18-to-20-year-olds can't be barred from buying handguns, judge rules
Last edited Thu May 11, 2023, 07:03 PM - Edit history (1)
Source: Washington Post
A federal judge in Virginia has declared unconstitutional a set of laws and regulations that prohibit federally licensed firearms dealers from selling handguns to 18-to-20-year-olds, finding that the measures violated the Second Amendment. Because the statutes and regulations in question are not consistent with our Nations history and tradition, they, therefore, cannot stand, U.S. District Judge Robert E. Payne, who sits in Richmond, concluded in a 71-page opinion.
Gun-control advocates say the decision, if allowed to stand, would significantly increase gun access for a population that research shows is more impulsive and responsible for a disproportionate number of fatal shootings. But attorneys on both sides of the case said they expected the Justice Department to appeal and request a stay, which would prevent Paynes ruling from taking effect while higher courts weigh the case.
Elliott M. Harding, the attorney who argued to nullify the laws and regulations, said people under 21 years old are, for the moment, not allowed to purchase handguns from licensed dealers because a final order had not been entered. The judge set a May 18 deadline for attorneys to submit recommendations for future proceedings in this matter.
Although 18-to-20-year-olds previously could buy handguns in private sales or have a parent purchase a weapon for them the decision issued Wednesday would dismantle a legal framework that for decades has prevented licensed dealers from selling handguns to teenagers, said William T. Clark, an attorney with the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which filed an amicus brief in the case calling for the laws at issue to be upheld.
Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/05/11/judge-rules-handgun-sales-allowed-18-year-olds/
Article updated.
Original article/headline -
A federal judge in Virginia on Wednesday declared unconstitutional a set of federal laws and regulations that prohibit federally licensed firearms dealers from selling handguns to 18- to 20-year olds, finding the measures violated the Second Amendment. Because the statutes and regulations in question are not consistent with our Nations history and tradition, they, therefore, cannot stand, U.S. District Judge Robert E. Payne, who sits in Richmond, concluded in a 71-page opinion.
Attorneys on both sides of the case said they expected the Justice Department to appeal the decision and request a stay, which would prevent Paynes ruling from taking immediate effect while higher courts weigh the case.
Although 18- to 20-year-olds previously could buy handguns in private sales or have a parent purchase a weapon for them the decision Wednesday, if left unchallenged, would dismantle a legal framework that for decades has prevented licensed dealers from selling handguns to teenagers, said William T. Clark, an attorney with the Giffords Law Center, which filed an amicus brief in the case calling for the laws at issue to be upheld. Its a significant decision we disagree with the outcome, Clark said, adding that there is compelling scientific evidence showing that teenagers are more impulsive and face unique elevated dangers from firearms.
Payne, who was nominated to the bench by President George H.W. Bush, repeatedly cited the Supreme Courts decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, a ruling from the high courts conservative majority that expanded the right to bear arms last year. The plaintiff in the Virginia case, John Corey Fraser, was 20 years old when he attempted to buy a Glock 19x handgun from a federally licensed dealer in May 2022 and was turned away, according to the lawsuit he filed last year. He challenged the constitutionality of the Gun Control Act of 1968 and federal regulations from the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, Tobacco and Explosives (ATF) that limit the sale of handguns to adults 21 years and older.
Scrivener7
(59,770 posts)Karadeniz
(24,749 posts)charge. I'm sure being a moron is grounds for impeachment.
Chainfire
(17,757 posts)GB_RN
(3,570 posts)Last edited Thu May 11, 2023, 05:44 PM - Edit history (2)
Fuck? 🤦♂️
The SCOTUS has NEVER held that there cannot be some restrictions on purchasing and ownership of firearms. Whats next? A ruling that says the law banning private ownership of fully automatic weapons is unconstitutional? Or ammosexuals have the right to mortars, howitzers and RPGs? I mean, based on (In)Justice Scammy Alitos* faulty logic, because these werent mentioned in the Constitution, then they cant be regulated
🙄
*Originally had Uncle Slappy here. But Alito wrote the opinion, not Thomas. Of course, its not like theres a lot of difference between them.
melm00se
(5,164 posts)https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
GB_RN
(3,570 posts)But rulings like this one fly in the face of those longstanding prohibitions and again, based on Alitos logic in the repeal of Roe, that because abortion wasnt mentioned in the Constitution, it couldnt be regulated at the federal level. I could easily see Alito, Uncle Slappy, et al., make the same illogical leap that the same thing would go for any type of firearm thats not at the technological level of the black powder musket.
DetroitLegalBeagle
(2,510 posts)The Bruen decision set the new standard that needs to be used when judging the constitutionality of gun laws. The old 2 step test, where the judge could consider the good outcomes of the law, can no longer be used. Now, it doesn't matter what the effects of the law are. The law must have a widespread historical analogue.
