557 F.Supp.3d 609
E.D. Pa.2021Background
- In 1995 Range pled guilty to making a false statement to obtain food-stamp assistance (62 Pa. C.S. § 481(a)), then classified as a first‑degree misdemeanor punishable by up to five years.
- He received three years' probation, restitution, fines, and no jail time; his wife prepared and signed the application but was not charged.
- Range later attempted to buy firearms but was denied by background checks; he ultimately sold his only firearm after learning § 922(g) barred him from possession and sued for a declaratory judgment that § 922(g) as applied to him violated the Second Amendment.
- The Court applied the Third Circuit’s Binderup/Marzzarella framework: step one asks whether the challenger committed a sufficiently "serious" offense such that historical disarmament would remove Second Amendment protection.
- The Court found a cross‑jurisdictional consensus (39+ jurisdictions) treating similar conduct as a felony and concluded Range’s offense was sufficiently "serious," so his Second Amendment challenge failed at step one.
- The Court granted the Government’s motion for summary judgment and denied Range’s motion; it did not reach step two (heightened scrutiny) because the challenger lost at step one.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 922(g) as applied to Range violates the Second Amendment because his conviction was a non‑violent misdemeanor | Range: his crime is not "serious" under Binderup — misdemeanor label, no violence, no jail, poverty/contextual facts show lesser culpability | Gov: cross‑jurisdictional consensus and Congress’s disarmament choice show the conduct is sufficiently serious to remove Second Amendment protection | Court: Held for Government — crime is "serious"; § 922(g) constitutional as applied (Range loses at step one) |
| Proper scope of cross‑jurisdictional inquiry (which states’ laws count) | Range: consider only jurisdictions that criminalize false food‑stamp statements specifically | Gov: consider all 50 states and analogous falsification/theft statutes | Court: Held for Government — consider all 50 states; Range’s narrower approach rejected |
| Weight of misdemeanor classification | Range: misdemeanor label and lack of jail time should be dispositive or heavily weigh in his favor | Gov: other factors (consensus, Congress’s view, harm potential) can be dispositive; felony label not the only path to seriousness | Court: Held for Government — although misdemeanor label matters, cross‑jurisdictional consensus (and related factors) can be generally conclusive that offense is serious |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (recognized individual right to possess firearms; stated longstanding prohibitions on felons presumptively lawful)
- Binderup v. Attorney General of the United States, 836 F.3d 336 (en banc) (Third Circuit multifactor test for when a conviction renders a person outside Second Amendment protection)
- United States v. Marzzarella, 614 F.3d 85 (adopted two‑step approach for assessing Second Amendment challenges)
- Holloway v. Attorney General United States, 948 F.3d 164 (applied Binderup factors and emphasized potential for physical harm as a factor supporting disarmament)
- Folajtar v. Attorney General of the United States, 980 F.3d 897 (noted legislature’s felony classification is generally conclusive that an offense is serious)
- Beers v. Attorney General, 927 F.3d 150 (explained Marks rule application making Judge Ambro’s Binderup opinion controlling)