“Our nation’s most cherished constitutional rights vest no later than 18.” That’s a fact and a finding that’s awfully inconvenient for the moral superiors who make up the Civilian Disarmament Industrial Complex. They’re highly invested in the prospect that people who are old enough to vote and serve in the military can’t possibly be trusted with the awesome responsibility that is handgun ownership.
Sadly for them, a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling today finding that denying full Second Amendment rights to Americans aged 18 to 20 years old is patently unconstitutional.
As Judge Julius Richardson wrote for the three-judge panel . . .
When do constitutional rights vest? At 18 or 21? 16 or 25? Why not 13 or 33? In the law, a line must sometimes be drawn. But there must be a reason why constitutional rights cannot be enjoyed until a certain age. Our nation’s most cherished constitutional rights vest no later than 18. And the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms is no different.
Plaintiffs seek an injunction and a declaratory judgment that several federal laws and regulations that prevent federally licensed gun dealers from selling handguns to any 18-, 19-, or 20-year-old violate the Second Amendment. We first find that 18-year-olds possess Second Amendment rights. They enjoy almost every other constitutional right, and they were required at the time of the Founding to serve in the militia and furnish their own weapons. We then ask, as our precedent requires, whether the government has met its burden to justify its infringement of those rights under the appropriate level of scrutiny. To justify this restriction, Congress used disproportionate crime rates to craft overinclusive laws that restrict the rights of overwhelmingly law-abiding citizens. And in doing so, Congress focused on purchases from licensed dealers without establishing those dealers as the source of the guns 18- to 20-year-olds use to commit crimes. So we hold that the challenged federal laws and regulations are unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. Despite the weighty interest in reducing crime and violence, we refuse to relegate either the Second Amendment or 18- to 20-year-olds to a second-class status. (emphasis added).
Richardson is a Trump appointee. He was joined in the decision by Judge G. Steven Agee (a George W. Bush appointee). Judge James A. Wynn (a Clinton appointee) dissented.
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.
You can read the full ruling here.
The Department of Just will no doubt appeal and ask for an en banc hearing of case, Hirschfeld v. ATF. Don’t touch that dial.
The anti gun GOP supermajority in Florida is going to be pissed their law is in jeopardy. This was a key part of anti gunner Rick Scott’s anti gun Omnibus bill a few years back
Fourth doesn’t apply to Florida. Just Maryland, the Virginias, and the Carolinas I believe.
Plus West Virginia.
https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/circuitmap/circuitmap.jpg
Ha ha, Ah, now I see you said “Virginias!” I don’t usually think of “them!” 🙂
Time out, I’m not an expert, but the ruling was directed towards dealers with FEDERAL licenses, should apply to all 50 states.
“…the ruling was directed towards dealers with FEDERAL licenses, should apply to all 50 states.”
Appeals courts only issue nationwide rulings when blocking Trump, and other non-leftists.
Not the way it works, as the ruling doesn’t negate state laws unless those laws are challenged also, even though the ruling points that those laws too may fall. At least within the fourth district. Other district courts of appeals will fell free to contradict it.
Article addresses FEDERAL laws, not state laws, and should affect federal laws nationwide.
“Plaintiffs seek an injunction and a declaratory judgment that several federal laws and regulations that prevent federally licensed gun dealers from selling handguns to any 18-, 19-, or 20-year-old violate the Second Amendment.”
Equal protection under the law will include all 50 states.
evilstateguy…I suspect there is probably more to the story. Nonetheless what do you suggest Floridians do? Jump ship and join the democRat Party? You know join the Jim Crow Gun Control democRat Party that would make what you claim Scott and associates have done look like a walk in a park.
The fascist left wants to lower voting age to 16. I’m for it. Give 16yo’s their full rights under the constitution. Military service, contracts and the right to keep and bear arms.
“Give 16yo’s their full rights under the constitution.”
I agree wholeheartedly. They can already drive cars in most states (at least with a learner’s permit), and cars are as deadly as guns — probably deadlier in the hands of a 16-year-old driver.
“They can already drive cars in most states (at least with a learner’s permit), and cars are as deadly as guns“
Yes, I agree, we should adopt the regulation model we use for automobiles.
