A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that a man who committed a nonviolent crime cannot legally be barred from possessing a firearm, a potential setback for gun regulations spurred by a Supreme Court ruling last year that expanded enormously the right to bear arms.

In an 11-4 ruling, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals vacated lower court decisions that had prevented Bryan Range, a Pennsylvania resident who had sued the state after being prevented from purchasing a hunting shotgun and protect yourself by a conviction. for lying on an application for benefits in the 1990s.

In a majority opinion, Justice Thomas M. Hardiman repeatedly cited last June’s Supreme Court ruling, authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, in which the majority set a new standard that gun laws conform to “historical traditions” dating back to the 18th and 19th centuries.

“In sum, we reject the administration’s contention that only ‘law-abiding and responsible citizens’ are among ‘the persons’ protected by the Second Amendment,” wrote George W. Bush appointee Justice Hardiman who served in Former President Donald J. Trump’s short list to serve on the Supreme Court after the death of Antonin Scalia in 2016.

It’s unclear whether the ruling applies to similar cases: Mr. Range’s lawyer, Michael P. Gottlieb, said he brought the case for the “sole benefit of my client” and believes it will go to the Supreme Court if the Justice Department appeals

A department spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Three justices, agreeing with the majority, wrote that the decision “does not spell the end” for a federal law section that strips the possession of weapons from any person “convicted in any court of an offense punishable by imprisonment for a period exceeding one year.”

Justice Hardiman wrote that his opinion was “narrow”. But in a sharp dissent, Justice Patty Shwartz, an Obama appointee, said the majority opinion would set a broad and dangerous precedent.

“While my colleagues claim their opinion is limited, the analytical framework they have applied in reaching their conclusion renders most, if not all, felony bans unconstitutional,” he wrote.

Justice Hardiman argued that punishing Range by revoking his rights to bear arms for a non-violent offense gave lawmakers too much power to “rig the Second Amendment” by labeling someone, like Range, a criminal who has led a law abiding life.

Federal law prohibits people convicted of state or federal crimes punishable by more than one year in prison from buying guns. In some states, including Pennsylvania, the federal ban takes effect after conviction for a misdemeanor that has a potential sentence of at least one year.

The decision, which was closely watched by national groups on both sides of the gun debate, is the latest in a succession of federal court rulings reversing existing gun regulations.

But most of those cases have been heard in lower courts and only one more, on a decision restoring gun ownership rights to a man who was under a restraining order in a domestic violence case, reached a federal appeals court, in New Orleans.

wild charlie contributed reporting.