4th Circuit panel rules federal law requiring handgun buyers to be 21 or older is unconstitutional

In a decision released today, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that 18, 19 and 20-year-olds have Second Amendment rights, and should therefore be allowed to purchase handguns.

The case was rejected at the district court level, which sided with the defendants and dismissed the case. Giffords, Brady and Everytown filed Amici in support of the ATF.

The three-judge panel didn’t buy it.

“History makes clear that 18- to 20-year-olds were understood to fall under the Second Amendment’s protections. Those over 18 were universally required to be part of the militia near the ratification, proving that they were considered part of ‘the people’ who enjoyed Second Amendment rights, and most other constitutional rights apply to this age group. And Congress may not restrict the rights of an entire group of law-abiding adults because a minuscule portion of that group commits a disproportionate amount of gun violence. Congress’s failure to connect handgun purchases from licensed dealers to youth gun violence only serves to highlight the law’s ‘unduly tenuous ‘fit’ with the government’s substantial interests. Eighteen- to twenty-year-olds have Second Amendment rights, and the challenged laws impermissibly burden those rights,” the order states.

https://thegunwriter.substack.com/people/28642877-lee-williams

 

For those who disagree with the ruling:
Demonstrate the necessity for, and efficacy of, denying 18-20yr old law abiding adults the right to own a handgun.

 

And here comes the en banc to reverse that decision, just like in Kolbe v Hogan.

 

Maybe.
Either way - next stop: USSC

 

So's what's the point of these 3 judge "panels".....seriously, what's the f**king point? Lawyers, Pftttt!

 

Fourth Circuit Rules Federal Law Banning Handgun Sales to Adults Under 21 is Unconstitutional.

“Our nation’s most cherished constitutional rights vest no later than 18. . . . we refuse to relegate either the Second Amendment or 18- to 20-year-olds to a second-class status.”

Regardless of what the full court does or doesn't do, you will not "relegate either the Second Amendment or 18- to 20-year-olds to a second-class status.”

Weird how some folks on the Left keep trying to unconstitutional strip rights from their fellow Americans.

Embarrassing for those trying to use government to strip the rights from fellow Americans.

 

Another Left Wing Attack On Our Constitutional Rights Bites The Big One:

That is simply a fact

 

What's weird, is your saying those things, when there is no one, "on the Left," here, arguing against the ruling. If an 18 yr. old can join the military, and is automatically tried as an adult, in court (right?), then it's hard to make the case that they shouldn't have gun rights. I think the conversation on the Left, in contrast to your paranoid fears, is focused on things like background checks, gun registration (for tracking purposes, when involved in a crime), types of weapons restricted (e.g., semi-automatic assault-rifles), and safe storage rules, to prevent kids or burglars from having easy access to a private individual's firearms. While there are a few with the extreme position of ridding all citizens of their guns, this is not at all the mainstream one.

 

Giffords, Brady and Everytown opposed the ruling.

You don't have to be for ridding citizens of all of their guns to be for removing rights.

 

The main one being safe storage as it appears to be THE most effective intervention to reduce gun deaths

 

It's unconstitutional.

 

If you're 18, you can legally buy an M60 Machine gun - but not a handgun.

 

even as a lefty, i agree. if they’re old enough to be drafted …

still looking for assault weapons reform though. america is embarrassing

 

"Reform". There's a new buzzword.
Understanding the 2nd Amendment protects the right to own an use all "bearable arms" - including 'assault weapons' - what "reforms" do you seek?

 

What reform are you looking for?

 

It also violates the constitution.

 

How about when there are children in the house?

 

I personally see the constitutional implications, and yes, this is a very slippery slope, but I personally think they should somehow do something to allow this restriction, so the other side doesn't start reacting too strongly and start fighting back and gaining momentum to take away additional rights.

It's not an entirely unreasonable compromise and probably does have some substantial effect at reducing crime in certain city areas.

(The reasons for that should be obvious, but I'm willing to explain it if anyone here is a little mentally slow)

 

What is "proper firearm storage"?

 

https://www.healthychildren.org/English/safety-prevention/at-home/Pages/Handguns-in-the-Home.aspx



No other industrialised country loses the number of children to firearms than America does