FPC’s strategy to end lifetime disarmament delivers another major victory as en banc Third Circuit issues strong, binding precedent affirming judgment for a peaceable man disarmed over a nonviolent conviction.

PHILADELPHIA (October 14, 2026) — Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced today a major victory in the FPC-supported case of Williams v. Blanche, where the en banc (full-court) U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment holding that the federal government cannot constitutionally impose its lifetime gun ban on Edward Williams because of his decades-old, nonviolent DUI conviction.

Williams was convicted in 2005 of a Pennsylvania DUI offense that, because of an earlier DUI matter, was punishable by up to five years in prison and therefore triggered the federal prohibition in 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). His offense did not involve violence, physical injury, or a firearm. He served his sentence in home confinement, yet federal law purported to permanently prohibit him from possessing firearms for the rest of his life.

After years of litigation, the district court ruled for Williams in 2023, holding that the government had failed to demonstrate that permanently disarming him was consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The federal government appealed. After a three-judge Third Circuit panel heard argument in 2025, the court took the unusual step of ordering rehearing en banc on its own initiative. The full court heard oral argument in February and now affirmed Williams’s victory.

“The federal government spent nearly a decade trying to permanently disarm a peaceable man over a nonviolent misdemeanor—and it lost bigly,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “FPC has spent years building the historical record, litigating these cases, and briefing courts across the country to establish the correct rule: The government does not get to turn a nonviolent conviction into a lifetime ban on exercising a constitutionally protected right. Our strategy is paying off again. The Trump Administration would be better served working with us to end this immoral disarmament regime than fighting us and losing. Either way, FPC and our Grassroots Army will continue to Fight Forward until these unconstitutional lifetime bans are eliminated throughout the United States.”

Writing for the court, Judge Paul Matey explained that America’s historical tradition supports disarming people who pose a physical danger—not everyone swept within the modern definition of “felon.” The court expressly rejected the idea that the Second Amendment is limited to people deemed “responsible” according to “the whim of the sovereign or the will of the majority,” concluding that historical restrictions applied to the violently dangerous, “not felons writ large.”

That distinction was fatal to the government’s case against Williams. His predicate offense contained no threatening or violent elements, and the government could not establish that its historical analogues justified permanently stripping him of his right to possess arms. The court further found that Williams has done nothing violent or dangerous for more than twenty years and has never dangerously used a firearm. It concluded that Williams “is presently a peaceable citizen, capable of bearing arms consistent with the design of the Second Amendment.”

This important decision is not an isolated victory. It is another payoff from a deliberate FPC strategy pursued for years through original historical research, strategic litigation, and briefing in courts across the country. FPC then put that research to work repeatedly in litigation and briefing in challenges to the federal government’s prohibited-person regime.

The strategy has already resulted in major victories. For example, in Range v. Attorney General, the en banc Third Circuit rejected categorical disarmament of a man convicted of a nonviolent offense. In its 2023 United States v. Daniels opinion, the Fifth Circuit cited both FPC’s amicus brief and FPC-developed scholarship in holding another federal firearms prohibition unconstitutional as applied. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas cited FPC’s amicus brief in United States v. Hemani, arguing that Congress lacked the Article I authority to enact the federal ban on possession of firearms by users of marijuana, leading the Fifth Circuit to order en banc rehearing in United States v. Squire, in which FPC filed a brief last month.

FPC has continued pressing forward toward nationwide elimination of these federal bans. Earlier this month, FPC joined a Supreme Court brief in Johnson v. United States, challenging the permanent disarmament of a man whose only predicate conviction was a nonviolent marijuana offense. That brief again urged the Court to recognize what FPC’s research, scholarship, and litigation have demonstrated for years: America’s historical tradition permits disarming dangerous people, not permanently disarming peaceable Americans merely because of a nonviolent conviction.

In Williams, the en banc Third Circuit adopted that principle again. The court ultimately affirmed the district court’s judgment restoring Williams’s ability to exercise his constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. In closing, the majority emphasized that rehabilitation and reintegration into society carry with them the ability once again to exercise the natural right of armed defense.

Notably, the Court’s opinion said that a “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.”

The opinion also contains important language directly relevant to FPC’s Koons v. Davenport challenge to New Jersey’s post-Bruen public carry bans, currently pending en banc review in the Third Circuit. In Williams, the Court made clear that “laws extensively regulating the types of firearms a person can possess and the places where possession is permitted can ‘eviscerate the general right to publicly carry arms for self-defense,’” which the Constitution does not allow, and that the “Second Amendment thus recognizes a robust right to bear arms within civil society that can rarely be circumvented by the sovereign. Put simply, things and places cannot be casually conscribed.”

FPC thanks attorney Joshua Prince for his years of work representing Williams and helping secure this important victory, and its Grassroots Army members and supporters for making this important work possible. Individuals who want to join FPC and support its lawsuits, research, and other programs to restore liberty can join the FPC Grassroots Army at JoinFPC.org.

About Firearms Policy Coalition

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) is a nonprofit membership organization that exists to create a world of maximal individual liberty and eliminate unconstitutional gun control laws. FPC works—and wins—for the People through high-impact strategic litigation, groundbreaking research, legislative and regulatory advocacy, grassroots activism, education, and public engagement. FPC’s legal division, FPC Law, is the nation’s leading initiative dedicated to restoring the right to keep and bear arms across the United States. To learn more about how FPC is working—and winning—for the People, sign up for FPC news alerts at firearmspolicy.org and follow FPC on X, Instagram, and Facebook.