This article appeared in Knife Magazine in January 2024.
Know Your Knife Laws – Range v. US AG
By Anthony Sculimbrene, Attorney and Knife Expert
With Bruen reshaping the landscape of Second Amendment law, a lot has been written in the courts and by legal commentators (including me) about WHAT is covered. Only recently have we seen post-Bruen cases look at WHO is covered. Work on these kinds of cases is occurring all over the US, with federal defender offices regularly pursuing cases that challenge or seek to overturn firearm arms convictions in federal court. All of this is possible because of a case called Range v. AG of the United States, 69 F.4th 96 (3d Cir. June 5, 2023).
Two pieces of background are necessary before we examine Range and how it impacts knife owners. First, as we learned in Heller and Bruen, the Second Amendment allows “the people” to own certain kinds of arms. Most of the litigation so far has focused on whether a specific arm falls within the protections of the Second Amendment. The term “the people” was confined in case law to law-abiding citizens. But that has not really been fleshed out until now. Second, most weapons cases in federal court land there not because someone has held up a bank with a gun (though some of them are these traditional firearms offenses) but instead because of 922(g) offenses. 18 USC 922(g) is a federal statute that makes it a federal crime for people with certain criminal convictions to own firearms. By number, the vast majority of federal gun cases are state law violations, with a single violation of 922(g) tacked on to get the case to federal court, where the prosecutors are vastly better funded, have lower caseloads, and sentences are much, much higher. Bryan David Range is one of those who committed a very minor offense and yet found himself in federal court.
In 1995, Bryan David Range was making between $9.00 and $9.50 an hour. He and his wife struggled to raise three children on roughly $300 a week. Range’s wife filed for food stamps. Range and his wife both signed the application and received food stamps. Range remembers signing the form but not reviewing it on his own. Range was later charged with a misdemeanor false statement charge because of a small error in the form regarding his income. After owning up to his mistake, he paid $2,458 in restitution, $288.29 in costs, and $100 in fines and remained crime-free for the rest of his life (he was crime-free before this as well). In 1998, Range attempted to buy a gun for deer hunting season. He was rejected because of the false statement case. Thinking this was a mistake, his wife later bought him a rifle as a gift. Years after, Range, investigating why he was rejected in 1998, realized that he was violating the law by keeping his wife’s gift and selling it to a firearms dealer. After all of this confusion, Range brought suit to determine if he could, in fact, own a gun. The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, post-Bruen, determined that he could.
The district court, applying the pre-Bruen factors regarding bans on “unvirtuous citizens” from owning arms, found that even though four of the five factors broke in Range’s favor (which the Government conceded), that the ban in 18 USC 922(g)(1) still barred Range from owning a gun. Post-Bruen, however, this multifactor test, according to the 3rd Circuit, no longer applied. Instead, courts should consult history when determining who is a “virtuous citizen” covered by the Second Amendment. Additionally, the Government bears the burden of showing that a person is part of a historically-recognized group banned from owning arms.
The Range Court first starts out by finding that Range is among “the people” who have rights under the Second Amendment. While he does have a minor conviction, the phrase “the people” is used elsewhere in the Constitution and a conviction does not bar people from using their rights under those provisions. “…[W]e reject the Government’s contention that only ‘law-abiding, responsible citizens’ are counted among ‘the people’ protected by the Second Amendment.” Next, the Court finds that 922(g)(1) clearly impacts a Second Amendment right. Finally, the Court examines whether the Government can prove that historically, those like Range can be denied their right to bear arms. As Range is neither a felon nor an individual who committed a firearms offense, the Government failed to carry its burden to show that he is part of a group that has been historically stripped of their right to bear arms.
With that opinion, the 3rd Circuit greatly expanded who could possess arms and severely limited the scope of 922(g)(1)’s reach. Folks who want to own knives and firearms but can’t due to youthful indiscretions may now be able to do so lawfully. If you think you would be able to possess arms post-Range, contact a local criminal lawyer about Range’s applicability to your case.
The American Knife & Tool Institute (AKTI) does not provide criminal law services, as the attorney must be licensed to practice in your state. We do not have the resources to assist with individual legal fees. We can, however, provide resources and or guidance to your attorney, and they can contact us through the website www.AKTI.org.
For information on the knife laws in all fifty states and Washington, D.C., visit www.stateknifelaws.com. Also, check out the resources available for understanding knife laws.