped short of drawing a bright line for felon-in-possession cases. Until the Court weighs in, whether a non-violent conviction ends your gun rights for life depends on the circuit you live in. In the Third Circuit after Range, it might not. In most of the country, it still does.