Take two. This time I hit record. Some more breaking news out of Pam Bondi’s Department of Justice regarding their review of Second Amendment cases and actions to address infringements on our right to keep and bear arms in federal court cases. And for the second day in a row it’s more good news. This time in the Second Amendment ban for non-violent felons, specifically in the Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition case of Brian Range versus the Attorney General. First, if you care about our Second Amendment rights, hit the subscribe button down below and ring the notification bell because here on Guns and Gadgets I cover the truth about what’s really happening with our Second Amendment right every single day and it’s news that you’re not going to see ever in the mainstream media.

So support the channel by subscribing and liking. It’s free and just supports us. And a huge shout out to today’s sponsor, CMMG. Whether you’re building out your next tool, upgrading your kit, or looking for high quality components from a company that believes in the Second Amendment, CMMG has our back. They let us keep more of our credits when we use code GNG10 as well. I want to thank them for always supporting freedom and always being instrumental in supporting this channel. A couple things I want you to know. Federal law prohibits a person from possessing a firearm in or affecting commerce if the person has been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.

That we know is a felony. That’s 18 USC 922 G1. And that prohibition is subject to an exception for any state offense classified by the laws of the state as a misdemeanor and punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years or less. That’s Brian David Range was convicted of making a false statement in order to obtain food stamps. He was put on probation and paid $2458 in restitution. And decades later, federal law still banned him from owning a gun for the food stamp violation. State law classified that offense as a misdemeanor and made it punishable by up to five years of imprisonment.

And as a result of conviction, Section 922 G1 disqualified Range from possessing firearms for the rest of his life. He can never ever protect himself with a firearm. Range, along with Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition, sued the Attorney General and the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. And they argued that Section 922 G1 violated Range’s Second Amendment rights and sought declaratory and injunctive relief, preventing the government from enforcing a statute against Range. Now, the district court initially granted the government summary judgment, meaning sided with the government.

And then a panel, a three-judge panel in the Third Circuit, affirmed or upheld that judgment. The court held at that time that the people constitutionally entitled to bear arms are the law-abiding, responsible citizens of polity, a category that properly excludes those who have demonstrated disregard for the rule of law through the commission of felony and felony equivalent offenses, whether or not those crimes are violent in nature. Now, the court also determined that even if Range falls within the people, the government had met its burden to demonstrate that its prohibition is consistent with historical tradition.

But is it though? Now, the Court of Appeals granted a rehearing en banc, meaning the full court, and then it reversed and remanded the case. Now, the court first concluded that despite Range’s conviction, he remained one of the people who have Second Amendment rights. It then determined that the government had not met its burden of showing that applying 922-G to Range is consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. That’s the Bruin decision. Now, the Court stated that its decision was narrow and that it extended only to people like Range.

So, the Department of Justice had until their midnight deadline last night, just a couple hours ago, to seek Supreme Court review by a certiorari request. In that case, an Attorney General, Pam Bondi, allowed this deadline to come and to pass. This allows the pro-Second Amendment legal precedent in favor of nonviolent felons not being disarmed for life to stand, and that is a huge, huge development. For the second day in a row, the Trump Department of Justice has taken action that is actually in favor of the Second Amendment. I’ll have my video linked above if you don’t know what I’m talking about in the first one.

A huge thank you to Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition for pushing this case all the way to the Supreme Court, and if you want to support those who support you guys and gals, join SAF, join FPC, join GOA. Links are all down below. I get nothing out of them. Also, again, a big thank you to CMMG for sponsoring the channel. They make premium tools and components that are built for us, freedom of loving Americans, and have been instrumental in supporting this channel. And hey, if you guys and gals found this video helpful, if you like the good news, smash the like button down below, drop a comment, and let me know what you think about this case.

Do you think there’s more coming? On that, this case is not one of the ones I was told were coming from people behind the scenes, so this was a very welcome surprise as I woke up at about 5 a.m. this morning. Until next time, guys and gals, stay safe, stay ready, and stay free. There are some more coming, so if you want to stay in the loop, you want to be one of the first to know, then subscribe to Guns N’ Gadgets because you will see it here before you ever see it on mainstream media.

Appreciate y’all. Have a great day. God bless America. [tr:trw].

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