After a U.S. District judge ruled in March that Minnesota’s ban on issuing concealed carry permits to adults 18-, 19- and 20-years old was unconstitutional and a three-judge panel of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld that ruling last month, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison still isn’t satisfied with allowing young adults their Second Amendment rights.
On July 30, Ellison petitioned for a rehearing by the full 8th Circuit Court in the case Worth v. Jacobson, in which plaintiffs argue that such a ban is a violation of the constitutional rights of adults 18 to 20 years old.
“I believe the court erred earlier this month in ruling that the Second Amendment requires Minnesota to allow open carry by youth as young as 18,” Ellison said in a written statement. “Respectfully, I believe the court reached the wrong conclusion on the facts and the history, especially in light of the Supreme Court’s recent, common-sense decision to uphold a federal law criminalizing gun possession by domestic abusers.”
Ellison also takes issue with the fact that the district court and the 8th Circuit used the new standards for deciding Second Amendment cases created in the 2022 Supreme Court Bruen decision in ruling against the state on the matter.
“Minnesota has not met its burden to proffer sufficient evidence to rebut presumptions that 18 to 20-year-olds seeking to carry handguns in public for self-defense are protected by the right to keep and bear arms,” the earlier 8th Circuit ruling stated. “The Carry Ban violates the Second Amendment as applied to Minnesota through the Fourteenth Amendment, and, thus, is unconstitutional.”
The circuit court also used the second requirement of the Bruen ruling in determining whether there was a historical precedent for such a ban.
“Minnesota did not proffer an analogue that meets the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of the Carry Ban for 18 to 20-year-old Minnesotans,” the opinion stated. “The only proffered evidence that was both not entirely based on one’s status as a minor and not entirely removed from burdening carry—Indiana’s 1875 statute—is not sufficient to demonstrate that the Carry Ban is within this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
In the earlier opinion, the court also quoted significant points made in the Supreme Court’s 2010 McDonald v. Chicago decision.
“A legislature’s ability to deem a category of people dangerous based only on belief would subjugate the right to bear arms ‘in public for self-defense’ to ‘a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees,’” that ruling stated.
The lawsuit was filed by three gun rights organizations—the Firearms Policy Coalition, the Second Amendment Foundation and the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus—through their members Kristin Worth, Austin Dye, Alex Anderson and Joe Knudsen.
Interesting that Ellison tries to “justify” the ban on 18 to 20 year old voters, by pointing out that he can ban domestic abusers. It’s almost like he believes that all 18 to 20 year olds are domestic abusers? Really? Both male and female? Both Black and white and Hispanic and Asian and Native American? Huh, imagine that. I suspect that Ellison himself was an impulsive domestic abuser at that age, so he is projecting his own misconduct onto all men and women in that cohort.
A two word response should have shut him up long ago. Due process.
Not only was Ellison a known spouse/partner abuser in the past, but I’m sure his desire to ban law-abiding 18-20 year olds from carry for their own protection would not affect the Twin Cities gangstas from toting weapons illegally in da hood. Similar to when Eric Holder stated he was not going to prosecute “his people” for obvious and film-documented voter intimidation 8 or so years back.
Always the case: It must be the tool and not the individual that is blamed, and entire collective must be controlled for the misdeeds of a relatively small group of wanton abusers and law breakers.
Good bet that Camerade Mufti Ellison is fully in support of 18yr olds (and under) and in aliens voting.
@ Paul
l would say it indicates that Ellison thinks being a domestic abuser is a phase of Life, like being 18-20 – except that the constant blatantly unConstitutional hence frivolous lawfare from pols and DAs is creating the appearance in my mind of attorneys fraudulently creating endless taxpayer/citizen funded revenue for other attorneys *under the color of law*…
Ellison is a mOoSeL aM. Domestic abuse is a tradition & so is Taqiya(lying). I thought they already had a host of youngin’s carrying gats in the Twin cities?!?🙄
There was reporting at the time that Keith Ellison personally had a hand in releasing the heavily edited St. Floyd video. The full video came out later after the revolution was fully underway, and no one was paying attention. I bet most people still don’t understand the full context of what really happened. That’s how propaganda works.
Most people offload basically all of their critical thinking to emotional heuristics that take the place of thinking. Everyone offloads some.
As such, “understanding” in this context plays no part for most people. They feel their way to the conclusion and remain there. Facts will not dislodge them because they didn’t logic their way into the position in the first place. To move them you’d have to emote them out of their current position.
Fair enough, I know damn well I assume anything said by a commie is an outright lie or some form of manipulated truth that is some way intended to do harm. I may or may not examine it in detail each time depending on topic (TLDR often applies) but that can create a blind spot that could miss useful bits of information in a word salad that often gets served up by underemployed baristas (and their better connected ideological comrades) and/or chat gpt.
I find it more useful to read the actual smart people’s writings and then compare what’s been written to how it’s operationalized.
So, for instance, one can read Gramsci, Freiri, Alinsky, Fannon, Foucault, Hegel, Lenin, Mao etc.
One can then go to a website like beautifultrouble dot org and see how they’re actually using those tools today. Sign up for a mailer and they’ll send you intel direct to your inbox pretty much daily and give you links to other sites showing you other sides of the operations they’re running or associated with.
Why the actual fuck no one, other than myself and some other autists, does this is beyond me.
Your enemies will openly tell you what they’re doing and how. They’ll email a lot of it right to you if you just give them an address. Good luck getting a GOPer to sign up for the fucking newsletter though. That would take like, well, work and if there’s one thing GOPers don’t do it’s work.
But GOPers are like Biden in that regard. If it’s outside 9-5, they can’t do it.
In my case time scarcity applies but should improve over the next few months, any mailers that tend to cover the northeast region you know of offhand?
