A federal appeals court has ruled that individuals convicted of non-violent crimes cannot be barred from owning firearms.

The Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in the lawsuit of Bryan Range, a Pennsylvania man who sued the government after being banned from purchasing a shotgun. Range, who was convicted of welfare fraud in 1995, was unable to purchase a gun due to federal law that prohibits certain convicted criminals from purchasing and possessing firearms.

According to Reuters, “Federal criminal law generally bars people convicted of crimes punishable by more than a year in prison from possessing guns. Such crimes are usually felonies, but the law also includes some state misdemeanors.”

The court ruled that despite his prior conviction, Range cannot be barred from purchasing a firearm because he is protected by the Second Amendment.

“In sum, we reject the Government’s contention that only ‘law-abiding, responsible citizens’ are counted among ‘the people’ protected by the Second Amendment. Heller and its progeny lead us to conclude that Bryan Range remains among ‘the people’ despite his 1995 false statement conviction.”

U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals Ruling written by Judge Thomas Hardiman

In its 11-4 ruling, the court heavily cited a Supreme Court ruling from last June that set a requirement for gun laws to conform to the “historical tradition” of gun regulation in the United States. The court found that no gun laws dating back to the 19th and 18th century referenced a lifetime ban of firearms for nonviolent criminals.

“The government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s ‘unqualified command.'”

Supreme Court Ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen

Dissenters of the court’s determination are arguing that the “historic tradition” of gun regulation in the U.S. should not be applied in modern cases. Circuit Judge Cheryl Ann Krause, one of the four dissenters in the ruling, argued that “history and tradition” should not be considered from a time where “arms” once meant “muskets and flintlocks” but now includes “assault rifles.”

Regardless, the court’s decision is a huge win for individuals convicted of non-violent crimes who want to exercise their second amendment right.