Firearm restrictions on defendants awaiting trial ruled constitutional by the 9th Circuit
Court orders that barred two criminal defendants from possessing guns while they awaited trial were in line with historical restrictions on firearms and therefore constitutional, a federal court ruled Monday.
While specific to the two cases in question, the court’s analysis adds to one of the most contentious debates in modern constitutional law: the scope of the Second Amendment’s protections when it comes to accused criminals.
Judge Gabriel P. Sanchez, writing for a unanimous threejudge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, found that American laws have long sought to disarm dangerous criminal defendants, and that broad tradition justified the restrictions placed on John Thomas Fencl and Jesus Perez-garcia, 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 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. “The temporary disarmament of Fencl and Perez-garcia as a means reasonably necessary to protect public safety falls within that historical tradition.”
Katie Hurrelbrink, an attorney for both men, said she intended to “continue litigating this” by asking for a review by a larger, en banc appellate panel and, if necessary, the Supreme Court. She otherwise declined to comment.
The U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of California, where the two cases originated, did not respond to a request for comment Monday.
Sanchez’s analysis is the latest by an appellate court to grapple with the “history and tradition” test the U.S. Supreme Court established in 2022 for assessing the constitutionality of gun laws nationwide. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. vs. 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 historic law.
The Bruen decision led to a surge in challenges to gun laws, many of them successful. For example, California’s bans on assault-style weapons and large-capacity ammunition magazines have been overturned, though those decisions are under appeal.
However, there has also been substantial disagreement among the lower courts on how to apply the Bruen decision, which experts say lacked clarity — including how precisely a historic law must match the circumstances in a modern case to be relevant.
Many are watching for additional guidance from the high court in another case, U.S. vs. Rahimi. That case deals with whether the government can preclude people who have domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms.
In the meantime, lower courts are weighing in with interpretations of Bruen — as the 9th Circuit did Monday.
According to court records, Fencl was arrested and charged with various crimes after law enforcement officials discovered more than 100 guns in his home in the San Diego suburbs, 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 in which he was a passenger uncovered about 11 kilograms of methamphetamine and half a kilogram of fentanyl, court records show.
Both men were released from custody 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 he traveled out of state for work. Perez-garcia wanted to carry guns so that he could pursue employment as an armed security officer and protect his family,” the court wrote.