Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Hypercapnic Tom

2nd Amendment: For "minors" under 21 too?

Recommended Posts

NRA asks SCOTUS to overturn the law that prohibits gun dealers from selling to "minors" between 18 and 21 years of age.

...The NRA is strictly challenging the provision of the law that applies to the purchase of handguns from licensed dealers for anyone over the age of 18 and under the age of 21.

Writing on behalf of the 5th Circuit panel, Judge Edward Prado argued that Congress was correct when it “restricted the ability of minors under 21 to purchase handguns because Congress found that they tend to be relatively immature and that denying them easy access to handguns would deter violent crime.” He added that Congress “could have sought to prohibit all persons under 21 from possessing handguns — or all guns, for that matter. But Congress deliberately adopted a calibrated, compromise approach.”

...

The filing asks the court to consider “Whether a nationwide, class-based, categorical ban on meaningful access to the quintessential means to exercise the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense can be reconciled with the Second Amendment, the equal protection guarantee, and this Court’s precedents.”

 

I disagree with Judge Prado that Congress could have chosen to prohibit all gun possession by those under 21.

 

If these "minors" above the age of 18 are so immature, I sure as hell don't want them driving or voting! Also, allowing them into the military is a terrible idea. They might not be able to follow orders and may not see the significance of protecting classified information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are parents allowed to strip 17 year old's of their right to keep an bear arms? They are "people", and the amendment specifically stated the right of the "people." The larger question is, of course, what excuse the NRA has from not protecting these people's rights? I'm cancelling my membership until they stop being gun grabbers in wolves clothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This always struck me as a truly stupid law that accomplishes nothing at all that it's supporters claim it does. Basically the same person who can not buy a gun at cabelas, is allowed to buy it privately, such as at a gun show. So we are deliberately funneling young buyers into the type of sale which has the fewest checks and restrictions. Why would we want to do that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This always struck me as a truly stupid law that accomplishes nothing at all that it's supporters claim it does. Basically the same person who can not buy a gun at cabelas, is allowed to buy it privately, such as at a gun show. So we are deliberately funneling young buyers into the type of sale which has the fewest checks and restrictions. Why would we want to do that?

 

Maybe in PA but not in CA.

 

Cal. Penal Code § 12072(a)(3)(A).

 

(3)(A) No person, corporation, or firm shall sell, loan, or transfer a firearm to a minor, nor sell a handgun to an individual under 21 years of age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This always struck me as a truly stupid law that accomplishes nothing at all that it's supporters claim it does. Basically the same person who can not buy a gun at cabelas, is allowed to buy it privately, such as at a gun show. So we are deliberately funneling young buyers into the type of sale which has the fewest checks and restrictions. Why would we want to do that?

Maybe in PA but not in CA.

 

Cal. Penal Code § 12072(a)(3)(A).

 

(3)(A) No person, corporation, or firm shall sell, loan, or transfer a firearm to a minor, nor sell a handgun to an individual under 21 years of age.

It is the federal law I am addressing. California is in a league of it's own whe.n it comes to stupid laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This always struck me as a truly stupid law that accomplishes nothing at all that it's supporters claim it does. Basically the same person who can not buy a gun at cabelas, is allowed to buy it privately, such as at a gun show. So we are deliberately funneling young buyers into the type of sale which has the fewest checks and restrictions. Why would we want to do that?

 

Why add gun show to the post? I've bought and sold privately and been given weapons as gifts. Of the few times I've been to gun shows, the vendors of firearms are all licensed and, for weapons which require a waiting period, tell people they have to pick them up at the shop.

 

Of course, laws vary from state to state but, that's the way it is in FL. Here, for example, are the rules for exhibitors for one of the bigger gunshow promoters.

 

 

This always struck me as a truly stupid law that accomplishes nothing at all that it's supporters claim it does. Basically the same person who can not buy a gun at cabelas, is allowed to buy it privately, such as at a gun show. So we are deliberately funneling young buyers into the type of sale which has the fewest checks and restrictions. Why would we want to do that?