GB_RN
(3,570 posts)This isnt sarcasm aimed at you, so please dont take offense: Im a nurse, not a lawyer, but I still have to know how to think critically and logically in order to save peoples lives on a daily basis. From what I see, the end result of this legal doctrine on legitimate gun control efforts is going to be all kinds of bad.
The people who come up with this shit should have to view the bodies of people who are victims of the weapons the are helping the gun industry foist upon the rest of us.
thatdemguy
(620 posts)It just takes a bunch of paper work and a 200 buck tax along with a long wait.
Now the machine guns that can be owned by civilians have to have been made before 1986, but the mortars, rps etc can be made new these days.
GB_RN
(3,570 posts)Under certain circumstances; not just anyone can buy one at any time, just because. However, the Gun Control Act of 1968 amended the National Firearms Act of 1935 to add language prohibiting destructive devices. That would include active RPGs, howitzers, etc., would it not?
If Im wrong on this, fine. But thats a huge miss on the part of any legislation, if I am. That would mean any whacko or would-be-terrorist could get his hands on some serious destructive power should he choose.
thatdemguy
(620 posts)I dont know all the rules, but you can still buy grenade launchers. Buying the grenades is hard, there is a lot of rules for those as well. There are items like smokes, and smaller ones that are basically big fireworks that are easy to get. Some stuff about storage requirements, and just trying to get a manufacturer to even sell em to a civilian for the dangerous stuff.
jmowreader
(53,264 posts)An M203 with a 40mm barrel is a Class III Destructive Device. It has to be transferred over a NFA tax stamp, and every high explosive round you want to own must be transferred over its own tax stamp. However, you can buy all the 40mm flare and smoke cartridges you want.
There is a version of this weapon with a 37mm barrel. No HE cartridges have ever been made for this, just flares and smoke. As far as the BATF is concerned, it is not a destructive device so you can buy them over the same Form 4473 that is used for regular guns.
Angleae
(4,810 posts)All you can legally own is a hollow tube.
DetroitLegalBeagle
(2,510 posts)$200 tax, the usual NFA paperwork, plus having proper storage and compliance with all other explosive requirements. And this would be for each explosive. So it gets expensive fast. Plus, I don't think any manufacturer will sell them to civilians, so making your own is pretty much the only way to go.
jmowreader
(53,264 posts)It would certainly solve the Proud Boy problem in a right hurry
Democrat 22, this is Democrat 68, adjust fire. Grid JK123456. Target is fifty Proud Boys kicking the shit out of someone until he names three breakfast cereals. Immediate suppression.
GB_RN
(3,570 posts)Fire for effect!!!
😂
jmowreader
(53,264 posts)Proud Boys can be eliminated with just registration rounds.
GB_RN
(3,570 posts)I once read: Theres no such thing as overkill: Anything worth breaking is worth breaking a lot.😁
IronLionZion
(51,399 posts)so might as well just repeal all laws and allow guns in prisons and schools and MAGA rallies too.
Frasier Balzov
(5,078 posts)Whatever it takes to make firearms mercantilism economically impracticable.
TheRickles
(3,432 posts)former9thward
(33,424 posts)We allow 18 year-olds to vote, sign contracts and most importantly join the military where we put a gun in their hands. And tell them to kill people with it. The guns we put in their hands are far more dangerous than any on the civilian market.
Maybe we should not allow military service until 25 or so. I would be in favor of that.
dickthegrouch
(4,566 posts)The supposed danger!
Another only in US restriction.
Alcohol can be purchase by 18's everywhere else.
Equal protection?
Not so much.
ruet
(10,308 posts)Hope22
(4,801 posts)ruet
(10,308 posts)One is open to interpretation, one is not.
jmowreader
(53,264 posts)The 18th and 21st Amendments are specifically about alcohol.
maxsolomon
(38,912 posts)along with ATF regulations on Handgun age limits.
Next up, the National Firearms Act of 1934. Full-automatic weapons to be available without constraint.
Soon, within our lifetimes, the US will achieve Gun Omnipresence: guns everywhere at all times. Only then will Peace reign triumphant.
J_William_Ryan
(3,516 posts)Kavanaugh and Roberts would join the liberals to uphold some existing regulations although those regulations lack historical tradition such as laws that prohibit domestic abusers from possessing firearms.
The theory is inferred from Kavanaughs concurring opinion in Bruen.
Theres also speculation that the historical tradition standard would be used only to invalidate AWBs and magazine capacity restrictions, allowing most other regulations to remain.
This is likely wishful thinking.
Kaleva
(40,375 posts)Historic NY
(40,086 posts)moonshinegnomie
(4,030 posts)maybe its time to start withdrawing federal protection for these judges.
and start allowing guns in the courtroom.
watch how fast they change their tune....
jmowreader
(53,264 posts)It would be very hard to claim laws from the Frontier West didnt conform to the history and traditions of the United States.
Kaleva
(40,375 posts)Unlike for most of the rest of us