A federal court has ruled that it is constitutional to block defendants awaiting trial from possessing firearms.
The United States 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Monday that restriction on defendants’ rights to bear firearms is constitutional because it is in line with the country’s historic legal procedures.
The decision was unanimous by the panel of three judges. The opinion was written by Judge Gabriel P. Sanchez.
“Here, the historical evidence, when considered as a whole, shows a long and broad history of legislatures exercising authority to disarm people whose possession of firearms would pose an unusual danger, beyond the ordinary citizen, to themselves or others,” Sanchez wrote.
DELAWARE BILL REQUIRING GUN BUYERS TO BE FINGERPRINTED, TRAINED, SET TO BECOME LAW
John Thomas Fencl and Jesus Perez-Garcia, two defendants in California, brought the legal challenge before the court.
Sanchez continued, “The temporary disarmament of Fencl and Perez-Garcia as a means reasonably necessary to protect public safety falls within that historical tradition.”
LOS ANGELES POLICE FORMS TASK FORCE TO COUNTER FOREIGN GANGS EXPLOITING US VISA SYSTEM TO TARGET LUXURY HOMES
READ THE APPEALS COURT DECISION – APP USERS, CLICK HERE:
The court found that restrictions on defendants’ ability to own firearms are “consistent with our nation’s long history of temporarily disarming criminal defendants facing serious charges and those deemed dangerous or unwilling to follow the law.”
The California case is only the latest in a string of legal battles based on the “history and tradition” test for laws restricting access to firearms.
In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court case New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. vs. Bruen established that laws restricting firearms must be founded on historical precedent.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. vs. Bruen overturned the long-standing Sullivan Act in New York, which demanded individuals seeking to carry a gun offer “proper cause” justifying their need to do so.
“We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in 2022.
He added, “That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self defense.”