 

Maybe in PA but not in CA.

 

Cal. Penal Code § 12072(a)(3)(A).

 

(3)(A) No person, corporation, or firm shall sell, loan, or transfer a firearm to a minor, nor sell a handgun to an individual under 21 years of age.

 

Does anyone at 29 Palms know about this??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are parents allowed to strip 17 year old's of their right to keep an bear arms?

Because parents can be sued for the actions of the 17 year olds. That changes the next year, when they are legally adults and can vote, join the military, sign contracts, get sued, go to adult prison, and all those other adult citizen type things.

 

Well, almost all...

 

No buying handguns from dealers, though buying and owning them is ok. Because that makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This always struck me as a truly stupid law that accomplishes nothing at all that it's supporters claim it does. Basically the same person who can not buy a gun at cabelas, is allowed to buy it privately, such as at a gun show. So we are deliberately funneling young buyers into the type of sale which has the fewest checks and restrictions. Why would we want to do that?

 

Why add gun show to the post? I've bought and sold privately and been given weapons as gifts. Of the few times I've been to gun shows, the vendors of firearms are all licensed and, for weapons which require a waiting period, tell people they have to pick them up at the shop.

 

Of course, laws vary from state to state but, that's the way it is in FL. Here, for example, are the rules for exhibitors for one of the bigger gunshow promoters.

 

I used gun shows as an example, because whether or not they are the most common place for a private sale, most anti-gun folks understand that they are places where a private sale can often take place without a background check. My point is not that gun shows are bad, it is that there is little sense in folks who hate the "gun show loophole" funneling young people to buy their guns through the exact same "loophole". I gave a pistol to my son as a gift when he was 19, so I understand the exemptions to background checks exist beyond gun shows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...most anti-gun folks understand that they are places where a private sale can often take place without a background check.

The ones who work in media repeatedly claim that dealers do not do background checks at shows, as I have shown over and over on this forum.

 

From what I have seen, a lot of anti-gunners buy that line and mindlessly parrot it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...most anti-gun folks understand that they are places where a private sale can often take place without a background check.

The ones who work in media repeatedly claim that dealers do not do background checks at shows, as I have shown over and over on this forum.

 

From what I have seen, a lot of anti-gunners buy that line and mindlessly parrot it.

 

That is true. There is plenty of misinformation out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why are parents allowed to strip 17 year old's of their right to keep an bear arms?

Because parents can be sued for the actions of the 17 year olds. That changes the next year, when they are legally adults and can vote, join the military, sign contracts, get sued, go to adult prison, and all those other adult citizen type things.

 

Well, almost all...

 

No buying handguns from dealers, though buying and owning them is ok. Because that makes sense.

 

 

So the right to bear arms is revocable if there's a chance somebody might get sued?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just like the right to vote...

My kids would have loved to have the protections the fourth and fifth offer when they were teenagers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The younger the teenager the more then need for a gun to defend his or her self, right? Not all kids have the benefit of a standard family, many have to fend for themselves in the streets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Mark arguing that a minor should have full adult rights or just Constitutional 2A rights?

 

Could a 15-yo have legally bought an assault rifle in 1789?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure, but either way a legal adult is different from a minor. Different argument.

 

I think there's a name for it. What is that technique where you make a caricature of your opponent's position and argue against your creation instead of the actual position? I'm pretty sure it has a name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's nice but the title of the OP is Second Amendment: For minors under 21 too?

 

If you haven't read the 2A in a while ...

 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read more closely and look at every character, not just the letters.

 

In fifth grade or so, they will teach you what those quotation marks mean in this context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark's question was why should the SC overturn this law for 18 year olds and not 17 year olds? The 2A doesn't have an age, race, gender or sexual orientation restriction.

 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

What would Scalia do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark should take it to a thread where someone is advocating that, according to the cute graphic BJ posted.

 

But to answer the unrelated question again, there are legal differences between 18 and 17 year olds. I named several.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's nice that there are legal differences between 17 and 18 year olds. The question was whether the 2A applies to 17 year olds? It would seem that it does.

