Americans were stunned and horrified earlier this month when former President Donald Trump was targeted in yet another assassination attempt, this time at his golf course in West Palm Beach, Florida.
In a rather interesting legal twist, according to Politico, recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions related to the Second Amendment could present complications when it comes to prosecuting Ryan Routh, the man suspected of targeting Trump.
The highest court in the land has recently weighed in on a series of cases related to the proper scope and interpretation of the Second Amendment, including challenges to a law currently being used to prosecute Routh.
As Politico notes, as a result of his conduct at the Trump International Golf Club, Routh has been charged with violating a federal prohibition on felony possession of firearms.
Routh's criminal history includes a conviction from North Carolina stemming from his possession of a “weapon of mass destruction” as well as another for possession of stolen goods, and, as such, his possession of a firearm at Trump's golf course has triggered the use of the aforementioned federal law against him.
However, recent battles that have made their way to the U.S. Supreme Court have brought into question the validity of the felony firearms ban, one which has the potential to bring upwards of 15 years in prison to those convicted.
Particular debate has centered on the high court's decision in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, one which has had far-reaching implications since its issuance.
The Bruen majority offered a more expansive definition of rights under the Second Amendment by finding that restrictions on gun ownership withstand constitutional scrutiny only if they are in keeping with historical practices with respect to firearms in America.
As such, conflicts have emerged among lower courts attempting to apply the Bruen precedent in gun possession cases, with two federal appeals panels having determined that using the felon-in-possession ban in the case of those convicted of non-violent felonies is a violation of their constitutional rights.
By contrast, other appeals courts have come to the opposite conclusion, including the 11th Circuit in Atlanta, the panel that would ultimately have jurisdiction in a potential appeal lodged by Routh in the future.
The divergence in opinion across the federal circuits, however, suggests that eventual Supreme Court review of the question is, in the words of UCLA law professor and Second Amendment expert Adam Winkler, “only a matter of time.”
While it is clear that there may be some contentious legal wrangling ahead with regard to the federal felon-in-possession statute, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis believes that accountability for Routh could more directly be pursued at the state level, and he has therefore initiated his own probe of the events at Trump's golf course, as he explained in a press release last week.
DeSantis issued an executive order “directing Florida's law enforcement agencies....to investigate the assassination attempt against Donald Trump, refer violations of state law to the statewide prosecutor's office for prosecution, and to surge resources to President Trump's security detail needs in coordination with the former president and the Secret Service.”
Though the Florida probe will run concurrently with the federal probe of the alarming event, DeSantis declared, as The Hill noted, that he does not believe it is in “the best interest of our state or our nation to have the same federal agencies that are seeking to prosecute Donald Trump leading this investigation, especially when the most serious, straightforward offense constitutes a violation of state law but not federal law,” and in light of the ongoing uncertainty stemming from Bruen, he may well be correct.
