(Ken Silva, Headline USA) Along with being accused of trying to assassinate President Donald Trump last September, Ryan Routh also faces charges of illegally possessing a firearm as a felon, and for possessing a rifle with an obliterated serial number.
Last month, Routh’s attorneys filed a motion to dismiss those charges on Second Amendment grounds. On Thursday, Judge Aileen Cannon denied that motion.
Routh’s attorneys had argued that firearms regulations must be “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” And according to Routh’s attorneys, before 1961 there is no historical precedent in America for prohibiting firearms possession by convicted felons.
NEW: Yesterday, Judge Aileen Cannon denied Ryan Routh's request to dismiss his firearms charges on 2nd Amendment grounds.
Routh's attorneys had argued that firearms regulations must be “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” And according to… pic.twitter.com/0ju5M1Ep9x
— Ken Silva (@JD_Cashless) May 23, 2025
“As scholars and historians have long pointed out, ‘no colonial or state law in eighteenth century America formally restricted’—much less prohibited, permanently and under pain of criminal punishment—’the ability of felons to own firearms,’” the attorneys argued in their April 7 motion. “Indeed, as militia members, they were not simply permitted to possess arms; they were actually required to purchase and possess arms for militia service.”
However, Judge Cannon didn’t accept that argument.
“A categorical ban on Defendant’s possession of a firearm—as a convicted felon—does not offend the Second Amendment,” Judge Cannon said in her Thursday decision, which cited 11th Circuit Appeals Court precedent.
Routh’s motion may sound like it was doomed to start, but last year an illegal immigrant successfully made similar arguments to successfully dismiss a charge for possessing a firearm while in the country illegally in June 2020.
In that case, the immigrant’s judge applied a centuries-old case precedent about rules barring former British loyalists from possessing weapons. There, a court eventually ruled that only “untrustworthy” or “dangerous” former British loyalists should be barred from owning firearms in America.
“Thus, to the extent the exception shows that some British loyalists were permitted to carry firearms despite the general prohibition, the Court interprets this history as supporting an individualized assessment for [illegal immigrants],” the judge said in her decision when she dismissed the charge.
Unlike the illegal immigrant, Routh is facing more severe charges than just felony firearms possession. He faces life in prison for trying to kill Trump.
Routh is scheduled to stand trial in September.
Ken Silva is the editor of Headline USA. Follow him at x.com/jd_cashless.
