A federal appeals court last week affirmed the government’s right to permanently disarm non-violent felons so long as their criminal history includes violent acts.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 3-0 that a Kentucky defendant should lose his gun rights due to a recent conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm.

The lack of a conviction for a violent act does not factor in erasing Second Amendment rights. The three-judge panel determined that the previous criminal record could indicate “dangerousness.”

In turn, this may lead to permanent disarmament.

Judge Rachel Bloomekatz wrote that the defendant’s criminal record “demonstrates dangerousness, specifically that he has committed ‘violent’ crimes ‘against the person.’ So, his conviction is consistent with the Second Amendment as interpreted in Williams.”

It marked the first time the Sixth Circuit ruled on the felony federal gun ban since 2022’s game-changing Supreme Court Bruen decision.

Other circuits have determined that the non-violent felony gun ban passed Constitutional muster. Some upheld a blanket ban, while others struck down the prohibition as applied to specific cases and not to the general public.

Now, there is a precedent for deciding gun rights due to “dangerousness.”

Jaylin Morton was arrested in 2022, mere months after the Bruen decision, and charged with possession of several firearms as a felon. At the time, he had already been found guilty on at least six felony counts, including burglary, evading the police, possession of a firearm by a person convicted of a felony, and intimidating a witness.

Among non-felony convictions was a case in which Morton was charged with striking his then-girlfriend in the head.

But Morton argued that he should not have been indicted for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon as his previous charges were deemed non-violent.

Bloomekatz wrote that, despite the lack of violent felony convictions, Morton’s extensive record of offenses “strongly suggest[ed] dangerousness.”

Monday’s ruling is only the latest in a string of court decisions following Bruen. Since the high court’s 2022 Bruen decision, multiple federal cases have been filed in which a defendant challenged the erasure of gun rights due to a non-violent felony conviction.

There is not a judicial consensus on the constitutionality of denying gun rights to these defendants, and this issue appears likely to be determined by the Supreme Court ultimately.

US v. Morton marked at least the second instance in 2024 of a federal court upholding the ban on non-violent felons possessing weapons.

In early August, the First Circuit ruled that the federal law establishing the non-violent felon prohibition is constitutional. Again, this decision came despite Bruen’s mandate that gun laws be based on the nation’s history and tradition of firearm regulations.

That case involved Carl Langston, who was sentenced to 57 months in prison for possessing a firearm due to earlier convictions. He was arrested after a fight outside of a Maine bar in 2022 which resulted in police finding a pistol and magazine in his possession.

Langston’s attorney argued that Bruen negated his most recent conviction. Robert Herrick told the First Circuit that historical tradition does not uphold the prohibition on possession for non-violent felons. 

The court ruled otherwise.

U.S. Circuit Judge Julie Rikelman, a Joe Biden appointee, wrote that the defendant’s argument did not sway the court.

“We cannot agree with Langston that the mere fact that the government did not introduce historical evidence to support the constitutionality makes it clear and obvious that Langston’s conviction violates the Second Amendment.”

In other words, despite the lack of evidence supporting the government’s position, the First Circuit ruled in their favor.

The Anti Anti-2A Social Club is more than a name—it’s a stand against misinformation, double standards, and the relentless attacks on our rights. It’s for those who are done being quiet and ready to push back against a narrative that seeks to misrepresent and marginalize us.

They say the first step to solving a problem is admitting there is one. But here’s the thing: we’re not trying to “solve” anything. We’re here to embrace our rights, to stand firm, and to protect what’s ours.

This isn’t just another t-shirt; it’s a symbol of defiance and a call to action for everyone who refuses to be silenced. The Anti Anti-2A Social Club T-shirts, hats, and drinkware represent a movement that knows our rights are non-negotiable and proudly defends them.

So click the link below and wear it with pride. Because being part of the Anti Anti-2A Social Club isn’t just a choice—it’s a badge of honor.