Written test to ensure the applicant understands the rights and responsibilities of operating the vehicle or firearm, as well as a proficiency test on the highway or a live fire range to demonstrate to a trained observer the applicant has the skills necessary to handle the awesome responsibility of a automobile/firearm in public spaces.
And I like your idea of a learners permit, no carrying a firearm unless accompanied by a licensed adult who can advise the neophyte on the various situations they encounter.
I have often have problems with comprehension.
Especially, the meaning of words.
I can not, for example, understand the difference between ‘Right’ and ‘Privilege’.
But I’m really not to bright, dropped on my noggin a few to many times.
Better yet we can have firearm courses in the schools just like drivers education.
We could gave classroom work and range time. Bring back the shooting sports and once you pass the course you can apply for your CCW at a reduced fee.
“firearm courses in the schools”
sounds great. high school competitions like football.
minor49iq…Why don’t you adorn yourself in a sheet and pointed hat and make it a poll tax?
Just remember that the right to bears arms is a constitutional right, while right to drive is not. So don’t necessarily conflate the two.
And the court should extend this logic farther. My non-constitutionally mandated marriage or drivers license is automatically valid in all 50 states, but my constitutionally-protected concealed carry permit is not recognized everywhere.
The problem there is the parents are liable for any thing they do. Your child of under 25 has to be excluded specifically from a parent’s auto insurance if you share the same address. Making all 18 YOs adults did a big disservice. Many adults still in college on parents’ dime are not ready to be adults. They get tricked into signing up for high interest charge cards(to help build their credit). They get other high interest loans that hurt them in the long run(especially those kids that the parents are putting on a spending allowance to learn how to budget).
Since we are not drafting for the military these last many decades, maybe we should make these want to be adults apply for adulthood with a reason – like they moved out, got married, want to join the service, whatever. This could save many youths from a felony before they really know they are not 9 ft high and bullet proof.
rt66, dunno where you live, but your description of auto insurance does not apply in Texas, at least. My 41-year-old son lives in the same house as his mother and I, and I have never even heard of such an exclusion in my auto policies, and he has never mentioned such in his. Further, when he drives my car, or I drive his, our policies cover whoever has our permission to drive our cars. This also includes my 23-year-old granddaughter. So your example is flat wrong, at least if you think it represents anything national.
The problem is not left-wing Democrats, your problem is the Republican Party:
“February 23, 2018
Florida Gov. Rick Scott joined a growing list of Republican lawmakers Friday to endorse raising the minimum age for purchasing rifles to 21 years old, marking his first major break from the policy priorities of the National Rifle Association.
Support our journalism. Subscribe today.
The GOP leadership of the Florida House and Senate quickly stood with Scott in backing a broad package of legislative initiatives, including funding for increased school security and setting up a new process to take guns out of the hands of those deemed to pose a danger. The proposals have come in response to the deadly mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., on Feb. 14.“
Remember, it was a democrat Obama who opened millions of acres of public lands to the carrying of firearms through the Democrat sponsored CARD act of 2009.
Help me to remember when have the Republicans expanded gun rights in such a manner over the last 20 years?
Yep, all you conservative Republicans talk a good game, but when the rubber meets the road it’s the Democrats who expand your liberties.
“…it’s the Democrats who expand your liberties”
I may be a total ass clown, but I am definitely good for a hearty belly laugh now and again.
So “Help me to remember…”
Seriously! I need all the help I can get!
Here’s a friendly suggestion. Set aside your partisanship, and judge each topic independently. Instead of discussing the topic at hand, you’re bringing up past issues for the sole purpose of cheerleading for your tribe.
I am on topic, the very first post in these comments discusses Republican Rick Scott and his anti-gun campaign as evidenced by his omnibus crime bill banning handgun purchases by those under 21.
JWM claimed that the leftists were the problem, but I pointed out that leftist Democrat Obama actually expanded gun rights rather than limiting them as did Republican Rick Scott.
Really, do any of the POTG on this site appreciate that Obama and the Democrats opened up millions of acres of federally managed public lands to the carrying of handguns under state laws? (Rolling back a Reagan-era regulation to boot).
Dude,
Here is a friendly suggestion;
Look up the Aesop Fable, The Scorpion and the Frog.
