Can Convicted Felons Regain Gun Rights After the Bruen Decision?
The Second Amendment debate changed dramatically after the United States Supreme Court decided the Bruen case.
For years, courts routinely upheld firearm restrictions without spending much time examining the historical roots behind those laws. Bruen changed that approach completely.
Now, when the government restricts firearm rights, courts must examine whether the restriction matches the nation’s historical tradition of gun regulation.
That new standard has created major legal battles involving convicted felons and firearm possession.
And one of the biggest cases involves a man named Bryan Range.
How the Bruen Decision Changed Second Amendment Cases
The Bruen decision reshaped how courts analyze Second Amendment restrictions.
Under Bruen, judges must now ask an important question:
Does history support this type of firearm restriction?
If the government cannot show a historical tradition supporting the restriction, the law may become unconstitutional as applied to certain people.
That analysis has triggered challenges to long-standing firearm bans across the country.
Why Garland v. Range Became So Important
Bryan Range pleaded guilty to food stamp fraud in 1995.
According to court records, the case involved reporting income inaccurately to receive benefits. He received probation and had no history of violent crime.
However, because the offense counted as a felony, federal law permanently banned him from possessing firearms.
Years later, Range challenged that lifetime firearm ban.
He argued that the government could not point to any historical tradition supporting a permanent ban against nonviolent offenders like him.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals agreed.
The court concluded that the government failed to prove that historical firearm restrictions applied to someone with Range’s background and nonviolent criminal history.
That ruling created enormous attention in Second Amendment litigation.
Why the Supreme Court Sent the Case Back
After the Third Circuit ruled in Range’s favor, the United States Supreme Court reviewed another important firearm case called Rahimi.
The Rahimi case involved a man subject to a domestic violence injunction who challenged restrictions on firearm possession.
Unlike Range, Rahimi did not involve a felony conviction.
Still, the Supreme Court upheld the firearm restriction, explaining that history supported disarming individuals who presented dangerous or violent behavior.
After deciding Rahimi, the Supreme Court sent the Range case back for further review in light of that new ruling.
That means courts must now decide whether someone like Bryan Range fits into the category of dangerous individuals historically excluded from firearm rights.
Why Courts Distinguish Violent and Nonviolent Offenses
One major issue now divides Second Amendment cases:
Should courts treat violent felonies differently from nonviolent offenses?
Many judges believe history supports firearm restrictions against dangerous individuals.
However, courts continue debating whether nonviolent felony convictions should permanently eliminate Second Amendment rights.
That distinction matters enormously for people convicted of older financial crimes, fraud offenses, or other nonviolent felonies.
The legal landscape continues shifting quickly.
Why These Second Amendment Cases Matter
The Bruen decision forced courts to focus heavily on constitutional history instead of modern policy arguments.
As a result, firearm laws that seemed settled for decades now face serious constitutional challenges.
Courts across the country continue wrestling with questions involving:
- Convicted felons
- Domestic violence injunctions
- Nonviolent offenses
- Historical firearm restrictions
- Permanent firearm bans
These rulings may continue reshaping firearm law for years.
Final Thought
Second Amendment law is evolving rapidly after the Bruen decision.
Cases like Garland v. Range and Rahimi now force courts to decide who may lose firearm rights and under what historical justification.
Some restrictions will likely survive constitutional review.
Others may not.
Because under Bruen, the government must now do more than simply argue public safety — it must also prove history supports the restriction.
About John Guidry II
John Guidry II is a seasoned criminal defense attorney and founder of the Law Firm of John P. Guidry II, P.A., located in downtown Orlando next to the Orange County Courthouse, where he has practiced for over 30 years. With more than three decades of experience defending clients throughout Central Florida since 1993, Guidry has successfully defended thousands of cases in Orange, Seminole, Osceola, Brevard, Lake, and Volusia counties. He has built a reputation for his strategic approach to criminal defense, focusing on pretrial motions and case dismissals rather than jury trials.
John Guidry earned both his Juris Doctorate and Master of Business Administration from St. Louis University in 1993. He is a member of the Florida Bar and the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. His practice encompasses the full spectrum of Florida state criminal charges, with a particular emphasis on achieving favorable outcomes through thorough pretrial preparation and motion practice.
Beyond the courtroom, Guidry is a prolific legal educator who has authored over 400 articles on criminal defense topics. He shares his legal expertise through his popular YouTube channel, Instagram, and TikTok accounts, where he has built a substantial following of people eager to learn about the law. His educational content breaks down complex legal concepts into accessible information for the general public.
When not practicing law, Guidry enjoys tennis and pickleball, and loves to travel. Drawing from his background as a former recording studio owner and music video producer in the Orlando area, he brings a creative perspective to his legal practice and continues to apply his passion for video production to his educational content.