 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

Doesn't mention prison sentences either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Mark arguing that a minor should have full adult rights or just Constitutional 2A rights?

 

Could a 15-yo have legally bought an assault rifle in 1789?

 

Oh hell yes. Sixteen was fairly typical, and was in the War of Northern Aggression too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing in there about baby steps, either.

You must get yer 2A rights at conception.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing in there about baby steps, either.

You must get yer 2A rights at conception.

 

I think 13 is about right. Middle school is where the worst bullying takes place. If we would allow teens to be armed, no child would have to live in fear of the nuclear wedgie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting back to the topic of denying protected rights to adult citizens, I think it should only be done with a compelling reason and with some reasonable expectation that the infringement will serve the compelling governmental interest.

 

I see no such compelling reason here.

 

"They are too immature to buy handguns from dealers, but not too immature to buy them privately and own them."

 

That is the justification offered and it just makes no sense to me. If it makes sense to anyone, please share why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the 2A mention adult citizens or just the people? Here's the 2A text if you haven't read it in awhile.

 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the 2A mention adult citizens or just the people? Here's the 2A text if you haven't read it in awhile.A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

If you are just trying to piss Tom off, I don't think it will work. He does not seem to get angry in these threads. If you are trying to make a point, you could do a better job of it. The entire BoR is subject to limitations when it comes to minors under 18. Are you arguing that minors are entitled to the full BoR, because if so that would severely handicap parents ability to raise kids. If you are arguing the 2nd amendment is unique in how it applies and you think minors really should be able to buy guns without their parents knowledge, I would like to understand why that is. If you are just trying to piss off Tom, you can disregard this and go back to banging you head against the wall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might consider carefully re-reading Tom's OP and then consider how the NRA could argue that the 2A applies to 18 year olds but not 17 year olds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...most anti-gun folks understand that they are places where a private sale can often take place without a background check.

The ones who work in media repeatedly claim that dealers do not do background checks at shows, as I have shown over and over on this forum.

 

From what I have seen, a lot of anti-gunners buy that line and mindlessly parrot it.

 

Why are you insulting parrots?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

This always struck me as a truly stupid law that accomplishes nothing at all that it's supporters claim it does. Basically the same person who can not buy a gun at cabelas, is allowed to buy it privately, such as at a gun show. So we are deliberately funneling young buyers into the type of sale which has the fewest checks and restrictions. Why would we want to do that?

 

Why add gun show to the post? I've bought and sold privately and been given weapons as gifts. Of the few times I've been to gun shows, the vendors of firearms are all licensed and, for weapons which require a waiting period, tell people they have to pick them up at the shop.

 

Of course, laws vary from state to state but, that's the way it is in FL. Here, for example, are the rules for exhibitors for one of the bigger gunshow promoters.

 

I used gun shows as an example, because whether or not they are the most common place for a private sale, most anti-gun folks understand that they are places where a private sale can often take place without a background check. My point is not that gun shows are bad, it is that there is little sense in folks who hate the "gun show loophole" funneling young people to buy their guns through the exact same "loophole". I gave a pistol to my son as a gift when he was 19, so I understand the exemptions to background checks exist beyond gun shows.

 

I would think more guns are sold through classified ads in local papers than gun shows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

This always struck me as a truly stupid law that accomplishes nothing at all that it's supporters claim it does. Basically the same person who can not buy a gun at cabelas, is allowed to buy it privately, such as at a gun show. So we are deliberately funneling young buyers into the type of sale which has the fewest checks and restrictions. Why would we want to do that?

 

Why add gun show to the post? I've bought and sold privately and been given weapons as gifts. Of the few times I've been to gun shows, the vendors of firearms are all licensed and, for weapons which require a waiting period, tell people they have to pick them up at the shop.

 

Of course, laws vary from state to state but, that's the way it is in FL. Here, for example, are the rules for exhibitors for one of the bigger gunshow promoters.