It will save you a few meaningless posts.
I appreciate that Obama signed that. It’s cool that the GOA pushed for that and got it.
Will the real SA-Truppfuhrer miner display his runes so we can see him.
Is that all you got, lame-ass Nazi jokes…
And you misspelled ‘Trumpenfuhrer’…
Jaybird, if I use Nazi ruins I would be sued for trademark infringement by the CPAC people:
“Comparisons of law makers to fascists and Nazis isn’t uncommon these days, but on Saturday the hashtag #Nazi was trending alongside mentions of the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), where former President Trump is set to speak on Sunday. This time it wasn’t Republican lawmakers who were compared to Nazis however, but rather it was the similarity of the stage to an ancient Norse symbol, which was more recently used by Nazis, which was noted by thousands of users on Twitter.”
Looks like the conservative Republicans have wrapped up the use of Nazi runes for their Nuremberg rallies.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/petersuciu/2021/02/27/cpac-stage-compared-to-nazi-symbol-on-social-media/amp/
“The problem is not left-wing Democrats, your problem is the Republican Party:”
Correction, all the above.
If the left is responsible for an increase in gun rights as you seem to claim, aren’t they then your enemy?
If its the left actually doing the expanding and the right the contracting, why spend so much time here? Don’t you have bigger problems in your own tent?
“If the left is responsible for an increase in gun rights as you seem to claim, aren’t they then your enemy?”
Not at all, I am all for private firearms ownership… But I don’t think any adult should be allowed to carry until they have received several hours of classroom training on rights and responsibilities of firearm ownership and carriage, as well as demonstrated their proficiency on a live fire range.
I also believe in voter ID.
I believe every adult should receive government mandated classes before they attempt any civil right.
Voting, speech, press. Take religion for example, the government can then explain the carnage from the sky daddy that people cause.
MinorIQ,
Great!! Let’s condition ALL of our Constitutional rights on “training” deemed by YOU to be ‘adequate’:
1. Can’t vote unless you have completed and PASSED an adequate Civics course, including knowledge of the Constitution (I kinda like that one; it would eliminate you and most Leftist/fascists from voting!);
2. Can’t post on the Internet, or write a letter to the editor, or give a public speech, unless you complete and PASS and adequate English (and Logic, and Rhetoric, and Speech and Debate) class – which would also eliminate you and most/all other Leftist/fascists from the Internet (again, I kinda like that one!);
3. In most states, you can’t get a driver’s license unless you’ve passed a state-approved driving course – and we all know how well that screens out incompetent driver’s, amirite????? (In my extensive experience with both driving and shooting (at both private and public ranges), the percentage of driver’s who drive like incompetent @$$holes is far higher than the percentage of shooters that shoot like incompetent @$$holes.); and
4. Before a woman or girl can get an abortion, they have to watch sonograms of a developing fetus at the stage of development equivalent to their pregnancy, along with the studies and stats on post-abortion mental and emotional issues. Okay with that???
5. Bonus question: Of those four examples, which of those represent ACTUAL Constitutional rights???
Minor Annoyance, you have me nearly convinced that you are simply too stupid to walk around unaccompanied. Do you have an homunculus that rides around on your shoulder reminding you to breathe?????
False dichotomy, Miner49er. Are you capable of making a point that is *not* a logical fallacy? (That’s a rhetorical question; we already know the answer.)
It’s not either/or. The problem lies with BOTH Democrats and Republicans.
When Republicans are in the minority, they do a reasonably decent job of blocking the Democrats’ obsessive attacks on legal gun ownership. When in the majority, they conveniently ignore their constituents and make no progress at all, unless it’s a side effect of some other legislative action. In fact, we’re lucky if they don’t stab us in the back.
Democrats, meanwhile, promise their left wing that they’ll stab us in the front — and most of them can be relied upon to join their party’s annual attempts to do just that. Any freedom-enhancing provisions in legislation under their purview are either unintended or carefully buried so as not to attract the ire of the “progressive” astroturfers who pay them.
Still ignoring the fact that in 2009 Obama and the Democrats opened up millions of acres of public lands to the carrying of handguns under the jurisdiction of the local state laws.
