5th Circuit Says the Federal Ban on Handgun Sales to Young Adults Is Unconstitutional

crimsonaudio

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 9, 2002
67,723
82,340
462
crimsonaudio.net
The government's lawyers argued that 18-to-20-year-olds are not part of "the people" whose "right to keep and bear arms" is guaranteed by the Second Amendment. They cited "the common law's recognition of 21 years as the date of legal maturity at the time of the founding" and "the fact that legislatures have long established minimum age requirements for various activities."

As Judge Edith Jones notes in the 5th Circuit's opinion, however, "there are no age or maturity restrictions in the plain text of the Amendment, as there are in other constitutional provisions," which "suggests that the Second Amendment lacks a minimum age requirement." She also observes that "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" (protected by the First Amendment), "the right of the people" to be secure from "unreasonable searches and seizures" (protected by the Fourth Amendment), and the unspecified rights "retained by the people" under the Ninth Amendment "undoubtedly protect eighteen-to-twenty-year-olds as much as twenty-one-year-olds."
 
  • Like
Reactions: dtgreg

Huckleberry

Hall of Fame
Nov 9, 2004
5,593
12,407
287
Jacksonville, FL
I’m in favor of what I consider reasonable gun control laws (such as mandatory background checks, waiting periods, red flag legislation, mandatory trigger guards and gun safes in a house with minors, required insurance for gun ownership, limits on magazine capacity, gun shows and private sales must abide by the same rules as gun shops), but it’s always been my feeling that if a person can serve their country in the military at age 18, then all other adult rights should be granted to them as well.
 

75thru79

Scout Team
Nov 22, 2024
109
162
52
So essentially anyone at any age can purchase and possess a gun?
Maybe take off the outrage goggles for a few minutes and think about it. The age of majority is a state thing and states are different about whether or not 18 is adult or 21. Anyone that is the legal age of majority should be able to enjoy all that goes with it. Why didn't Biden do something about setting a federal age of majority so everyone could be consistent?
 
  • Like
Reactions: dtgreg

mdb-tpet

All-SEC
Sep 2, 2004
1,864
1,951
282
The current interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the most baffling corporate/political actions I've ever been exposed to. It seems to me 1/2 of the sentence is ignored.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

What I see as the interpretation: "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

The well regulated and security of a free state part is all but ignored for the most part, yet it's the subject of the sentence.

And even the Arms part is highly debatable, as most people assume Arms are muskets or flintlock pistols back in the day. It's interesting that the constitution does not specifically mention firearms, or anything that the musket has evolved into.

Such a poorly worded sentence with such great implications. We need a new second amendment and more proper interpretation.

I cannot see the reason for not "regulating" the age that firearms can be legally owned, used, sold, or purchased.
 
  • Emphasis!
Reactions: Bamaro

CrimsonJazz

Hall of Fame
May 27, 2022
6,604
7,863
187
To be fair, when 2A was written there were no disenfranchised teens running around with SSRI prescriptions and a society that encouraged victimization regardless of circumstance. I would suggest we examine this, but my spidey-sense tells me this would not go over well. 🤷‍♂️
 

Bamaro

TideFans Legend
Oct 19, 2001
28,198
13,441
287
Jacksonville, Md USA
I’m in favor of what I consider reasonable gun control laws (such as mandatory background checks, waiting periods, red flag legislation, mandatory trigger guards and gun safes in a house with minors, required insurance for gun ownership, limits on magazine capacity, gun shows and private sales must abide by the same rules as gun shops), but it’s always been my feeling that if a person can serve their country in the military at age 18, then all other adult rights should be granted to them as well.
Those 18 - 21 are under the close leadership of others older and much more experienced.
 

Huckleberry

Hall of Fame
Nov 9, 2004
5,593
12,407
287
Jacksonville, FL
Those 18 - 21 are under the close leadership of others older and much more experienced.
True, but that’s not my point. Maybe some training classes should be mandatory for those in that age group (and maybe training or proof of ability for everyone else as well), but I still feel if we’re asking someone to risk their life, they should be treated as an adult.
 
  • Like
Reactions: crimsonaudio

crimsonaudio

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 9, 2002
67,723
82,340
462
crimsonaudio.net
And any child.
I'm guessing you didn't read the linked article, which has tons of quotes from the decision indicating this ruling is for adults 18-20.

As Judge Edith Jones notes in the 5th Circuit's opinion, however, "there are no age or maturity restrictions in the plain text of the Amendment, as there are in other constitutional provisions," which "suggests that the Second Amendment lacks a minimum age requirement." She also observes that "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" (protected by the First Amendment), "the right of the people" to be secure from "unreasonable searches and seizures" (protected by the Fourth Amendment), and the unspecified rights "retained by the people" under the Ninth Amendment "undoubtedly protect eighteen-to-twenty-year-olds as much as twenty-one-year-olds."

