Federal appeals court rules some nonviolent felons can legally own guns
The Third Circuit ruled that the federal ban on firearm possession by people with felony convictions cannot automatically be applied to everyone with a qualifying conviction. It upheld the restriction for a man whose convictions followed a carjacking, but found it unconstitutional as applied to a man whose relevant convictions were for drink-driving.
The court said convictions involving violence or threats can indicate a risk of firearm misuse and justify disarming someone. In Edward Williams’s case, a drink-driving sentence of 90 days to two years, served under home confinement, did not justify the ban; one judge disagreed, arguing that some non-violent crimes can still show a credible threat to public safety.
- The court upheld the gun ban for a man convicted over a carjacking.
- It said the ban could not apply to a man based on drink-driving convictions.
- Judges disagreed over which offences show a risk to public safety.
New here? Start with this
US federal law generally bars people with felony convictions from possessing guns. The rule covers a wide range of offences, from violent crimes to offences that do not involve violence, and the legal question is whether the ban should apply equally to all of them.
The Third Circuit is a federal appeals court that hears cases from several north-eastern states. In the cases before it, one man had convictions linked to a carjacking, while Edward Williams’s relevant convictions were for drink-driving.
The dispute matters because courts must weigh public safety against the constitutional right to possess a gun. It also raises the question of whether the circumstances and seriousness of a conviction should affect whether someone can legally own firearms.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
A categorical ban can impose a lasting loss of a fundamental right even when a person’s conviction does not show a meaningful risk of violence. The court’s case-by-case approach allows restrictions where conduct involved force or threats, while requiring a stronger justification for disarming someone whose offence was non-violent.
The case against
A conviction’s lack of violence does not necessarily mean a person poses no serious risk with a firearm; some non-violent offences can still reflect dangerous behaviour or disregard for public safety. A broad, predictable restriction may help prevent harm and avoid requiring courts to make uncertain individual assessments in every case.