A recent ruling by the United States 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that it is constitutional to prevent defendants awaiting trial from possessing firearms. The decision, made on Monday, was unanimous among the panel of three judges, with the opinion written by Judge Gabriel P. Sanchez.
According to Judge Sanchez, the historical evidence supports the restriction on defendants' rights to bear firearms as it aligns with the country's longstanding legal procedures. The ruling emphasized that legislatures have historically disarmed individuals whose possession of firearms posed a significant danger to themselves or others beyond that of an ordinary citizen.
The case involved defendants John Thomas Fencl and Jesus Perez-Garcia from California, who challenged the restriction on their ability to own firearms. The court concluded that temporarily disarming individuals facing serious charges or deemed dangerous is a measure necessary to protect public safety and is consistent with the nation's historical practice.
This ruling is part of a series of legal battles that have applied the 'history and tradition' test to laws regulating access to firearms. In a notable 2022 case, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. vs. Bruen emphasized the importance of laws restricting firearms being grounded in historical precedent.
The New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. vs. Bruen case overturned the Sullivan Act in New York, which required individuals to demonstrate a 'proper cause' for carrying a gun. Justice Clarence Thomas, in his opinion, highlighted that the Second Amendment should not be subject to a requirement of demonstrating a special need, contrasting it with other constitutional rights like free speech and the right to confront witnesses.
