Written by James Whitaker.

Ryan Routh, the man federal prosecutors say tried to take out Donald Trump last September, isn’t going down quietly. His lawyers dropped a bombshell motion on Monday, April 7, 2025, arguing that the firearms charges pinned on him—owning a gun as a felon and having a rifle with a wiped serial number—should get tossed out. Their reasoning? The Second Amendment says so. It’s a head-turner of a claim, one that’s got sharp professionals buzzing about where constitutional rights end and public danger begins.

Routh’s legal troubles go way beyond gun possession. He’s staring down a life sentence for allegedly stalking Trump for weeks, rifle in hand, before a Secret Service agent caught him lurking near the sixth hole at Trump’s West Palm Beach golf course. That moment—and his subsequent arrest on I-95—has kept him locked up since. For anyone with a keen eye on law or politics, this case is a live wire, blending high drama with a constitutional curveball.

Digging into History for a Defense

Here’s the meat of Routh’s argument: his team says America didn’t historically ban felons from owning guns—not until 1961, anyway. They point to colonial days, when no law outright stripped firearm rights from someone with a record. Back then, they argue, militia duties even forced felons to keep weapons handy. “Historians have been clear,” the motion states, “no eighteenth-century rule permanently barred felons from guns under criminal penalty.” It’s a dry but pointed jab at modern laws like 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which Routh’s charged under.

This isn’t some wild theory pulled out of thin air. A federal judge bought a similar pitch in 2020, letting an illegal immigrant off a gun charge by citing old cases about British loyalists after the Revolution. That ruling leaned on a simple idea: only the “untrustworthy” got disarmed, not every ex-Loyalist. Routh’s lawyers want the same logic—judge him as an individual, not a category. The 2022 *Bruen* Supreme Court decision backs them up too, demanding gun laws match “historical tradition.” For smart readers, it’s a brain teaser: does the past really greenlight felons with rifles today?

Thing is, Routh’s not just any felon. The feds say he cased Trump’s properties for a month, left a note admitting he wanted the ex-president dead, and offered cash to anyone who’d finish the job. That’s a far cry from the immigrant who dodged a charge five years ago with no hint of violence. His team’s betting on history, but the prosecution’s got a story that screams danger—hardly the kind of nuance a judge might shrug off.

What’s at Stake Beyond Routh

Routh’s play could shake up more than his own fate. Win this, and you’ve got a crack in the wall of felon gun bans—laws that’ve stood for decades. Picture a guy who did time for a nonviolent rap, say cooking the books on his taxes. Right now, he’s barred from a handgun forever. If Routh’s argument holds, that could change, forcing courts to rethink who’s “dangerous” enough to lose their rights. For legal eagles or policy wonks, it’s a ripple worth watching.

Monday wasn’t just about this motion, either. His lawyers also pushed to test-fire the SKS rifle he allegedly had—see if it even works—while the DOJ shot back that it’s beside the point. Another filing tried to nix evidence of Routh mulling bigger weapons, like an RPG, arguing it’s too inflammatory. It’s a defense on offense, chipping away at the case piece by piece. Smart move? Maybe, if the judge bites.

The broader context here matters. Gun laws are under a microscope since *Bruen* flipped the script, and Routh’s case lands square in that mess. His next court date’s April 15, 2025, with a trial set for September. Between now and then, expect plenty of ink spilled on whether a would-be assassin can lean on the Constitution to skate—or at least lighten his load.

Our Take

Routh’s Second Amendment hail Mary is a gutsy swing, no question. The historical angle’s got legs—*Bruen*’s opened the door, and judges are itching to flex on old precedents. His team’s not wrong that early America didn’t blanket-ban felons from guns; that’s a fact that could stick. But let’s be real: the guy’s accused of hunting a former president with a scoped rifle and a paper trail of intent. That’s not a footnote—it’s the whole damn book. The Constitution’s broad, but it’s not a get-out-of-jail-free card for this.

For sharp folks keeping tabs, here’s the deal. This motion’s a long shot that might just nick the edges of gun law—maybe give some nonviolent felons a second look down the road. But Routh himself? The assassination rap’s too heavy, the evidence too ugly. I’d wager he’s sunk, Second Amendment or not. Still, this case is a live one—could nudge how courts weigh rights versus risk. Keep an eye on April 15; that hearing’s where the rubber meets the road.