Perez-Garcia & Fencl v US - Pretrial firearm forfeiture (Rahimi redux)

[Euler]

Docket

Petition for Certiorari said:

...
In this case, petitioners raised as-applied Second Amendment challenges to firearms-related pretrial release conditions. The Ninth Circuit rejected their claims, in part, by holding that legislatures may disarm whoever is not a "law-abiding, responsible citizen," including those "deemed dangerous."

This Court's opinion in United States v. Rahimi ... issued shortly after. Rahimi rejected the government's proffered "responsible citizen" standard and corrected lower courts' "misunderst[andings]" about "the methodology of [the Court's] recent Second Amendment cases."
...
This Second Amendment appeal centered on a standard pretrial release condition in the Southern District of California: that releasees not "possess a firearm" and "legally transfer all firearms" already owned. This "Standard Condition #4," preprinted on every release order, "applies, unless stricken." ... Yet Southern District judges virtually never strike the condition, even for charges like stealing mail, smuggling counterfeit Levi's, or committing misdemeanor Social Security fraud.

Mr. Perez-Garcia was among those subject to the condition. A U.S. citizen with a concealed-carry license, Mr. Perez-Garcia previously worked as an armed security guard. He had no criminal history. In June 2022, Mr. Perez-Garcia was riding in the passenger seat of a friend's car when Customs and Border Patrol officers found drugs hidden in the car's bumper. Neither man had a gun. Mr. Perez-Garcia was charged with drug importation, and a magistrate judge imposed Standard Condition #4.

Mr. Fencl was also subject to that condition. Mr. Fencl is a 60-year-old mechanic and gun collector. Until a few years ago, he had no criminal history. But in 2019 and 2021, police officers found handguns in his car during routine traffic stops, resulting in a misdemeanor concealed-carry conviction. (At the time, applicants for public-carry licenses had to show good cause, a prerequisite struck down in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen ....) Shortly after his second arrest, a SWAT team raided his home and took his gun collection. Federal prosecutors then charged that three of the guns were unregistered short-barreled rifles and four tubes found in the home were unregistered suppressors. The magistrate judge released him pretrial but imposed Standard Condition #4.

Mr. Perez-Garcia and Mr. Fencl raised as-applied Second Amendment challenges to Standard Condition #4, then appealed them. ...
...
... Mr. Perez-Garcia failed to appear at court hearings, and his bond was forfeited. Mr. Fencl went to trial and was sentenced to six months in custody. Accordingly, about nine months after oral argument, petitioners moved to dismiss the cases as moot. ...

... Four months later -- 14 months after oral argument -- the Ninth Circuit published a 43-page opinion denying the motion to dismiss and rejecting petitioners' as-applied challenge. ...

... First, the panel held that historical pretrial detention practices in capital cases validate disarming anyone facing "serious charges" today. ... Second, as a "separate ground" for approving the conditions, the court held that the conditions fell under a "lengthy and extensive Anglo-American tradition of disarming individuals who are not law-abiding, responsible citizens." ...
...
... Yet the panel did not act for 14 months, making mootness inevitable.

Not only did this ensure that the panel's decision would not affect the parties. It also blocked further merits review, whether en banc or in this Court. Yet the panel neither exercised discretion not to issue an opinion nor decided the case narrowly. To the contrary, the panel "announc[ed] as much new law as possible in a moot case where it was wholly unnecessary to do so, and then use[d] mootness as a shield to argue against en banc review." ... (Vandyke, J., dissenting in denial of rehearing en banc).
...
That has serious implications for how the Ninth Circuit will treat Rahimi going forward. In cases vacated and remanded in light of Rahimi, lower courts will be able to revisit Second Amendment challenges with new guidance and fresh eyes. But if Perez-Garcia stays in place, Ninth Circuit panels will not have that opportunity in the many cases where the government cites one of Perez-Garcia's broadly worded traditions. Instead, Perez-Garcia will bind future panels unless its adoption of those various standards is "clearly irreconcilable" with Rahimi.
...

So to recap (TL;DR):

• California has a practice of disarming people (including petitioners) merely accused of crimes, including non-violent crimes, before trial.
• Petitioners appealed disarmament on 2A grounds, but were convicted before the 9th Circuit issued an opinion.
• Petitioners moved to have the appeal mooted, since they had been convicted.
• CA9 did not moot the appeal, but affirmed the constitutionality of disarmament (before Rahimi on a basis broader than Rahimi).
• Petitioners requested en banc rehearing, but CA9 denied the rehearing on the basis that the case was moot (after Rahimi) and further asserted that the panel ruling was compatible with Rahimi.
• Therefore the CA9 ruling supersedes Rahimi within CA9's jurisdiction.

Petitioners are represented by the San Diego federal public defenders office.

Edited January 18, 2025 at 06:23 AM by Euler

[Euler]

On December 20, petitioners filed the petition.

On January 7, the government waived its right to respond.

On January 14, the Court requested a response, due February 13.

[TomKoz]

I a not a Lawyer.  Can someone put this in simple terms?

 

I’m guessing it basically means that if someone is arrested (without conviction) the .gov wants you to loose your 2A Rights.??

 

Same as “Red Flag”  (unconstitutional) laws?

[gunuser17]

Deleted

Edited January 18, 2025 at 07:31 PM by gunuser17

[Euler]

On February 5, the US asked for an extension to respond to March 17.

On February 6, the Court granted the extension.

[Euler]

On March 7, the US asked for another extension. This time to April 16.

On March 10, the Court granted the extension.

[Euler]

On April 16, the US met the deadline.