Take two. This time I hit record. We got a big win in the Second Amendment community out of the court, the Third Circuit US Court of Appeals, and it’s a big one. Welcome back. Take two, like I said, welcome back defenders of freedom and the Second Amendment. Today we’re gonna dive into a groundbreaking legal battle that strikes at the heart of our right to keep and bear arms. It’s the case of Brian Range versus the federal government. A fight over whether a decades-old conviction for food stamp fraud can strip a man of his god-given right to self-defense.

I don’t think it can. Let’s break it down. Here’s the setup. Brian Range, a hard-working husband and father, pleaded guilty in 1995 to making a false statement on a food stamp application. A misdemeanor punishable by up to five years in prison. Five years in prison is the problem. When it comes to guns and felon in possession and anything over two years imprisonment, that kind of catches you. That’s the loophole to get caught up in this law for misdemeanors. They’re called super misdemeanors, like driving under the influence of alcohol or operating under the influence of alcohol.

If it’s a potential of more than two, like two and a half years in prison, that trips you up on the felon in possession charge. Now, back to Range. He served no jail time. He completed three years of probation. He paid $2,458 in restitution. He paid $288.29 in court costs and a $100 fine. And other than that 1995 conviction, Range’s criminal history is limited to minor traffic and parking infractions and a summary offense for fishing without a license. You know, because big government needs to tell you how you can fish, because providing food on your own, they don’t like that.

Now, fast forward to today. The federal law still bars him from owning a firearm under the so-called felon in possession law. That’s 18 U.S.C. 922 G1. But Range had enough. He challenged this ban, arguing that it violates his Second Amendment rights. And you know what? The courts took notice. I want to take a quick second to thank the sponsor of the video, Lear Capital. Guys, I made my first purchase of gold and silver with Lear Capital over well over a year ago, and that investment is up big. Lear helped me educate myself and my family about the upcoming economic troubles and what I could do to help secure the wealth I already had.

The best part is, is they can help you too. Don’t forget to ask them about the 24-hour risk-free purchase guarantee. With over $3 billion in trusted transactions and thousands of five-star reviews, Lear Capital is the precious metal leader that I trust, and you can too. Give them a call 1-800-260-5075 or head over to leergg.com. Lear Capital, thank you for supporting the channel over the years. Alright, the crux of this argument. The Second Amendment protects the people, which includes law-abiding citizens. But does a non-violent, decades-old mistake exclude someone like Brian Range from being part of the people? The government claimed it does.

Range fired back, saying there’s no historical basis for such a broad disarmament. The case took a turn after the Supreme Court’s Bruin decision in 2022, which reinforced that gun regulations must align with our nation’s historical traditions. Applying this standard yesterday, the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in Range’s favor, declaring that his rights could not be permanently revoked over such a minor, non-violent offense. The government argued that laws historically disarm dangerous or unvirtuous individuals, but the court found no evidence that people like Brian Range, convicted of non-violent misdemeanors, were ever traditionally disarmed.

They also pointed out that disarming non-dangerous individuals would contradict the Constitution’s intent. This ruling is monumental because it challenges how broadly the government can define who is fit to exercise their Second Amendment rights. We don’t even get that right from government. How do they get to define it? If a mistake from nearly 30 years ago can’t justify disarmament, then what other unconstitutional gun restrictions might fall next? In fact, one of the judges in this case stated this, quote, we have wandered far from the reason and spirit of the Second Amendment, end quote.

Spot on. Here’s something else the court said, quote, Brian Range appeals to district court summary judgment rejecting his claim that the federal felon in possession law 18 U.S.C. 922 G. 1 violates his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. We agree with Range that despite his false statement conviction, he remains among the people protected by the Second Amendment. And because the government did not carry its burden of showing that the principles underlying our nation’s history and tradition of firearm regulation support disarming Range, we will reverse and remand. They also said, quote, our decision today is a narrow one.

Brian Range challenged the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. 922 G. 1 only as applied to him given his violation. Range remains one of the people protected by the Second Amendment and his eligibility to lawfully purchase a rifle and a shotgun is protected by his right to keep and bear arms. More than two decades after he was convicted of food stamp fraud and completed his sentence, he sought protection from prosecution under 922 G. 1 for any future possession of a firearm. The record contains no evidence that Range poses a physical danger to others. Because the government has not shown that our republic has a long-standing history and tradition of depriving people like Range of their firearms, Section 922 G.

1 cannot constitutionally strip him of his Second Amendment rights. We will reverse the judgment of the district court and remand so the court can enter a declaratory judgment for Range, enjoy an enforcement of 922 G. 1 against him and conduct any further proceedings consistent with this opinion. You know, we’ll see if the government appeals to the Supreme Court on this. My guess is they will, but we’ll stand by and pay attention. This case reminds us of why vigilance is key in protecting our freedoms. Brian Range stood up for his rights and in doing so he stood up for our rights.

Stay tuned for more updates about this case as it ripples through Second Amendment law for the next couple years to come probably. Don’t forget to like, share, and subscribe to stay informed on your right to keep and bear arms. Until next time, stay armed and stay free America. Merry Christmas. Take care. [tr:trw].

See more of Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News on their Public Channel and the MPN Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News channel.