Handgun ban for adults under 21 is unconstitutional, rules US federal court

| July 15, 2021

In 1968, then-President Johnson signed a law banning the sale of handguns for those under 21; now the law has been ruled “unconstitutional” by a federal court.

A Virginia woman filed suit after she was denied a hand gun by a local firearms dealer due to her age. She wanted the gun for protection from an abusive ex, and works in remote, rural areas.

The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this law is unconstitutional.

Several of our usual suspects sent this in.

Federal court rules against ban on handgun purchases for adults under 21

Jake Dima

A federal court ruled on Tuesday that the United States’s ban on handguns for adults under the age of 21 is unconstitutional.

The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 vote, determined that the Second Amendment extends to 18- to 20-year-olds after a federal law barred them from purchasing pistols from licensed firearm dealers.

“Our nation’s most cherished constitutional rights vest no later than 18,” Judge Julius Richardson wrote in the decision.

The court applauded Congress’s efforts to curb violence, though it insisted the move was a violation of adult gun rights.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“History makes clear that 18- to 20-year-olds were understood to fall under the Second Amendment’s protections,” the court added. “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.”(emphasis added)

Look for an appeal, or having the case reheard with the 4th En Banc. If- a big if- the case stands it could make this a Supreme Court case that could overturn Johnson’s gun ban.

There is a protective order against the abusive individual. These seem to work better when displayed at gun point.

Yahoo News

Thanks, usual suspects.

Category: Guest Link, Guns, Second Amendment

Comments (17)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Mason says:

    For those who want to save the effort, Richardson was a Trump appointee. Trump’s best appointments seem to be at the federal appellate courts.

    I’ll take a win in this year of losing.

  2. Roh-Dog says:

    Here’s a quote from one of the dissenting “justices”:

    The majority’s decision to grant the gun lobby a victory in a fight it lost on Capitol Hill more than fifty years ago is not compelled by law. Nor is it consistent with the proper role of the federal judiciary in our democratic system…No, the Second Amendment is exceptional not because it is uniquely oppressed or imperiled, but rather because it is singularly capable of causing harm… —“Judge” James A. Wynn Jr.

    When I read this I yelled profusely for 10 minutes, pulled an abdominal muscle “Causing harm”…ffs. Worth it.
    Remember when it was polite to have a rational argument instead of ‘people’s feelings’?

    • Roh-Dog says:

      Strike ‘one of the dissenting “justices”’, sub ‘the dissenting “justice”’.
      The 2 votes in the affirmative, having read the 2nd Amendment, considered the reading in toto as by not having their heads inserted into their rectums, against a minority vote of one invertebrate-weasel hybrid sucker of c*cks, the motion of Freedom and Justice for ALL carries. May God have mercy on “Judge” Wynn’s two remaining brain cells.

    • Mason says:

      Words are violence. It’s how the left in this country thinks.

      • Roh-Dog says:

        and “Silence is violence”. I’ve even see immutable, arbitrary characteristics applied to that illogic as well: WHITE Silence is Violence.

        Don’t know where these f’ing people get off but I know the approximate altitude General Pinochet would have assisted.

    • Mason says:

      No surprises that Wynn is an Obama appointee.

  3. A Proud Infidel®™️ says:

    Why a gun? Because a Restraining Order is a piece of paper that won’t fend off an attacker all by itself. I’m sure that screeching liberals will waste no time trying to find ways to undo this!

  4. USMC Steve says:

    And if you read the dissent from that court, specifically Wynn, it is nothing more than an unvarnished screed about bad guns, bad guns, and this will result in blood in the streets, and all that usual nonsense from an uberlibtarded gun hating judge, who would never have even attempted to properly do their job, and hear the evidence and rule. The court did exactly what it is supposed to do and this prick Wynn didn’t get his way. Fuck him and all the libtards.

  5. ninja says:

    AW1Ed wrote:

    “In 1968, then-President Johnson signed a law banning the sale of handguns for those under 21″…

    Oh, the irony, considering there were Troops under the age of 21 who went to Vietnam under LBJ’s watch…

    They can die for their country, but can’t protect themselves from dying in their own country…

    • Roh-Dog says:

      The GCA’68 and NFA’34 are both illegal acts.
      Time is ticking for them Federales to remain relevant. Texas. Kansas and Montana have already made silencers legal for purchase without paying the $200 extortion to the BATFE BBQ and Dog Extermination Club. Just can’t cross state lines… for now.*

      *I’m not a lawer(sic). This is not legal advice, nor a tastey guacamole recipe. These words are ramblings of a semi-fully madman. To be used rectally with a Head Nurse’s supervision, in Minecraft.

  6. Martinjmpr says:

    This is long overdue. And while we’re at it, we need to lower the drinking age to 18 in all states.

    18 year olds are either adults or they’re not, period. If they’re adults and can be held accountable as adults, then they are entitled to act as adults in every manner an adult could act, to include entering into contractual relationships, serving on juries, serving in the armed forces, marrying, opening bank accounts, purchasing firearms of any kind that an adult can legally own, and purchasing and consuming alcohol.

    The notion of “graduated adulthood” where we’re going to tell people they are adults when it comes to the BURDENS of adulthood(being haled into court to answer civil complaints, being drafted into the military, being charged and sentenced as an adult, no longer having the ability to claim the responsibility of a parent to support them, etc) but are still children when it comes to the BENEFITS of adulthood – for the most part, consuming alcohol and purchasing handguns – is stupid and inconsistent.

    Benefits and burdens should run together. Get the benefit? Then shoulder the burden. Bear the burden? Then also receive the benefit.

    I hope I’m not the only one who thinks it utterly, completely stupid that a 20 year old veteran who served an 18 month tour in Afghanistan is able to be charged as for “underage possession of alcohol” if he has a drink.

    If I was a defense attorney representing such a client I would demand a jury trial. I would say “let 12 citizens of this district look my client in the eye and tell him he’s “too young” to enjoy a drink. I DARE you.”

    • ninja says:

      Once upon a time…

      “U.S. History Of Alcohol Minimum Purchase Age By State”

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._history_of_alcohol_minimum_purchase_age_by_state

    • Martinjmpr says:

      Back in the old days, military installations didn’t enforce state alcohol rules (they’re not required to even today, they do so voluntarily and per Army regulations.)

      I remember being an 18 year old private in Columbus GA. Even thought GA at that time had a 19 drinking age, my new-recruit buzz cut was all the “ID” I needed to buy alcohol downtown…

      • ninja says:

        At one time, Roll Tide Country Legal age was also 19.

        I already had my Drivers License at the age of 16 and became a registered voter at the age of 18.

        Thank You for sharing your story, Martinjmpr!

        😉😎

    • pookysgirl, WC wife says:

      Martin, I’ve been making the same argument for years. It’s hilarious to me that the same people saying that “The human brain isn’t fully formed until age 25!” also say “Don’t deny the love a 12-year-old has for a 30-year-old!”

      But I think that consent laws should probably be left out of “age of majority” discussions otherwise a large portion will never agree that it should be 18.

  7. KoB says:

    “…Shall not be infringed…”

    That always seemed to be pretty much straightforward and self explanatory to me.

    • UpNorth says:

      “The right of the people” seems self explanatory, also. It doesn’t read, “The right of the people, except those under 21 years of age”.