Federal court rules that criminals in the US should not be deprived of the right to guns
The US government cannot prevent people convicted of non-violent crimes from owning guns. That decision was made by a federal appeals court in Pennsylvania. Writes about it Reuters.
Photo: IStock
The decision of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania was another defeat for gun control laws following last year's U.S. Supreme Court ruling to expand gun ownership nationwide.
The decision stems from a 2020 lawsuit initiated by Pennsylvania resident Brian Range. Under federal law, he was banned from owning a gun after pleading guilty to Social Security fraud. He claimed that the ban violated his right to bear arms under the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.
On the subject: Florida residents were allowed to openly carry weapons in public places: they do not need to undergo training and obtain licenses
“We are very pleased that the 3rd Circuit protected our client’s rights by faithfully applying the Supreme Court’s decision,” wrote Renge’s attorney, Peter Patterson.
In 1995, Range pleaded guilty to Pennsylvania Social Security fraud to obtain $2 in food stamps. This offense is punishable by up to five years in prison. He was also sentenced to three years probation.
Federal criminal law generally prohibits people convicted of crimes punishable by more than a year in prison from owning a gun. Such crimes are usually criminal, but the law includes some misdemeanors, such as the Range crime, among other things.
A federal judge ruled against Range in 2021. However, last June the US Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects the right of people to carry guns in public in self-defense and that any restrictions on that right must comply with national law.
You may be interested in: top New York news, stories of our immigrants and helpful tips about life in the Big Apple - read it all on ForumDaily New York
District Judge Thomas Hardiman wrote that the government did not point to any laws passed at the founding of the United States establishing a tradition of disarming nonviolent criminals.
Four of the 15 judges disagreed.
“Where the legislature has made a reasonable and considered decision to disarm those who show contempt of the law, unelected judges should not replace that decision with their own,” wrote District Judge Cheryl Ann Krause, one of the dissenters.
Read also on ForumDaily:
How to buy a good car cheaply in America
Five bad habits that can lead to vision loss
How to get a credit card in the USA if you do not have a job, income or credit history
Credit Card Fraud: Xnumx Ways to Cheat
Talking cars and recharging from the road: how technology will change driving
Subscribe to ForumDaily on Google NewsDo you want more important and interesting news about life in the USA and immigration to America? — support us donate! Also subscribe to our page Facebook. Select the “Priority in display” option and read us first. Also, don't forget to subscribe to our РєР ° РЅР ° Р »РІ Telegram and Instagram- there is a lot of interesting things there. And join thousands of readers ForumDaily New York — there you will find a lot of interesting and positive information about life in the metropolis.
Editor's Choice
