Knife’s Edge

A Fairbury man previously convicted of felonies in California wants to fight the constitutionality of the law that prevents him from owning a firearm. Before he can do that, however, he must convince the judge to allow him to withdraw his no contest plea on a reduced charge. Cameron D. May, age 54, appeared in Jefferson County District Court on Thursday, December 4, 2025, to make that argument. David J.A. Bargen was the presiding judge.May was originally charged with possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, a class 1D felony punishable by three to 50 years in prison. In accordance with a plea agreement, May pleaded no contest to a reduced charge of possession of a deadly weapon, a knife, by a prohibited person, a class 3 felony punishable by four years in prison, two years of post-release supervision and a $25,000 fine.Since then, however, May has decided instead to fight the law that resulted in the original charge. Nebraska law prohibits an individual with a felony conviction from possessing a firearm. Per Nebraska Revised Statute 28-1206, “The felony conviction may have been had in any court in the United States, the several states, territories, or possessions, or the District of Columbia.”There is no guarantee May will be allowed to withdraw his plea. Position of the DefenseMay is represented by Attorney Dustin Garrison, who told the court, “Before the court is our motion to vacate Mr. May's guilty plea. There's a substantial difference between moving to vacate a guilty plea before sentencing than there is after sentencing. The burden is much greater after sentencing. Mr. May has always been a firm believer in the fact that he committed no violation of the law. There's case law all over the place in this in this nation. Most recently, the case upon which I principally rely is Range versus Bondi.”The case Garrison referred to is Range v. Attorney General, Pamela Bondi, in which the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that federal law prohibiting firearm possession by those convicted of certain non-violent crimes.“Miss Bondi, the Attorney General, had some time to appeal or file a Writ of Certiorari (a court process to seek judicial review of a decision of a lower court) to the Supreme Court. She failed to do so, and we think that law stands right now that is in contrast to the law that's at issue in this case, in our opinion.”The Supreme Court has declined to review the decision, leaving the precedent in place for now. However, Garrison acknowledged that the full impacts of this decision are not yet known, “And it'll be interesting to see how, the how the trickle-down effects work with from the decision to the state courts.”Therefore, Garrison asked the court to vacate May’s plea, “To essentially find out how the Range versus Bondi case trickles down, plus any cases that were decided thereafter.”Range v Attorney GeneralIn August of 1995, Bryan Range pleaded guilty to one count of making a false statement to obtain food stamp assistance in a Pennsylvania court. At that time, Range’s false statement was classified as a first-degree misdemeanor, punishable by up to five years of incarceration.According to Harvard Law Review, “Mr. Range maintained that he was not informed by the prosecutor or judge that his pleading would result in a firearms possession ban. Unaware that he was barred, Mr. Range attempted to purchase a gun twice. He was unsuccessful both times, and upon further research, he realized his nonviolent conviction precluded him from possessing a gun.”It is important to note that Range was convicted of a misdemeanor and not a felony.In addition, the Eighth Circuit issued an opinion just four days before Range v Attorney General, that upheld the felon-in-possession ban as constitutional. That case involved an individual's criminal conviction for possessing a firearm while having prior felony convictions for selling a controlled substance. Position of the ProsecutionRather than address the question of constitutionality of any gun laws, County Attorney Joseph Jefferson Casson argued that Range v. Attorney General is not applicable, nor are any other Second Amendment arguments, because May plead no contest to possession of a knife, not a firearm, “All of the arguments that are submitted to the court regarding the constitutionality of firearms is not relevant to this case, because, again, the plea agreement was that we abandoned the prosecution of Mr. May with regard to firearms and have focused on the possession of a knife, which is also prohibited by law. However, I'm unaware of any constitutional argument that would justify a felon in possession of a knife. There is no Second Amendment right to have a knife, which is the basis, as I understand it, for defense’s contention that the law was unconstitutionally applied to him.”“I think it's kind of a matter of fact that if range versus body indicates that an individual is not precluded from owning firearms, there's going to be some law that follows that deals with knives as well. And so, while council wants to try to distinguish the two,” countered Garrison. “In law, I don't think there is a huge distinguishable characteristic or huge distinguishing factor between the two. You know, if it can own a firearm as a convicted felon, which is now at least suggested in the Range versus Bondi decision, I think that knives will ultimately follow as well. So, judge the status of the law is in flux right now.” What Happens NextJudge Bargen gave both council until January 5, 2026, to submit written closing briefs.Upon receipt by the judge, the matter will be considered “under advisement.” As of press time, no future court date is set.

Ernest Richard Sieber,

A Sip Of Eden Coming Soon

Related Articles

Thayer County Man Arrested After Discovery of Pipe Bomb

Daykin Woman Sentenced in Burglary Case

Sentencing for “Predator Sting” Case Postponed Again

Fairbury Man Charged with Delivering Drugs Near School Accepts Plea Deal