(PatriotHQ) A hungry man made a false statement to get food stamps, and fishing without a license while double parked indicate a potential threat to public safety or reach a level which justifies revoking his constitutional right to bear arms?
The court throws the book at him! Fair? HELL NO!
A federal appeals court in Philadelphia has made a ruling stating a Pennsylvania man convicted of a nonviolent crime cannot be deprived of his Second Amendment right to bear arms.
Why did this go to federal appeals court to begin with?
Bryan Range, who was convicted in 1995 for making a false statement to obtain food stamps, had completed his probation, paid restitution, and had no further criminal offenses except for minor traffic violations and fishing without a license.
While Range’s case was awaiting appeal, a landmark Second Amendment case was decided by the US Supreme Court, establishing a two-step test to determine the constitutionality of firearms restrictions. Applying this test to Range’s situation, the majority of judges (11 out of 15) concluded despite his criminal record, he still falls within the category of “the people” protected by the Second Amendment.
Therefore, it was the responsibility of the US government to demonstrate disarming Range would align with the historical tradition of firearm regulation.
The judges emphasized their decision only pertains to Range’s specific circumstances. The ruling does not invalidate the federal law banning felons from possessing firearms, as it remains valid for individuals who have committed violent crimes or pose a threat to society.
Judge Thomas Ambro, in a concurring opinion, stressed the ban on felons in possession of firearms aligns with the nation’s historical tradition and serves to disarm those deemed a threat to the orderly functioning of society.
Three dissenting opinions were expressed by Circuit Judge Patty Shwartz, who highlighted historical firearm bans on various groups and argued such restrictions justify disarming individuals like Range. She cautioned the analytical framework used in the majority opinion could potentially render most, if not all, felon firearm bans unconstitutional, a position she disagreed with, as it goes against Supreme Court sentiments and the nation’s history.
IMO – Has the justice system gone mad? Is it reasonable to question the state of the justice system when acts like burning down inner cities, assaulting police officers, allegations of President Biden hiding classified documents in his garage, and accepting bribes from foreign nations are overshadowed by the actions of a hungry individual attempting to acquire food stamps and catching a fish without a license while parked illegally?
