Federal appeals court rules some non-violent felons can legally own guns

The 3rd Circuit ruled that the federal felony gun ban applies to violent criminals, but not to people whose DUI convictions stem from the early 2000s.

Supreme Court issues major rulings on gun rights, asylum

Shannon Bream provides breaking news from the Supreme Court on important decisions on gun rights and immigration. A court struck down Hawaii's law on the carrying of firearms in private establishments, a victory for supporters of the Second Amendment. Additionally, the court upheld the Trump administration's immigration policy.

A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that a federal ban on gun ownership by convicted felons cannot constitutionally apply to some people whose prior crimes were violent or threatening to pose a risk of firearm misuse.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued two rulings determining when the federal ban on gun possession by convicted felons can be enforced under the Second Amendment.

The court, which includes several judges appointed by President Donald Trump, upheld a firearms ban against a man with a carjacking conviction, but ruled that the ban could not apply to another man based on his previous drunken driving convictions.

One of the cases decided Tuesday involved James Best, who pleaded guilty to terroristic threats, criminal conspiracy, false imprisonment and simple assault in Pennsylvania state court after a 2002 carjacking.

A major appeals court ruled New Jersey's AR-15 ban unconstitutional in a Second Amendment ruling

Bost was later indicted on federal firearms charges after authorities found him in possession of a gun despite previous convictions. He sought dismissal of the charges, arguing that the federal ban violated his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Stephanus Bibas, who wrote for the majority in the decision against Best, said people convicted of crimes that present a risk of physical violence through the misuse of firearms are likely to be disarmed based on those convictions.

"There are limits to the right to keep and bear arms, and this is one: Those who are at risk of physical violence from the misuse of guns can be disarmed before that risk becomes a reality," Bibas, an appointee of President Donald Trump, wrote.

In a separate case involving Edward Williams, the court ruled that a federal firearms restriction could not constitutionally apply to him based on his previous drunken driving convictions in the early 2000s. One of those convictions triggered a federal ban that generally applies to crimes that carry more than a year in prison.

Williams was sentenced to 90 days to two years in prison, to be served under house arrest. After learning that the conviction barred him from owning a gun, he sued to declare the law unconstitutional, consistent with his crime.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that the original federal law used to prevent felons from owning guns did not violate the Second Amendment. The conviction involved violence or credible threats to the safety of others. (Yasin Ozturk/ Ambassador Arjan)

In a letter to the court, Trump appointee U.S. Magistrate Paul Mattei rejected the Justice Department's argument that historical restrictions on "habitual drunkards" justified a federal firearms ban on Williams.

Matty described Williams as a "peaceful citizen, able to bear arms in accordance with the Second Amendment scheme."

"And with that restoration shall come the civil privileges guaranteed by the Constitution to citizens and the liberty to exercise again the natural right of armed defense against threats and oppression," the judge wrote.

U.S. Justice Arianna Freeman, writing separately in dissent from the majority's reasoning, said she parted ways with the majority "when it says that a prior conviction is disarmed only if it involved violence or threats."

DOJ Threatens to Sue California Over 'GLOCK Ban', Controversy Law Violates 2nd Amendment

Freeman argued that the Second Amendment also permits restrictions on individuals whose criminal conduct presents a credible threat to public safety, even when their crimes do not involve violence or express threats.

The judge argued that while convictions for crimes involving violence or threats qualify, other crimes, such as drunk driving, should also be covered because they show that a person "poses a credible threat to the physical safety of others."

Williams' attorney, Joshua Prince, praised the ruling, saying the decision makes clear that "there is no historical tradition of denying the Second Amendment rights of people with non-violent convictions who do not pose a threat to the public by possessing a gun."

The rulings come as a series of cases assess whether modern gun restrictions are legal under a new legal standard established by the Supreme Court's 2022 Second Amendment decision.

In a 6-3 ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Supreme Court held that modern gun restrictions must be "consistent with this nation's historic tradition of firearm regulation."

Trump Announces Massive Greenland Oil, Gas and Mineral Exploration Plans, Supports National Security Benefits

The Trump administration is shortening the time for refugees to challenge the loss of legal status

New York Mayor Zahran Mamdani says she will not fire New York Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch despite pressure from socialists.