Name one accomplishment of Donald Trump in the past four years that came anywhere near that level of expansion of American citizens’ gun rights.
And remember, the Republicans held both houses of Congress and the presidency for the first two years, yet they did nothing but ban bump stocks during trumps term.
No national reciprocity, no relaxing of NFA, no hearing protection act, and the list goes on of non-accomplishments by the Republicans.
And the NRA contributed over $30 million to the Republicans in 2016, and got precisely nothing but a bump stock ban for your donation money.
Well, it is probable that Wayne got some really spiffy blowjobs from his cute little intern, but I don’t have any proof of that.
Besides even if I had proof, it’s not my thing.
Chickens…
….are my thing.
“Name one accomplishment of Donald Trump in the past four years that came anywhere near that level of expansion of American citizens’ gun rights.”
O.K.
“Richardson is a Trump appointee. He was joined in the decision by Judge G. Steven Agee (a George W. Bush appointee). Judge James A. Wynn (a Clinton appointee) dissented.”
Or didn’t you read the whole article?
https://therightscoop.com/awesome-trump-signs-bill-that-dumps-obama-gun-control-rule/
You truly are a fool…
Mr. truth, here’s a clip from the link you posted:
“President Donald Trump quietly signed a bill into law Tuesday rolling back an Obama-era regulation that made it harder for people with mental illnesses to purchase a gun.
The rule, which was finalized in December, added people receiving Social Security checks for mental illnesses and people deemed unfit to handle their own financial affairs to the national background check database.
Had the rule fully taken effect, the Obama administration predicted it would have added about 75,000 names to that database.“
Oh yes, adding 75,000 mentally ill individuals to the list of those who are allowed to buy lethal weapons is a great idea.
Do you really think that is equivalent to opening up millions of acres of public land to the carrying of firearms under state jurisdiction?
People who have been judged so mentally ill that they are receiving a disability check and have a financial manager to handle their affairs having guns you think is a great expansion of gun rights… And you call me a fool…
49er:” People who have been judged so mentally ill that they are receiving a disability check and have a financial manager to handle their affairs having guns you think is a great expansion of gun rights… And you call me a fool…
That “rule” lacked due process, unlawfully stereotyped those with mental health issues; applying a one word fits all (violent), lacked any data to back the rule, even the ACLU lost their shit over it.
You are a fool. Do us a favor and wait until the government mandates that class for a speech license before running your mouth again. (Shouldn’t be a problem for ya, you claim support for that bs)
Yo, fool. 2A does not mention mental capacity. If you wish to impose new restrictions to the right to keep and bear arms, PASS A GODDAMN AMENDMENT, YOU PIECE OF SHIT!
minor49iq…After b.h. obama and bill clintoon sold billions and billions of guns stands to reason there should be more spaces reserved to shoot. Really bozo, don’t you realize your knee pads are worn slap out from making lame excuses for the Rat Party?
All of those courses should be given in high school and required for graduation. That way, you would be required to show proof of the class if you don’t have a high school diploma.
Anyone who claims democrats are expanding gun rights hasn’t been to California. California is a one party state that, backed by Californians appointed to the ninth circuit, has been attempting to eliminate gun ownership in the state through ever increasing restrictions.
Especially if your “liberties” involve petty theft, getting high, and wearing sex toys in public.
2A does not mention age. You may wish to read it again. Set aside some time, it is 27 entire words long.
“The fascist left wants to lower voting age to 16.”
There’s a way to shut that down, real fast.
A compromise, where each side gets something.
Lower the age to 16 to both vote and carry a concealed firearm… 🙂
The real reason to lower the voting age is to also lower or eliminate the age of consent.
Bingo!!!
Trained, educated, and morally founded children should always have access to firearms.
“A 12-year-old boy fatally shot a man who forced his mother into their East Feliciana Parish home Wednesday at gunpoint, according to police.”
https://www.arklatexhomepage.com/news/state-news/louisiana/home-invasion-suspect-fatally-shot-by-12-year-old-boy-in-south-louisiana/
If 18-20 year olds do not have a constitutional right to possess firearms, neither should they be eligible for other adult rights such as marriage, voting, honoring contracts or enlisting in the armed services.
