A federal appeals court just drew an important constitutional line: an old, nonviolent conviction is not a blank check for the government to erase a peaceable American’s Second Amendment rights for life.

The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled Tuesday that the federal felon-in-possession ban is unconstitutional as applied to Edward Williams, whose disqualifying record consisted of two driving-under-the-influence convictions from the early 2000s.

This was not a ruling that every convicted felon automatically gets a gun. It was something more careful—and more faithful to the Constitution.

In the Third Circuit’s en banc opinion, the court examined whether the government could show a historical tradition of permanently disarming someone like Williams. It could not. The court found that Williams had completed his sentences, regained civic privileges, and remained a peaceable citizen capable of bearing arms consistent with the Second Amendment’s design.

That matters because constitutional rights do not become favors dispensed by bureaucrats. If the government wants to strip a citizen of a right protected in the Bill of Rights, it must carry the burden the Constitution places on it.

ADVERTISEMENT

A label alone is not enough.

Judge Paul Matey’s opinion did not treat the Second Amendment as a second-class guarantee. It recognized armed self-defense as a natural right and a safeguard of ordered liberty—not a privilege that government can permanently cancel by reaching for the broadest possible reading of a federal statute.

The same court issued a separate decision the same day in the case of James Bost, and that ruling makes the boundary clear. Bost’s record arose from a violent carjacking and included terroristic threats, conspiracy, false imprisonment, and simple assault.

In Bost’s case, the court upheld the federal ban because history supports disarming people who pose a danger of physical violence. Judge Stephanos Bibas explained that the government may disarm people whose conduct shows a risk that guns will be misused to threaten or inflict physical harm.

Bost’s own record placed him on the dangerous side of the historical line. Williams’s two old DUI convictions did not establish the same kind of violent threat.

That contrast destroys the caricature that this decision is some reckless free-for-all. The Third Circuit protected Williams while leaving room for the government to disarm people whose records demonstrate a threat to others.

The ruling follows the Supreme Court’s history-and-tradition framework for Second Amendment cases. The government cannot simply argue that a restriction sounds useful today; it must identify a relevant American historical tradition that supports the restriction it wants to impose.

The Firearms Policy Coalition’s case record shows that Williams brought an as-applied challenge focused on his own circumstances. He did not ask the court to pretend his convictions never happened or to wipe the federal statute off the books.

Instead, Williams argued that permanently disarming him did not fit the nation’s historical tradition. The en banc court agreed after examining his record, the restoration of his civic rights, and the government’s failure to show that he belonged to a historically disarmed class.

ADVERTISEMENT

That is an important limit on the holding. The court did not erase the statute; it refused to let the government use it mechanically against a man whose history did not place him within the traditional category of dangerous people who could be disarmed.

For years, Washington has treated the word “felon” as if it ends every constitutional inquiry. But legislatures can attach felony penalties to an enormous range of conduct.

If that classification alone were enough to destroy a fundamental right forever, lawmakers could decide the scope of the Constitution simply by changing a penalty on paper.

The Third Circuit refused to hand government that kind of power. It demanded evidence, history, and a real connection to dangerousness.

That is how constitutional adjudication is supposed to work. Violent people can be disarmed when the government proves they fall within a historically recognized category.

Peaceable citizens do not lose a core civil right forever merely because a prosecutor can point to a decades-old conviction carrying the right statutory label.

This decision is a major Second Amendment victory because it restores the proper order: the Constitution is the rule, government power is the exception, and the burden belongs to the state.

 

Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.