The case of David Bryan Range v. United States Attorney General, as decided by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals on June 6th, provides the legal foundation for non-violent offenders to reclaim their Second Amendment rights. This precedent-setting case recognizes the moral and legal justification for non-violent former felons to own and possess firearms consistent with our Constitution, American history, and traditions.
I pled guilty to a non-violent conspiracy charge related to my employment in 2010 to avoid a possible prison term of 20 years or more and over $1 million in legal fees. My wife said she could wait five years but not 20. Pleading guilty was the best business decision I ever made. The judge initially sentenced me to a 60-month prison sentence. Due to my cooperation with the government, the judge reduced my sentence to 48 months, and I spent 37 months in prison.
Despite my non-violent nature and productive life, I, like all non-violent felony offenders, am prohibited from owning firearms, infringing upon my Second Amendment rights. This disenfranchisement has prompted me to follow Range and take pro se legal action today in the Northern District of Georgia with a civil rights lawsuit against the US Attorney General, Merrick Garland, and the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Steven Dettelman, seeking to pursue justice and restore my constitutional rights.
I am a responsible family man, a self-employed, law-abiding citizen, and I have no other criminal record. I pose no threat to public safety. The facts of my case, combined with the opinion of the Third Circuit, argue against the application of the firearms prohibition imposed on me by 18 USC § 922(g)(1).
The Third Circuit’s ruling in the Range case aligns with recent Supreme Court decisions, such as New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen and District of Columbia v. Heller. These decisions emphasize that the Second Amendment protects the individual’s conduct and must be considered within the context of historical tradition. In light of this legal framework, it becomes apparent that my conviction should not deprive me of my constitutional rights.
My lawsuit seeks relief in the form of a declaration that the application of 18 USC § 922(g)(1) against me is unconstitutional. I am requesting an injunction against enforcing this provision based on my conviction and issuing a Unique Personal Identification Number (UPIN) under the National Instant Background Check System (NICS) to facilitate the purchase of firearms. These actions aim to establish that my conviction does not necessitate acknowledging a disabling factor when purchasing firearms.
The lawsuit against Merrick Garland is not an attack on law enforcement or public safety measures. Instead, it is a call for restorative justice and the recognition that individuals who have paid their debt to society and have demonstrated exemplary behavior should not face a lifetime prohibition on firearm ownership. After all, a debt paid to society should be considered a debt paid in full.
The Range case highlights the need for a more nuanced and individualized approach to firearm restrictions, considering each person’s circumstances and conduct rather than applying a blanket ban based solely on past convictions.