Give them a 930pm curfew as well, no cigarettes or vapes, and definitely no cell phones or smart devices. These kids need to be coddled, so treat them like babies. Or let them grow up, but be consistent.
They are already doing it, because you know Government in a free society should decide when you are an adult. Unfortunately this is both a Democrat and Republican problem the whole we know what is good for you.
I wish I’d been stopped from marrying the girl I got pregnant at 19! Just sayin’…better than ending up in Vietnam. Maybe.
Likely en banc will reverse and SCOTUS will deny cert. I have no faith in the courts at all.
You’re probably right yet if this was abortion courts wouldn’t even let the sun go down before protecting this “constitutional right” even for those UNDER 18. It’s almost like people have a dead spot on their retina and can’t see the deciding word “NOT” in “Shall Not Be Infringed.”
Valid point!! If you can decide to have an abortion at 13, why can’t you own a handgun? 2A does NOT specify any age limit. I owned 2 rifles at 13, didn’t get handguns until 19, I guess.
“If you can decide to have an abortion at 13, why can’t you own a handgun?”
Because…..
The right to abortion is absolute and immune to limitation.
If this encourages suits in other Circuits, the inevitable imbalance of disparate rulings will guarantee a spot on the the SCOTUS docket. Might take another decade due to the slow-as-a-snails-pace appellate process, but…
I want reparations for the decades that my human and civil rights have been violated.
The dems owe me money. Lots of money.
Great, Haz!!
Now do Circuit Court of Appeal decisions p***ing all over the holding in Heller, and SCOTUS doing literally NOTHING about it.
SCOTUS is NOT the friend of 2A supporters. Relying on SCOTUS to “fix” the obviously unconstitutional regulation of firearms is a feeble reed, my friend.
.
SCOTUS has become increasingly cowardly as it becomes more SUPPOSEDLY “conservative” or “originalist”. They are a bunch of politicians, not a panel of judges. Pretending otherwise is self-delusion
Ass someone replied to my earlier comment, they did grant cert to the NYSPRA case. I’m cautiously optimistic that they will finally rule that the 2nd really really means what it says. But as I said, I have no faith in the courts.
“Likely en banc will reverse and SCOTUS will deny cert.”
SCOTUS granted cert. for the N.Y. Pistol carry case, to be heard this fall…
Reminds me need to reup my NYSRPA membership. Fair raffle season is coming up quick and most of the donations are looking to go to this case so time to hit the gambling, guns, and maple cotton candy spots.
Lets stop this crap of jurisdiction/judge shopping.
There should be a single federal court; no appeals. Every federal judge would become an associate justice on the SC. Every crime or civil matter goes before the truly SC. All decisions rendered based on an 85% majority (there’s that word, again).
Consideration should be given to include all proposed legislation submitted for executive signature, regardless of level of jurisdiction.
This is 2021; we have the technology.
The Amendment process awaits!
“The Amendment process awaits!”
Nah, when “we” get power back, we can do it via simple legislation. Just like gun control laws.
“when ‘we’ get power back”
dunno. at this point they’re likely to launch nukes and burn it all down before handing anything back over.
unless of course the replacements on the right are just as co-opted as the incumbents on the left. the decay and perversion being forced upon us is not originating with our legislators – those are just puppets.
This is a small but important victory against completely arbitrary regulations like this.
The biggest reason that most Blue States do not recognize (offer reciprocity) Montana’s CWP is because we have issued them to 18 yo’s for years…the (slightly) less cheesy anti-freedom States recognize ours only if the bearer is 21 or older. A double-handful of States have full, unrestricted reciprocity.
Kudos to the 4th for this decision.
Another one gets it right.
Old enough to serve your country but not to pur chase a gun. GFY stupid moron Democrats and draft Dodger coward Biden
Dems aren’t stupid morons. They are power freaks who hold the state and federal constitutions and the American people in utter contempt. They’re smart, they know exactly what they are doing, have known for a century, and are now on a roll.
I am proud to say I would be a JFK Democrat and still vote that way. The problem is that even Trump was to the left of JFK.
“They’re smart, they know exactly what they are doing, have known for a century, and are now on a roll.”
There ya’ go.