Jones adds that "the history of firearm use, particularly in connection with militia service, contradicts the premise that eighteen-to-twenty-year-olds are not covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment." Under the 1792 Militia Act, "eighteen-to-twenty-year-olds not only served in that militia, but were required to serve," she writes. "Eighteen-to-twenty-year-olds therefore must be covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment, as they were compulsorily enrolled in the regiments that the Amendment was written to protect….While the core of the right [to arms] is rooted in self-defense and unconnected with the militia, the text of the Amendment's prefatory clause considered along with the overwhelming evidence of their militia service at the founding indicates that eighteen-to-twenty-year-olds were indeed part of 'the people' for Second Amendment purposes."

In short, Jones writes, "the text of the Second Amendment includes eighteen-to-twenty-year-old individuals among 'the people' whose right to keep and bear arms is protected."

Those laws "were passed too late in time to outweigh the tradition of pervasively acceptable firearm ownership by eighteen-to-twenty-year-olds at 'the crucial period of our nation's history,'" Jones says. "The federal government has presented scant evidence that eighteen-to-twenty-year-olds' firearm rights during the founding era were restricted in a similar manner to the contemporary federal handgun purchase ban, and its 19th century evidence 'cannot provide much insight into the meaning of the Second Amendment when it contradicts earlier evidence.'"

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit reached a similar conclusion in July 2021, when a divided panel ruled in Hirschfeld v. ATF that "our nation's most cherished constitutional rights vest no later than 18," adding that "the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms is no different."
 

crimsonaudio

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 9, 2002
67,723
82,340
462
crimsonaudio.net
True, but that’s not my point. Maybe some training classes should be mandatory for those in that age group (and maybe training or proof of ability for everyone else as well), but I still feel if we’re asking someone to risk their life, they should be treated as an adult.
I agree - if someone is considered mature enough to be called to die for the country, to vote, etc, then their constitutional rights should be fully vested.
 

Tidewater

FB|NS|NSNP Moderator
Staff member
Mar 15, 2003
23,871
17,252
337
Hooterville, Vir.
The Virginia Bill of Rights 1776:
That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power.

George Mason's proposed amendments to the Constitution of the United States 1788:
That the People have a Right to keep and to bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free State; that Standing Armies in Time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the Circumstances and Protection of the Community will admit; and that in all Cases, the Military should be under strict Subordination to, and governed by the Civil Power.

I am not sure why Madison chose to rephrase it the way he did.

This used to be entirely a state issue, but through the monstrous abomination of incorporation, the federal government has usurped the power to overrule common-sense state laws on the matter.
 

Tidewater

FB|NS|NSNP Moderator
Staff member
Mar 15, 2003
23,871
17,252
337
Hooterville, Vir.
And, any discussion of the wording of the Bill of Rights must be prefaced with the demonstrable truth that the entire Constitution was ratified based on the interpretation that the Federal government would be able to legitimately exercise only those powers that were expressly delegated to it. Every single person who said so advocated ratification. The only folks who argued that the Federal government would wield powers beyond those enumerated were those delegates that opposed ratification on that basis.

Not there in black and white? Denied to the Federal government.
 

Bodhisattva

Hall of Fame
Aug 22, 2001
22,227
3,503
287
Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida
And, any discussion of the wording of the Bill of Rights must be prefaced with the demonstrable truth that the entire Constitution was ratified based on the interpretation that the Federal government would be able to legitimately exercise only those powers that were expressly delegated to it. Every single person who said so advocated ratification. The only folks who argued that the Federal government would wield powers beyond those enumerated were those delegates that opposed ratification on that basis.

Not there in black and white? Denied to the Federal government.
Wait. You mean to tell me that if the Constitution specifically gives the feds the power to do something, then they can do it? But, if the Constitution doesn't specifically give the feds the power to do something, then they can't do it? That's just crazy rationale. All side-walk constitutional scholars know what is constitutional is what one likes the feds to do. 'Cause when the government does something, somebody else has to pay for it, which is fair. :cool:
 

JDCrimson

Hall of Fame
Feb 12, 2006
6,235
6,165
187
52
I misread it to believe that kids were able to buys guns, sorry.

Maybe take off the outrage goggles for a few minutes and think about it. The age of majority is a state thing and states are different about whether or not 18 is adult or 21. Anyone that is the legal age of majority should be able to enjoy all that goes with it. Why didn't Biden do something about setting a federal age of majority so everyone could be consistent?
 

Fubo TV Free Trial - Cut the cord!

Purchases may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.

Latest threads