In a rare but welcomed retreat from the gun control machine, the Biden-era Department of Justice has officially let the clock run out on its opportunity to challenge a key Second Amendment victory in the courts. The DOJ declined to seek Supreme Court review in Range v. Bondi, letting stand a Third Circuit Court ruling that struck down the government’s lifetime gun ban on Bryan David Range — a Pennsylvania man convicted nearly 30 years ago for a non-violent welfare mistake.
That’s right — in 1995, Range pleaded guilty to a first-degree misdemeanor for failing to disclose income on a food stamp application. He never served a day behind bars. But under federal statute § 922(g)(1), that old conviction banned him from ever owning a firearm. Like so many Americans, Range only discovered this decades later — after being denied twice while trying to lawfully purchase a firearm.
Instead of rolling over, Range fought back. And after years of court battles, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals finally ruled in his favor. The court declared that the federal law, as applied to Range, violated his Second Amendment rights — especially given his lack of any violent history. Now, thanks to the DOJ’s decision to not pursue the case at the Supreme Court level, that ruling stands.
But make no mistake: this isn’t some sweeping pro-gun decision that fixes everything. It’s a narrow ruling confined to the Third Circuit (Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania) — and even more narrowly to Range’s specific case. The federal courts still haven’t clarified what “dangerousness” really means under the Constitution, leaving millions of Americans vulnerable to arbitrary disarmament based on decades-old technicalities.
What’s the real issue here? That federal law still bans Americans from owning guns for non-violent offenses that have no connection to public safety. The Range case shows just how far the government is willing to go to strip Americans of their rights — and just how hard citizens must fight to get them back.
Let’s not forget: this fight unfolded under an administration that has shown open hostility to gun ownership. Biden’s DOJ had every chance to push this case to SCOTUS — and given the political pressure from the left, they probably wanted to. But with Range aligned with last year’s landmark Bruen ruling (which forced courts to rely on the nation’s “history and tradition” of gun laws), the DOJ likely realized the risk: a Supreme Court decision could create a national precedent in favor of restoring rights to millions.
Even the Third Circuit majority called it out: only people who are actually dangerous can be disarmed. Not every citizen who made a mistake decades ago deserves a lifelong gun ban. Only two leftist judges dissented — one of whom tried to justify historical disarmament by citing oppressive colonial practices that stripped Native Americans, Black citizens, and Catholics of their arms. That’s the legal logic Democrats are willing to cling to if it means keeping you disarmed.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration is taking notes. As President Trump enters his second term, Attorney General Pam Bondi — once criticized for her support of red flag laws — is beginning to walk the walk. Under Trump’s new Protecting Second Amendment Rights Executive Order, the DOJ is reversing course from Biden’s heavy-handed enforcement. Bondi’s team has already:
- Repealed the Biden-era “zero tolerance” policy targeting gun dealers
- Reopened the gun rights restoration process for lawful Americans
- Launched investigations into state and federal gun rights violations
- Formed a Second Amendment Task Force to protect constitutional rights
The DOJ’s refusal to appeal Range could be a sign of more course corrections to come. For now, it cements a pro-gun ruling that recognizes a simple truth: non-violent Americans should not be permanently disarmed for petty, decades-old offenses.
It’s a start — but not a finish. With conflicting rulings in other circuits, and no national definition of what qualifies as “dangerous,” we’re still relying on a patchwork of legal interpretations to determine who gets their rights and who doesn’t.
Bottom line: this was a win. But it’s not the victory lap. Second Amendment supporters should stay loud, stay organized, and keep demanding that lawmakers and courts finish what Range started — because the Constitution doesn’t carve out exceptions for bureaucratic errors or political convenience.
