By now, it’s no secret that we are in a war to keep our Second Amendment rights. And this case proves problematic on that front. Then again, maybe not.
As the Los Angeles Times recently reported, two men were recently arrested on various charges. Like many criminals, especially in liberally run parts of the country, both were released not long after their arrest and given court dates for hearings and a trial.
Both were also relieved of their Second Amendment rights until they stood trial.
Naturally, this is the most problematic part. And just as naturally, this decision was appealed and taken back to court.
That decision was ruled upon originally in January by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California. However, the final order wasn’t made until just recently.
Judge Gabriel P. Sanchez felt that the decision to disarm both individuals prior to their actual conviction was “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.”
Of course, thanks to a 2022 ruling by the Supreme Court, all gun laws must be rooted in a record of history or tradition.
So Jesus Perez Garcia and John Thoman Fencl, both represented by attorney Katie Hurrelbrink, also claimed historical precedent, or rather, the lack thereof.
According to their case, history shows that detained defendants have been disarmed, but not if they have been released from custody.
So, who is correct?
Well, I should mention that Perez-Garcia was arrested at the border for having 11 grams of meth and half a kilo of fentanyl in the car he was riding in. Fencl was charged with having over 100 guns in his home, many of which were illegal.
So, should these types of men be allowed to carry weapons? Probably not. But are we comfortable with saying that potential criminals of the future should also have their gun rights taken away? Absolutely not.
What do you think?
