PHILADELPHIA — In a single sentence, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit documented the slow and methodical creep of government infringement on enumerated rights over the course of America’s 250 years as a country as it relates to the Second Amendment:
The practice of permanently disarming felons only dates back to the 1960s.
That is one of the opening statements in the court’s 8-6 October 13 decision in an appeals case addressing the permanent disarming of a nonviolent felon, where it found that the 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(1) gun ban was unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiff, Edward Williams.
The crimes that demanded Mr. Williams’ lifetime disarmament were two convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol in the early 2000s, specifically including a conviction of “a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.” The term of a year or more automatically triggers the lifetime ban under federal law.
The Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision requires that the government demonstrate that any gun control measure “is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation,” and here the Third Circuit comes to a simple conclusion:
We find no history that supports disarming irresponsible people, where ‘responsible’ is defined by the whim of the sovereign or the will of the majority.
The court also observes that over time, the shifting burden and weight of legal terms – like “felon” – have allowed the government to impose severe and asymmetrical penalties on behaviors that don’t warrant the punishment:
These sources reveal that the modern regulatory label of felony – a crime punishable by more than one year of imprisonment – is not even close to the proper ‘level of generality at which to define [the] historical practice.’
In seeking to preserve the ban, the Justice Department argued that Mr. Williams could seek restoration of his rights under 18 U.S.C. Section 925(c), a process that it started with a proposed rule in July of 2025.
The court remained unconvinced of this path, stating, “Such speculation is simply outside this controversy. Our duty is to decide the case based on present facts, not future promises.”
(The DOJ subsequently rolled out the new program in August of 2026, enforcing stringent limits on application caps relative to the potentially 10% of the population affected by these disabilities.)
In its final summary of the situation, the majority concluded that while Mr. Williams’ conviction was correct as related to the unlawful behaviors of driving while intoxicated, the permanent removal of rights does not accord with our legal tradition or philosophical bent:
But virtuous life is a perpetual project, with redemption and reentry into the community a constant promise. And with that rehabilitation comes restoration of the civic privileges guaranteed to citizens by the Constitution, and the freedom to again exercise the natural right of armed defense against threats and tyranny. For the reasons above, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment granting Williams summary judgment.
Williams v. Attorney General originated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in 2017, with the district court providing summary judgment in his favor in November of 2023. The government appealed and the Third Circuit ordered en banc rehearing, with oral arguments taking place on February 11, 2026. Mr. Williams was represented by Joshua Prince of Prince Law Offices, who argued the case, and Dillon Harris of Civil Rights Defense Firm; Assistant to the Solicitor General Vivek Suri argued for the government.
Simultaneously, the Third Circuit considered a companion case also addressing a gun ban conviction, United States v. Bost, which it delivered alongside Williams. In Bost, the court declined to overturn the convictions for the violent criminal acts that included carjacking, terroristic threats, failure to appear in court while on bail, possessing a stolen weapon, and possessing a firearm while being a convicted felon.
