Federal Appeals Court Limits Gun Ban for Nonviolent Felons

A federal appeals court has ruled that a federal ban on firearm possession by convicted felons cannot be constitutionally applied to individuals whose prior offenses did not involve violence or threats that indicate a risk of misusing firearms.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued two rulings on Tuesday that clarify the application of the federal prohibition under the Second Amendment. The court upheld the restriction against a man convicted of carjacking but found it could not be applied to another man based on his prior drunk-driving convictions.

In one case, James Bost was convicted of terroristic threats, criminal conspiracy, false imprisonment, and simple assault following a 2002 carjacking. He faced federal firearms charges after being found in possession of a gun. Bost argued the federal ban violated his Second Amendment rights. U.S. Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas, writing for the majority, stated that individuals convicted of crimes demonstrating a risk of physical violence through the misuse of firearms may presumptively be disarmed. "The right to keep and bear arms has limits, and this is one: Those who pose a risk of physical violence from misusing guns can be disarmed before that risk becomes a reality," Bibas wrote.

In a separate case, the court ruled that the federal firearms restriction could not be constitutionally applied to Edward Williams based on his prior convictions for driving under the influence in the early 2000s. One of these convictions triggered the federal ban, which typically applies to offenses punishable by more than one year in prison. Williams had served a term of home confinement and sued to declare the law unconstitutional as applied to his offense. U.S. Circuit Judge Paul Matey wrote that Williams is "a peaceable citizen, capable of bearing arms consistent with the design of the Second Amendment." He added, "And with that rehabilitation comes restoration of the civic privileges guaranteed to citizens by the Constitution, and the freedom to again exercise the natural right of armed defense against threats and tyranny."

U.S. Circuit Judge Arianna Freeman, in a dissenting opinion, argued that prior convictions should be disarming not only if they involve violence or threats but also if they demonstrate a credible threat to public safety, even without explicit violence. She contended that offenses like drunk driving should also be covered because they show that a person "poses a credible threat to the physical safety of others."

Joshua Prince, an attorney for Williams, praised the ruling, stating it clarified that there is no historical tradition of stripping individuals with nonviolent convictions who do not pose a public threat of their Second Amendment rights. The rulings come amid a series of cases assessing the constitutionality of modern gun restrictions under the legal standard established by the Supreme Court in its 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. That ruling held that modern gun restrictions must be consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.