Court orders barring two criminal defendants from possessing guns while awaiting trial were consistent with historic restrictions on firearms and therefore constitutional, a federal court ruled Monday.
While specific to the two cases at issue, the court's analysis adds to one of the most contentious debates in modern constitutional law: the scope of Second Amendment protections when it comes to accused criminals.
Judge Gabriel P. Sánchez, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, concluded that American law has long sought to disarm dangerous criminal defendants, and that the long tradition justifies the restrictions imposed on John Thomas Fencl and Jesus. Pérez García, federal defendants in California whose challenges to the law were consolidated in Monday's order.
“Here, the historical evidence, when considered as a whole, shows a long and extensive history of legislatures exercising the authority to disarm persons whose possession of firearms would pose an unusual danger, beyond the average citizen, to themselves. or for others,” Sánchez wrote. “The temporary disarmament of Fencl and Pérez García as a reasonably necessary means to protect public safety falls within that historical tradition.”
Katie Hurrelbrink, an attorney for both men, said she intended to “continue litigating this” by seeking a review by a larger en banc appeals panel and, if necessary, the Supreme Court. She otherwise declined to comment.
U.S. Attorney Tara McGrath, who oversees the Southern District of California, where the two cases originated, said in a statement that the ruling “recognizes the long history of keeping firearms out of the hands of those who refuse to comply with the law” and would allow “consistent enforcement of federal firearms laws to combat the scourge of gun violence in our communities.”
Sanchez's analysis is the latest from an appeals court to address the “history and tradition” test that the U.S. Supreme Court established in 2022 to evaluate the constitutionality of gun laws nationwide. At the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association. v. Bruen, the high court said that gun laws are legitimate only if they are rooted in the nation's history and tradition or are sufficiently analogous to some historical law.
Bruen's decision led to a surge in challenges to gun laws, many of them successful. For example, California's bans on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines have been overturned, although those decisions are under appeal.
However, there has also been substantial disagreement among lower courts over how to apply the Bruen decision, which experts said lacked clarity, including how precisely a historic law must match the circumstances of a modern case to be relevant. .
Many are awaiting additional guidance from the high court in another case, United States v. Rahimi. That case concerns whether the government can prevent people who have domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms.
Meanwhile, lower courts are weighing in on Bruen's interpretations, as the 9th Circuit did on Monday.
According to court records, Fencl was arrested and charged with several crimes after law enforcement officers discovered more than 100 weapons in his suburban San Diego home, including 10 unregistered “ghost guns” and three illegal short-barreled rifles. Perez Garcia was arrested at the U.S.-Mexico border when a customs inspection of a vehicle he was traveling in uncovered about 11 kilograms of methamphetamine and half a kilogram of fentanyl, court records show.
Both men were released pending trial, and both subsequently challenged the terms of their release under Bruen.
“Fencl wanted to carry guns to protect his home and for self-defense when traveling out of state for work. Pérez García wanted to carry weapons so he could get a job as an armed security officer and protect his family,” the court wrote.
In January 2023, the Ninth Circuit ruled against the men, without issuing a full decision. He said a full explanation would follow.
Fencl was later found guilty at trial and Perez Garcia's bond was revoked for repeated failures to appear at hearings, according to court records. Their lawyers tried to have their challenges to the gun restrictions dismissed as moot since neither man remained on pretrial release, but the Ninth Circuit said it still had grounds to explain its earlier decision against them in full. , partly because the problem was likely to arise. again in other cases.
Both Fencl and Pérez-García argued that while historically detained defendants had their firearms taken away, there was no historical record of detainees who had been released from detention who had been prevented from possessing firearms. .
The U.S. government argued that restricting the men's Second Amendment rights as a condition of pretrial release was a lesser restriction than the total deprivation of liberty the government could have imposed by denying release altogether, and therefore So, it was acceptable. He also said the restrictions were consistent with historical restrictions placed on defendants facing serious charges and awaiting trial.
Sánchez, appointed by President Biden, rejected the government's first argument but accepted the second.
“Based on our historical review, we agree that our society has traditionally subjected criminal defendants to temporary restrictions on their liberty, including restrictions that affect their ability to own and bear arms, to protect public safety and ensure the attendance of the accused at trial”. Sanchez wrote.
Sánchez rejected Fencl and Pérez-García's argument that the historical restrictions did not sufficiently fit their own circumstances by the standards set by Bruen.
Sánchez wrote that both men would likely have been detained, not released, at the time of the founding. And, he wrote, his focus on the specifics of their situations ignored Bruen's guidance that a historic law need not be a “dead ringer” to support a modern law.
“They presume that if the Government cannot identify a historical regulation under which Pérez García and Fencl, specifically, would have been disarmed pending their pretrial release in the 18th century, then the Second Amendment prohibits such regulation today,” Sánchez wrote . “You are wrong”.
Sánchez wrote that the decision was “consistent with our nation's long history of temporarily disarming criminal defendants facing serious charges and those considered dangerous or unwilling to follow the law.”
Sanchez was joined by Circuit Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw, appointed by President Clinton, and Circuit Judge Richard R. Clifton, appointed by President George W. Bush.
