You can fight in a war and die of your country, but you can’t buy a handgun?
A federal judge in Virginia declared unconstitutional laws and regulations prohibiting adults under the age of 21 from purchasing handguns.
U.S. District Court Judge Robert Payne rendered a 71-page decision, says the federal regulation banning handgun sales to 18- to 20-year-olds violates the principles enshrined in the Constitution, since 18- to 20-year-olds can join the military, vote, and serve on federal juries, and there’s no reason a federal law should restrict them from buying a gun.
In his written opinion, Payne said, “If the Court were to exclude 18- to-20-year-olds from the Second Amendment’s protection, it would impose restrictions on the Second Amendment that are not imposed on other constitutional guarantees. Therefore, due to their inconsistency with our nation’s historical context and traditions, the statutes and regulations in question cannot be upheld.”
Payne added, “Because the statutes and regulations in question are not consistent with our Nation’s history and tradition, they, therefore, cannot stand.”
The ruling came in a class action lawsuit was brought by 20-year-old college student John Corey Fraser and other plaintiffs, who in their filing in June of 2022 said the Gun Control Act of 1968 and certain regulations from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives were unconstitutional because they excluded all adults under 21 from exercising the right to keep and bear arms.
Adults under 21 are allowed by ATF to purchase long guns, which include shotguns and rifles, from federally licensed dealers, but they have been banned from purchasing handguns.
“This blanket ban violates the fundamental rights of millions of responsible, law-abiding American citizens,” the gun class action stated.
Fraser, who lives in Virginia, had attempted to purchase a Glock 19x handgun from a licensed dealer in Ashland, Va., but was turned away in 2022, prompting the lawsuit.
Well, you can’t drink or toke until you’re 21, either. Are you going to complain about that as well?
A little additional maturity where potentially dangerous activities are involved is a good thing.
Speaking of potentially dangerous activities we allow our “youth” to partake of, if we were to follow your ideals
Smoking should be restricted to those over 21 years of age, even though it’s privilege and not a right enumerated in the US Constitution.
Driving should be restricted to those over 21 years of age, even though it’s privilege and not a right enumerated in the US Constitution.
Serving you country in the military should be restricted to those over 21 years of age, even though it’s privilege and not a right enumerated in the US Constitution.
Dying for your country while serving in the military should be restricted to those over 21 years of age, even though it’s privilege and not a right enumerated in the US Constitution.
Serving you country as a policeman should be restricted to those over 21 years of age, even though it’s privilege and not a right enumerated in the US Constitution.
Dying for your country as a policeman while serving in the military should be restricted to those over 21 years of age, even though it’s privilege and not a right enumerated in the US Constitution.
Serving you country as a fireman should be restricted to those over 21 years of age, even though it’s privilege and not a right enumerated in the US Constitution.
Dying for your country as a fireman while serving in the military should be restricted to those over 21 years of age, even though it’s privilege and not a right enumerated in the US Constitution.
It almost seems like you think enumerated rights should be restricted based upon what you declare “maturity” to be. Instead of fighting against enumerated rights, why don’t you ever address the obvious mental health issue and the pharmacological disaster that is the cause of the problems you want to restrict enumerated rights for? Oh right, you don’t care about enumerated rights of the obvious mental health issue and the pharmacological disaster, you just want to ban guns.
Drinking and smoking weed aren’t constitutional rights.
Neither should gun ownership be unless you’re part of a “well-regulated militia”. Heller was so wrong.
And some day when the SCOTUS is of a different composition, it will be reversed in the same way that Dobbs overturned Roe.
That day can’t come soon enough.
Ladies and gentlemen! The day is finally here! The Dog has finally admitted that he advocates the overturning of the United States Constitution.
Never happen dog. Firearms ownership is embedded in the Constitution and as such cannot simply be ‘reversed in the same way that Dobbs overturned Roe’, as Roe wasjust a ruling.
But, hey, you keep waiting for that day and ‘keep safe’ in your gated community.
Sorry, Paul, but please read what I said instead of what you wanted to hear.
I said that the Heller case will be reversed – a court case – not the Second Amendment.
In case you’re unclear of how I feel, I’ll post this again:
“I never said that I didn’t have guns, or that I was against the Second Amendment.
