One of the more understandable gun control laws out there is the law prohibiting felons from owning firearms. I'm not saying I approve of it, only that I understand it. The theory goes that with recidivism being as common as it is, felons are likely to break the law again. They shouldn't be permitted to purchase firearms with which they can commit additional felonies.

That's perfectly understandable.

However, we also know that it doesn't work. Criminals have had no problem getting guns despite decades of prohibition and background checks. Yes, these include recidivist felons.

Besides, let's be honest, not all felons are created equal. There's a big difference between a career drug dealer, for example, and someone who lied to get food stamps.

And apparently, a federal court agrees.

Given a second bite at the apple, the Third Circuit has once again ruled that a Pennsylvania man can own firearms despite his felony-level conviction.

By a 13-2 margin, a full panel of the federal appellate court on Monday reaffirmed its basic holding from last June that a 30-year-old conviction for lying on a food stamp application cannot result in lifetime disarmament. The court’s opinion, made necessary after the Supreme Court vacated and remanded its prior decision in light of US v. Rahimi, remained essentially unchanged in finding no historical tradition supporting the federal gun ban for felons as applied to Pennsylvania man Bryan Range.

Now, what's interesting is how this plays with Rahimi.

After all, one might imagine that Rahimi would have been used to justify the ban. It's clear that the law can, in fact, disarm dangerous people. However, it seems Rahimi actually swung things in a different direction, with who judges on the Third Circuit who dissented previously now voted to favor range.

Why? Well, while Rahimi seems to have engendered a great deal more confusion at the lower court level, it convinced at least some judges that Range should have his Second Amendment rights.

“Rahimi makes clear that citizens are not excluded from Second Amendment protections just because they are not ‘responsible,'” Hardiman, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote.

As for the historical analysis, Hardiman argued that the historical analogues the Supreme Court found sufficient to disarm Rahimi do not apply to Range.

“Rahimi did bless disarming (at least temporarily) physically dangerous people,” he wrote. “But the Government does not try to justify disarming Range on this ground, and with good reason: it has no evidence that he poses a physical danger to others or that food-stamp fraud is closely associated with physical danger.”

And, generally, fraud doesn't include any real threat of someone being physically harmed, especially when it's the government being defrauded.

I'm not excusing Range here. He did what he did, was convicted, and fulfilled his punishment. That was also in the 1990s, during which time Range has apparently kept his nose clean.

Non-violent felons shouldn't lose their gun rights. I don't think anyone who is free to walk around among us should be denied any of their rights, but I get that not everyone agrees about people with a history of violent felonies. I say keep them locked up for longer, then, but that's a different matter.

For non-violent felons, though, especially those who have spent three decades walking the straight and narrow path, enough is more than enough.

In this case, this was an en banc panel, which means the only other step to go with this is to the Supreme Court, which could uphold it or could overturn it. Especially since there seems to be some confusion on what the current precedent actually should be. That might spur the court to take on the case if the government opts to appeal the matter.

Though I don't know if it'll work out for them. Then again, after Rahimi, I'm not sure it'll work out for us, so...