If you’re a bit more specific I can probably rustle something up for you but it might be a bit more social media heavy than you’d like. (Many “direct action” groups have Twitter/X/TwiX accounts, for example.)
I say “more specific” because the way NY is built, and not knowing exactly what part of upstate you’re in I’d tend to scatter gun shit out East to Cleveland/Pitt and south into Jersey, Maryland and Delaware as well as Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut etc.
I would assume that, mostly, there’s at least one of those areas you don’t care much about and eliminating it would cut things down to a smaller firehose of potential information.
*out West.
Sorry, they’re all “east” to me.
Lol yeah I understand let’s go with Saratoga, Albany, Troy, Schenectady Hudson for NY then Pittsfield MA on up to Bennington and Burlington VT.
I’m fairly busy, so, I’ll get you a list within a few days.
I think someone needs to drag Minnesota AG Keith Ellison out back and domestically abuse him.
““I believe the court erred earlier this month in ruling that the Second Amendment requires Minnesota to allow open carry by youth as young as 18,” Ellison said in a written statement. “”
I wonder if this bitch Ellison thinks 18 year olds are too young to vote for him. Actually no I don’t.
What I’m really hoping is that 18 year olds that aren’t bangers see through his BS and vote accordingly.
If they were to raise the voting age to 21, their argument would be more coherent. But they want to lower it to 16.
Exactly!
IMO, if you’re too young to buy/carry a weapon then you are too young to be registering for Selective Service. You may have to touch a weapon LOL
Young adult: “Mom, Dad, I’m 18 today. I’m an adult.”
Mom/Dad: “Yes you are but you are not an American citizen.”
Young adult: “What? Of course I am.”
Mom/Dad: “Well see, you can’t exercise constitutional rights like a real American citizen can so that means you are not an American citizen yet. Now look, you got this letter from the government saying you need to register for selective service.”
Young adult: “But I’m not an American citizen.”
8th Circuit: “No.”
An overall sort of interesting argument since it wasn’t that long ago that there was a slice of the Right suggesting, not very strongly but nonetheless, to raise the voting age to 24 in an attempt to match brain maturation.
Not that it matters much. People like Ellison don’t think of words as having actual meaning. Words are simply tools that can be used any way one might like provided that doing so gets the right people more power or keeps them in power.
I’ve always hated arguments based on mid-20s neural maturity because they suggest that full enjoyment of civil rights is contingent on some fleeting ideal state of neural optimality. For if we can deem someone something short of a full citizen because they fall short of full maturity, by any degree, why would we not do the same to those who exhibit age-related decline, in any degree, beginning perhaps no later than age thirty? And having once established that civil rights depend on having an optimal brain, rather than a sufficient one, I can well imagine that age would not long remain the only variable under consideration.
Let’s be real, the honest reason they wanted to do it was because they thought raising the age to 24 would benefit R’s electorally. Exactly the inverse of D’s who want to lower the age to 16.
I have to admit that it would be interesting to see how it would change public policy, though I think the D’s get more bang for their buck than the R’s ever could simply because of other facets of society being larger drivers of voting patterns at this point.
The civil rights and slippery slope arguments meant more to me when it was remotely believable that this country wasn’t lawless. That’s no longer the case. You will not keep the rights you will not defend and between the R’s and the D’s most of the BoR has already long since been put through the shredder.
“People like Ellison don’t think of words as having actual meaning“
Well no, words don’t have intrinsic meaning, they have usage that may change over time and circumstance.
“Strictly speaking, words themselves are meaningless — that is, they have no intrinsic meaning.1 However, they refer to things that do — the ideas and concepts in our minds.2 Which is to say that words are meaningful inasmuch as they describe the ideas we are trying to communicate.“
Just saying things to say them at this point huh miner?
It’s the weekend – he’s making up a word salad to use up all of the nearly empty bottles of word salad dressing stored in his non-functional refrigerated head
Hehehe! Oof!
He’s attempting to sound smart with a copy+paste of an answer posted here:
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/107917/are-there-words-that-have-no-meanings
It’s a semi-common Lefty argument, actually.
It’s also not particularly impressive to point to linguistic drift as an excuse for saying whatever you want and then defining the terms post hoc to make the statement say whatever works later on.
It’s a form of sophistry that people like Aristophanes were ruthlessly, and quite publicly, mocking 2400+ years ago.
It does however seem impressive to people who could barely muster a C- in Intro Philosophy.
The MN AG is whistling past the graveyard if he thinks the full 8th Circuit will agree to hear the case. The 8th Circuit isn’t like the 9th Circus where the majority of judges are rabidly anti 2nd Amendment so much so as figuratively flip the bird to SCOTUS. So, why would a majority of the active judges on the 8th Circuit vote for en banc review which will only delay the inevitable of an infringement of 18-10 year old’s 2nd Amendment rights. The only valid reasons for the MN AG to request en banc review is delay or virtue signalling. If SCOTUS ever grants certiorari to a case re. infringement based on age other than <18 they will rule that Bruen requires the state to prove there are historical traditions analog(s) or similar laws. The historical period is 1791 (2nd Amendment ratified) through 1868 (14th Amendment ratified).
“If SCOTUS ever grants certiorari to a case re. infringement based on age other than <18 they will rule that Bruen requires the state to prove there are historical traditions analog(s) or similar laws."
With “Rahimi”, the SC provided a path around “Bruen”. An analog doesn’t mean direct copy, but a collage of “kinda sorta” examples is close enough.
We shall see, I have no doubt they will try exactly what you are saying but I would assume the 5th circuit would likely put out a contradictory ruling soon enough that would create a circuit split if only to be ornery.
“…I would assume the 5th circuit would likely put out a contradictory ruling soon enough that would create a circuit split if only to be ornery.”
With you, there.
Comments are closed.