What I am against is: 1) gun worship and gun culture, 2) the lack of basic control and safety measures for them such as we have for automobiles, 3) unlicensed concealed carry where far too many people are carrying that shouldn’t be, 4) the glorification of guns, 5) the gun industry marketing them in a manner that instills a sense of Rambo-like machismo in people, especially men, 6) the NRA and their despicable politicization of gun rights that fly in the face of common sense, evidence, and reason, 7) the use of guns as political and religious symbols intended to offend, inflame, and intimidate, 8) people who carry, hankering for someone to Make Their Day, 9) excessively-paranoid people who have been convinced that a gun is the key to their security, and 10) the sum total of all of the above that results in massacres such as Sandy Hook, MSD, Virginia Tech, Vegas, and scores of other horrific shootings.
I own guns. I shoot guns. Control them. Regulate me.”
Forgot you are one of those that feels it’s ok for you to own a gun but no one else. Got it.
Last time I checked, the 21 year old requirement for purchasing alcohol or marijuana is a State or Local law, not Federal. I will admit, I am not 100% positive about that one, but I seem to remember that States could set their own limits.
Which means this ruling has ZERO to do with what you brought up. But, thanks for demonstrating your ignorance to the readers. Hopefully, we all learned something here.
“A little additional maturity where potentially dangerous activities are involved is a good thing.”
Or, like making a decision to have your sex organs removed and reconfigured so that you can be trans?
Or, like voting?
Because the very same leftists that are all up in arms about this also support lowering the voting age, and “gender affirming” surgery on children well under the age of 18.
Whadabout, whadabout, whadabout…
Is that really the best you can do?
Nope. It was quick, and effective.
Curiously, you have no rebuttal at all. Says volumes about your position on the topic.
Could we have some regulation please on guns?
Duh! You can’t apply the constitution to one group and not the other. If you are 18 and an adult, then ALL adult rules apply.
It’s possible to be a Commissioned officer in the military at 18 1/2 and a warrant officer at 19. Yet, they are denied rights.
What a crock!
The military trains you and you can’t have your weapons when it’s not part of the daily mission.
What, exactly is your point?
If you can fight and die for your country you can own a firearm. What a load of crap these socialist jerks keep trying to ram down our throats. If it violates the constitution, just ignore them.
Yes. You’re either an adult or not. If one is old enough to carry a weapon in combat or operate equipment worth millions of dollars, then one is an adult and should be accorded all the privileges and rights of an adult.
We allow 18 year olds to vote for the POTUS, but say they lack judgment in many areas. I just don’t think you can have it both ways.
If they are so mature, then why are they considered dependents until 25?
That’s easy, Democrats. Democrats want everyone to be “dependents”, they just settled at the arbitrary age of 25 with Obamacare.
An incomplete US Constitution education leaves out the fact that your neighbor has an absolute right to defend his life, liberty and defend his family and property rights of same.
Leftists: “18 year olds are too immature to own guns.”
Also leftists: “Five year olds are mature enough to make life altering decisions about their gender.”
Also leftists: “18 year olds are not adult enough to understand the long term implications of student loans.”
Also leftists: “16 year olds should be allowed to vote.”
Also leftists: “The mind is not fully developed until you are 25, so anyone under 25 that is charged with a felony should be tried as a child.”
What is it with leftists? They seem incapable of making up their mind.
18 year olds are too immature. Only in a controlled environment like war can they do it.
‘controlled environment like war’
Look, we argue a lot but WOW that is an absolutely ignorant thing to say! War a controlled environment?! Since you have NO idea what military service entails, just take my word that war, by definition is an utterly uncontrolled act. It is chaos on a good day and not a single act by any person or group is guaranteed to proceed according to any plan.
What I meant was the 18-year-olds in the war are controlled. It doesn’t take anything to know that war is unpredictable but apparently you went there.
If I were an 18 year old today, I would refuse to register with Selective Service until age 21.
In the past, men were earning a living at a much younger age. Now they tend to like to turn school into a career, often living at home well into their 30s. Don’t think a person is mature until he can prove himself capable of earning a living on his own. A mature person should be given the ability to make mature decisions. For instance, a farm kid in many states can get a drivers license at a much younger age than a city kid. And nobody is going to take his ability to shoot game to feed the family. But to allow a city kid the same privileges in order to be fair would be a mistake. As far as other activities, maturity should be the deciding factor, not age. Obviously, a soldier meets this level of maturity and should be afforded all of the privileges of an adult.
Sir, if you think that war is a controlled environment, you are mistaken. If the young people we are referring to in this discussion, were to only do what they are told, we would be like every other military force in the world. A force where no one takes charge or takes the initiative, when the leadership is decimated.
Nobody said that. I thought I cleared it up but your ears and eyes don’t work. Have you not heard of following orders? Guess you never served.