If this were in the direct opposite where the court ruled 18 to 20 year old’s have no constitutional right to an abortion the DOJ would be tripping over themselves to appeal it. The thing is, it would never get to that point because abortion is treated like a constitutional right and the 2A despite actually being in the constitution, is treated like a distained privilege with a fee that you may not get anyway.
If the en banc doesn’t agree, go after it as an age discrimination case instead of 2A.
The restrictions on gun rights should be comparable to the restrictions on voting rights.
I remember buying my first firearm at 16, over the counter, and walking out of the store. It was a Savage 24D, o/u, .22 mag/20 gauge. We used to hunt local farms in the fall for rabbit and pheasant. No one worried or questioned how old we were. That is the difference between now and then, law abiding vs. criminal activity. The only thing farmers worried about was shooting an animal (cow etc.) or the side of their barns. Otherwise they didn’t care. We always aimed away from the farm houses or other property and waited till we were out in the fields before firing. Back then young people were taught manners and respect for others property. Something the communist left has forgotten about. My hunting friend and I were members of our High Schools Army ROTC Battalion rifle team. Remember ROTC. We had all the infantry small arms used in WWII and Korea. I was told they were removed when the ghetto gangs started robbing high schools (i.e. Chicago and other left led large cities).
I’m 68 now and remember holding and sometimes firing the historic weapons that
REAL men used to keep our country free from Nazis and Tokyo and the N. Koreans/China.
Now we have a non-president that wants to destroy it all. This was 4 years before enlisting in the real deal. God Bless America and Do Not give up your firearms.
Gary
GMan, I hear your response on so many levels!
The Leftists have never learned courtesy, manners, nor respect for others or their property, and they didnt have them back in the day either. Spent enuff time around SDS people to know upon which side of the barricade I belonged!
I too grew up learning to shoot on ww2 era weapons and still have a couple of them around, just cuz. Something about clutching my Dad’s ww2 bringbacks that I don’t get from an AR15 or AK… An old Mauser or Springfield wouldnt be my first choices, but I’d know how to use them.
A Bush appointee and a Trump appointee voted for gun rights. Guess how the Clinton appointee voted.
It should now be obvious that the court system is just as political as Congress. Law and logic no longer matter, if they ever did. As MICHAEL A CROGNALE stated above, “I have no faith in the courts at all.”
To be honest, as a lawyer I never had faith in the court system.
Ralph,
My personal opinion: for at least the last 150 years, the courts operate almost exclusively to advance the interests of the Ruling Class.
If your case happens to align with Ruling Class interests, you can count on the courts to find in your favor. If your case opposes Ruling Class interests, there is a very high probability that the courts will rule against you.
Unless you are willing and able to $$pay up$$ that is exactly how it works.
COOL!! But we all know this will be headed to scotus in the near future. The left is going to berserk – again.
The Dems are choking on their tongues. Law abiding 18 to 20 year olds need to now go after their states for a hate crime, Restricting rights based on age and restriction of 2nd amendment rights because of association based on gun ownership, a protected class. .
And this will change absolutely nothing to people living in California with similar laws on the books.
Anyone care to wager how many hours go by before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issues a stay of that ruling–pending an en-banc hearing from the Fourth Circuit?
I’ll take the wager, but it is a sucker bet.
Under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, a judgment of the Court of Appeals is not effective until the mandate issues (i.e., the formal order confirming the judgment of the Court that is sent down to the district court). Mandate must issue within 7 days after the deadline for filing a petition for rehearing (panel or en banc).
If a petition for rehearing is filed, issuance of the mandate is automatically stayed until 7 days after a ruling on the petition for rehearing.
After that, if a cert petition is / will be filed, the parties can ask for the mandate to be stayed pending a decision on the cert petition.
My prediction: petition for rehearing en banc will be filed, and that will automatically stay the mandate. CTA4 will then sit on that until after SCOTUS issues its decision in NYSR&PA (probably early 2022). What happens after that depends on whether or not Kavanaugh finds his spine or continues his devolution to Robertsian invertebrancy.
“SCOTUS issues its decision in NYSR&PA (probably early 2022).”
And you thought bankers hours were comical, try court years.
