A constitutional challenge to long-standing gun rules has been triggered by the Supreme Court’s recent decisions on Second Amendment rights. One such challenge is being utilized in the prosecution of the guy who reportedly attempted to assassinate Donald Trump on his golf course this week.
Arrested and accused with breaching the federal restriction on anyone with prior felony convictions possessing weapons, Ryan Routh was taken into custody.
Federal efforts to regulate access to firearms have included that ban for quite some time. However, a number of individuals who are facing charges under the Act, as well as people who support gun rights, contend that the law violates their constitutional rights.
The matter has caused uncertainty in lower courts, and according to legal experts, the Supreme Court may soon have to decide on a solution.
Adam Winkler, a law professor at UCLA and a specialist on the Second Amendment, warned that when federal courts are divided like this, it’s a good indicator that the Supreme Court may get involved in a debate.
It’s too early to tell what kind of defense Routh will present, but given his possible legal danger, any challenge to the constitution may not be very effective. On Sunday, a Secret Service agent allegedly saw the 58-year-old guy waiting at a golf course with a semi-automatic rifle. He was apprehended in Florida after the former president played nearby. At a hearing in West Palm Beach on Monday, the judge will decide whether or not to grant him bail.
Routh is currently facing two charges from the prosecution: first, being in possession of a firearm with a destroyed serial number, and second, being a felon in possession of a firearm. At a later date, prosecutors may seek to add more counts, such as attempted president assassination.
In 2002, Routh was found in possession of a fully automatic machine gun, leading to his conviction for possessing a “weapon of mass destruction” and his felony record. Authorities said he was also found guilty of possessing stolen goods in 2010 in North Carolina.
Routh is subject to the federal felon-in-possession ban, which carries a maximum jail term of fifteen years, according to her prior convictions. Courts have argued over whether or not the restriction should remain in effect in recent years.
In view of the Supreme Court’s seminal ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen in 2022, several defendants have contended that the prohibition infringes upon the Second Amendment. That ruling expanded gun rights by stating that gun restrictions can only be upheld if they are based on practices that have been in place since the early days of the United States.
Lower courts around the country are in a state of chaos as judges and lawyers try to figure out how to implement the new rule, which is based on a historical standard for gun prohibitions.
The Supreme Court appeared to reject a strict adherence to Bruen’s historical approach earlier this year in a case concerning the government’s ability to seize firearms from individuals accused of domestic violence. Unfortunately, the ruling simply served to further muddy the waters in a few respects.
“If you look back at the founding era, the 1800s, you’re not going to find laws from that time that prohibited felons from possessing firearms,” said Andrew Willinger, executive director of the Duke Center for Firearms Law. “This is a new development in terms of the law, the specific approach to stating that individuals convicted of a certain type of serious crime are barred from possessing firearms for the rest of their lives.”
Applying the felon-in-possession restriction to those with non-violent offenses is deemed unlawful by two federal appeals courts: the 3rd Circuit in Philadelphia and the 9th Circuit in San Francisco.
Despite challenges to the ban’s constitutionality, multiple other appeals courts have upheld it. Among these courts is the 5th Circuit, which is situated in New Orleans. Just last week, a panel of three judges upheld the restriction on felons in possession. The 11th Circuit, with its headquarters in Atlanta, also ruled earlier this year to uphold the prohibition. This circuit oversees Florida and would consider any appeals related to Routh’s case.
So yet, no federal appeals court has ruled that felon-in-possession bans cannot apply to those with a history of violent felony convictions or completely invalidated them. According to Winkler, the Supreme Court is expected to address the issue at some point because to the ongoing debate in lower courts on its legitimate scope and the application of the Bruen test.
The most pressing issue that remains unresolved following Bruen, according to Winkler, is the fate of the felon-in-possession ban.
Heritage Foundation senior legal fellow Amy Swearer concurred that the matter is ready for review by the highest court.
Swearer stated, “Until the Supreme Court starts stepping up to show courts again in practice how this test has to be implemented,” a lot will remain uncertain. “Alternatively, you may find that many lower courts have developed their own sets of standards.”
It has not always been easy for lower courts applying the Bruen test to draw parallels between contemporary gun regulations and similar prohibitions from bygone eras.
According to Kelly Roskam, director of law and policy at the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions, “The modern world is a lot different.” “Artillery rifles weren’t carried around by the founding fathers.”
American racism is another obstacle to relying on precedent to decide who has the right to bear arms.
A lot of states in the United States prohibited black people from owning guns throughout the 17th and 18th centuries, according to Winkler. He went on to say that the court has to figure out how to evaluate racist gun laws from the past as it searches through history for gun laws.
Winkler said that the court should think about whether the statute shows that the government can prohibit dangerous individuals from owning guns due to the belief that African Americans and other racial minorities posed a threat.
Amy Coney Barrett, a justice on the Supreme Court, has hinted at her potential stance on the felon-in-possession statute. In a dissenting decision written while Barrett was a judge on the 7th Circuit in 2020, she stated that, according to historical precedent, the only people the legislature can prohibit from possessing firearms are those deemed “dangerous,” not including those with a criminal record.
Instead of a blanket prohibition, Barrett suggests looking at each situation individually.