According to William Kirk of Washington Gun Law, “No news today is big news.” That’s how he framed the Department of Justice’s quiet but seismic decision not to appeal the case of Range v. Attorney General to the U.S. Supreme Court. The deadline passed at midnight, and with no move from the DOJ, the Third Circuit’s ruling stands. In essence, the Biden-era legal precedent that permanently stripped nonviolent felons of their Second Amendment rights just took a major hit – and the DOJ, now led by Attorney General Pam Bondi under the Trump administration, chose not to stop it.
This lack of action isn’t just procedural apathy. It signals a strategic retreat by federal prosecutors, one that opens the door for millions of Americans previously disarmed under 18 USC § 922(g)(1) – many for nonviolent offenses dating back decades. The law, often used to permanently ban felons from firearm ownership, has now been declared unconstitutional as applied to Brian Range, a Pennsylvania man whose sole conviction involved food stamp fraud in 1995.
The Man Behind the Case: Brian Range
As explained by Guns & Gadgets host Jared Yanis, Range was convicted in 1995 for making a false statement to obtain food stamps. He was sentenced to probation, paid restitution, and went on with his life. Yet for nearly 30 years afterward, he was prohibited by federal law from ever owning a firearm. Yanis points out the absurdity: “Decades later, federal law still banned him from owning a gun for the food stamp violation.”
It was a textbook example of federal overreach. Range was not violent. He was never deemed dangerous. And yet, under the strict language of §922(g)(1), he was permanently disqualified from exercising a fundamental right.
A Legal Reversal for the Ages
Mark W. Smith, attorney and host of The Four Boxes Diner, emphasized just how historic the Third Circuit’s reversal truly was. By a vote of 13–2, the full en banc panel declared the federal statute unconstitutional as applied to Range, because there is no historical tradition of disarming people who are neither violent nor dangerous. That phrasing is important – “no historical tradition” – because it aligns precisely with the Supreme Court’s Bruen test, which demands a clear historical basis for modern gun restrictions.
“This decision isn’t just a win,” Smith declared. “It’s a cinder block in the foundation of restoring rights to millions of Americans.” According to Smith, this isn’t just about one man – it’s about precedent. And by choosing not to appeal, the DOJ let that precedent stand.
A Shift in DOJ Strategy
William Kirk addressed the elephant in the room: why would the DOJ suddenly not pursue a gun control case to the highest court? Kirk suggests this might be a sign of a philosophical shift under Attorney General Pam Bondi. He admits he was skeptical at first, like many in the 2A community, but recent moves have changed the calculus.
“There is significant progress being made,” Kirk said, citing Bondi’s restructuring of the ATF and her cooperation with 26 state attorneys general. “We’re not saying she’s the Second Amendment savior,” he added. “But the pace is picking up – and this case is a clear sign.”
Why the DOJ Backed Down
Jared Yanis speculates that the DOJ’s decision may stem from fear of a bigger loss. If the Supreme Court had taken Range, it could have expanded the ruling nationwide, rather than leaving it contained within the Third Circuit. “This allows the pro–Second Amendment legal precedent to stand,” Yanis said. “And that’s a huge, huge development.”
He’s right. Letting the decision stand without a Supreme Court showdown means the DOJ avoids a broader ruling that could dismantle even more of §922(g). It’s a tactical retreat – but one that still moves the needle in favor of gun rights.
Rahimi and the New Precedent Puzzle
All three commentators, Kirk, Yanis, and Smith, highlighted the influence of another Supreme Court case: United States v. Rahimi. Though controversial, the ruling in Rahimi attempted to draw a line between individuals who are merely “irresponsible” and those who are actively “dangerous.” The Court essentially stated that dangerousness, not just criminality, is a necessary condition for disarmament.
Kirk was initially critical of the Rahimi decision, but in hindsight, he believes it played a key role in helping Range win his case a second time. “They were clearly trying to differentiate those that had been previously deemed dangerous versus those that had just been irresponsible,” he explained. And by that standard, Range clearly fell into the latter category.
This Isn’t the End – It’s a Blueprint
Mark W. Smith sees this decision as a launchpad for a larger policy shift. In his view, this case lays the groundwork for the Trump DOJ to revive the long-abandoned federal “restoration of rights” program. This initiative was shelved decades ago when Congress barred the ATF from spending money on it, but DOJ as a whole was never similarly restricted. According to Smith, this process is already underway – migrating out of ATF and into other DOJ departments.
“This isn’t just theoretical,” Smith stressed. “There are already reports of people, famous people like Mel Gibson, who’ve had their rights restored. This is the warm-up.”
A Narrow but Powerful Ruling
It’s important to note, as Yanis did, that the ruling in Range was “narrow.” It applies only to people like Range – nonviolent felons with no history of danger. But even narrow rulings create precedent. With thousands, perhaps millions, of Americans falling into that category, the implications are massive.
And as Smith emphasized, it was not a facial challenge to the law, but an “as-applied” one. That nuance could insulate it from future Supreme Court review, unless someone else challenges the law under different facts.
The Bigger Picture: A Crack in 922(g)
Section 922(g) is one of the most sweeping federal firearm bans on the books. It applies to felons, drug users, people dishonorably discharged, those with domestic violence convictions, and more. This case specifically affects the “felon in possession” part – but as Kirk and Smith both point out, cracks in one part of 922(g) could lead to challenges in others.
And with Rahimi clarifying that permanent disarmament must be based on dangerousness, not just a criminal record, the road ahead looks rocky for other parts of the statute.
Pam Bondi: From Skepticism to Surprise
Perhaps the most unexpected angle in this whole story is the praise Pam Bondi is receiving from people who were once among her biggest critics. “I haven’t been a big Bondi cheerleader,” Kirk admitted. “But take a look at what she’s done – the restructuring of the ATF, the cutting loose of problematic individuals, the collaboration with 26 attorneys general… now this.”
Smith echoed that sentiment. “This administration made a strategic choice that no other DOJ – Republican or Democrat – would have made in modern history. That means something.”
A Quiet Win with Thunderous Consequences
In an era when gun rights battles are usually fought through high drama and executive orders, the DOJ’s inaction is a loud statement. By choosing not to appeal, the Trump DOJ signaled that it’s no longer in the business of defending blanket bans on nonviolent Americans. That’s an enormous win – especially because it happened without a Supreme Court showdown that could have gone either way.
This ruling doesn’t fix everything, but it plants a solid legal flag on a critical hill. It says the government cannot disarm peaceful citizens forever just because they once made a mistake. That’s not just a legal decision – it’s a moral one.
The Battle Isn’t Over, But the Tide Is Turning
The Range decision is confined to the Third Circuit for now. But the logic behind it – the rejection of lifetime disarmament for peaceful citizens – will spread. It’s too reasonable, too rooted in our constitutional history, to be ignored for long.
As William Kirk says, “This is a long way from over.” But if the DOJ’s silence is any indication, the Second Amendment may be entering a new era – one where redemption and rights are no longer mutually exclusive.
A former park ranger and wildlife conservationist, Lisa’s passion for survival started with her deep connection to nature. Raised on a small farm in northern Wisconsin, she learned how to grow her own food, raise livestock, and live off the land. Lisa is our dedicated Second Amendment news writer and also focuses on homesteading, natural remedies, and survival strategies. Lisa aims to help others live more sustainably and prepare for the unexpected.