The world is moving with jet-like speed, but the courts still creep along at a pace of a horse and buggy pulling a boulder.
People will have their lives infringed on for decades, before a “justice” even dons their black robe.
Does the phrase “justice delayed is justice denied” mean anything to this relic of a system?
Especially when there is nothing complex about 2A cases, “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
This is why Trump was so important.
What did he do when he had the chance? Not a fucking thing good.
Now wait a minute, Trump did sign a bill allowing those who have been judged mentally ill to now be able to buy guns, you got to give him credit for that!
https://therightscoop.com/awesome-trump-signs-bill-that-dumps-obama-gun-control-rule/
Wasn’t this the one where people that were not involuntarily committed denied the right to purchase after they went through treatment. If so no problem at all with that precrime nonsense getting tossed.
MinorIQ,
Is you compulsion to lie a side-effect of your Leftist/statist mentality, or simply an Alinsky technique you choose to (mis)apply regularly????
From your cite:
“NBC NEWS – President Donald Trump quietly signed a bill into law Tuesday rolling back an Obama-era regulation that made it harder for people with mental illnesses to purchase a gun.”
From your (idiotic) comment:
“. . . Trump did sign a bill allowing those who have been judged mentally ill to now be able to buy guns . . .”
I refuse to believe even YOU are stupid enough to conflate ” . . . people with mental illnesses . . . ” with ” . . . judged mentally ill . . . “. Are you that stupid???? Do you honestly believe that the legislation Trump signed supersedes the ACTUAL LANGUAGE of Question 11(f) of Form 4473???? Or are you a lying POS? Or are you that ignorant of mental illness, and the fact that there are MANY diagnosable mental illnesses that (i) don’t require “adjudication”, simply a diagnosis from a doctor, psychiatrist or psycotherapist, and (ii) do not amount to “a danger to themselves or others”?
Or are you just a partisan sanguinary perpetrator of terminological inexactitudes? I think we all know the answer. Go lie somewhere else, troll.
In addition to 3 good justices he appointed a ton of federal judges. It’s noted in the story that this judge was a Trump appointee.
But I’m sure you didn’t really want an answer so keep going off.
@ant7
“the decay and perversion being forced upon us is not originating with our legislators – those are just puppets.”
Where are out friendly billionaires? We need more billionaires to do stuff for us. It is an equal protection under the law issue. If we don’t have enough friendly billionaires, the government is required to provide them for us. You know, sorta, kinda like Miranda rights.
Most 18 year olds haven’t had the time needed to become a felon. So I dont think they should own a gunm . Once they get their felonship a handgunm should be purchasable.
When they release them without bail they get to pick a gat from the buy back box
Missourians have been able to own and buy firearms at 18.
Just not from government stores.
Only seems fair.
There might be some valid argument to the 21 rule. At the time of the framing generally, only officers carried hand guns in the armed services and not regular servicemen. An officer would have been over 21. Officers carried sidearms to punish other soldiers for treason.
Michael Strowbridge: Wrong on all three counts.
One thing wrong with the article, Dan. James A Wynn is an Obama appointee, not Clinton.
I have no idea how wide an application this court ruling will have, how long it will stand if contested. That said, the court’s majority should be heartily congratulated. Limiting the rights of citizens deemed old enough to volunteer for military service was and remains unacceptable in my view. By the way, isn’t it strange that 18 year olds are old enough to be sent off to fight and possibly die in wars started by older and wiser??? citizens, but are barred from the legal acquisition of a simple handgun. Funny to isn’t it, that while in military service, these 18 year olds are supplied with all kinds of weapons and ammunition, seemingly without major problems, but the same 18 year old would not be permitted to purchase, with their own funds, simple handgun. There is a very bad smell to this arrangement. By the way, it’s been a very long time since I was 18 years of age.
WRONG, on all three counts.
Sikander Bactrian
If you reference my comment, immediately above yours, be specific please.
Alan
Alan, I wasnt referencing your comment at all.. Unfortunately this forum doesnt allow one to delete mis-entries.. or this wouldnt have been posted where it was. I meant to reference Michael Strowbridge’s post, above. My apologies.
Sikander:
No apologies necessary. Lest I forget, thanks for the clarification.
Comments are closed.