Third Circuit ruling creates circuit split over federal gun ban
On Oct. 14, 2026 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit delivered a two‑part ruling on the federal prohibition that prevents convicted felons from owning guns, creating a circuit split with the Ninth Circuit.
The split matters because divergent appellate interpretations increase the likelihood that the Supreme Court will intervene, potentially reshaping the nation’s approach to gun regulation under the Second Amendment.
In the first case, the panel upheld the ban for James Bost, who was convicted of terroristic threats, criminal conspiracy, false imprisonment and simple assault after a 2002 carjacking in Pennsylvania. The majority, authored by Judge Stephanos Bibas, said that convictions involving direct threats of physical violence justify disarming a person before any future danger materializes.
“The right to keep and bear arms has limits, and this is one: Those who pose a risk of physical violence from misusing guns can be disarmed before that risk becomes a reality,” the opinion read.
In contrast, the court ruled that the ban could not be applied to Edward Williams, whose only relevant convictions were for driving under the influence in the early 2000s. Judge Paul Matey called Williams a “peaceable citizen, capable of bearing arms consistent with the design of the Second Amendment” and rejected the Justice Department’s argument that historical restrictions on habitual drunkards support the ban.
“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,” Matey wrote.
Judge Arianna Freeman, writing separately, argued that the court should consider non‑violent crimes that still demonstrate a credible threat to public safety, suggesting a broader view of permissible restrictions.
The Third Circuit’s decision has now collided with the Ninth Circuit’s earlier stance. In a separate case, the Ninth Circuit upheld California’s ban on magazines holding more than ten rounds, reinforcing that states may impose certain firearm limits. Legal analysts note that the opposing rulings on comparable gun‑control measures heighten the chance that the high court will grant certiorari to resolve the split.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs hailed the Third Circuit’s recognition of rehabilitation, while gun‑rights advocates warned that the decision could open the door to broader challenges against existing bans.
The next step will likely involve petitions to the Supreme Court, as both sides seek a definitive answer on how the Bruen historic‑tradition test applies to modern firearm regulations.