 

I used gun shows as an example, because whether or not they are the most common place for a private sale, most anti-gun folks understand that they are places where a private sale can often take place without a background check. My point is not that gun shows are bad, it is that there is little sense in folks who hate the "gun show loophole" funneling young people to buy their guns through the exact same "loophole". I gave a pistol to my son as a gift when he was 19, so I understand the exemptions to background checks exist beyond gun shows.

 

I would think more guns are sold through classified ads in local papers than gun shows.

 

I am sure, but I was trying to use an example that some folks in particular would understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might consider carefully re-reading Tom's OP and then consider how the NRA could argue that the 2A applies to 18 year olds but not 17 year olds.

I imagine they could.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As has been pointed out already, you have an excellent imagination.

 

Thanks, but I'm done pursuing your hypothetical about what the NRA could have done, at least in this thread.

 

Can we talk about what they actually did instead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What they actually did instead? Well, the NRA does seem to have the same active imagination that you do. They seem to think the 2A says something about an age of majority.

 

The Framers' decision to enshrine the Second Amendment and this Courts decisions recognizing that the right it secures is both individual and fundamental are decisions with consequences, the filing continues. One obvious consequence is that individuals above the legal age of majority cannot be denied any meaningful ability to purchase the quintessential means for exercising the core individual right.

 

But the 2A in fact says nothing about any age of majority, gender, race or sexual preference.

 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

Its language is very clear. So if you and the NRA want the Adam Lanzas to legally arm up and you want to use the 2A to do this thing, then you have to let the Dylan Klebolds arm up as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The case is not about whether people under 21, or even under 18, can legally arm up. They can.

 

It's about who can buy guns from dealers, and whether banning handgun sales to 18-21 year olds is a reasonable infringement on their rights.

 

I doubt the idea that changing this application of age of majority implies that no application can be constitutional will be tried in court, but it is pretty funny here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the PA imagination police should be along shortly.

 

The argument in court will be that this change goes too far, not that it does not go far enough. I'd bet on it, but already know you would not pay when you lose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

...most anti-gun folks understand that they are places where a private sale can often take place without a background check.

The ones who work in media repeatedly claim that dealers do not do background checks at shows, as I have shown over and over on this forum.

 

From what I have seen, a lot of anti-gunners buy that line and mindlessly parrot it.

 

That is true. There is plenty of misinformation out there.

 

A pretty steady stream of misinformation from the Washington Post...

 

Background checks — designed to keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons, domestic violence perpetrators or the severely mentally ill — are mandatory for gun sales at retail stores, but not at gun shows or for private sales, such as between neighbors and family members or between individuals online.

 

The first few hundred times, a mistake like the emphasized "or" above can be written off as ignorance of the law or a simple mistake in wording, but after a while it becomes apparent that it's no mistake. The article is yet another attempt to mislead the public into thinking dealers are not required to do background checks at gun shows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...most anti-gun folks understand that they are places where a private sale can often take place without a background check.

 

The ones who work in media repeatedly claim that dealers do not do background checks at shows, as I have shown over and over on this forum.

From what I have seen, a lot of anti-gunners buy that line and mindlessly parrot it.

That is true. There is plenty of misinformation out there.

A pretty steady stream of misinformation from the Washington Post...

 

Background checks designed to keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons, domestic violence perpetrators or the severely mentally ill are mandatory for gun sales at retail stores, but not at gun shows or for private sales, such as between neighbors and family members or between individuals online.

The first few hundred times, a mistake like the emphasized "or" above can be written off as ignorance of the law or a simple mistake in wording, but after a while it becomes apparent that it's no mistake. The article is yet another attempt to mislead the public into thinking dealers are not required to do background checks at gun shows.

Dealers must submit applicants to a sensible background checks, but others don't. Thus the problem. Duh.

 

This problem becomes a well - known solution for desperate types who need a gun, fast.

Ho hum, thus Tom Ray expands the gun problem to another sphere. This time he targets the un-interested youth of the world.

 

How much are you being paid by the gun lobby? It's not enough for your tenacious, dishonest ass, IMO.

Is is worth being dishonest every day, Tom? You feel no need for personal integrity, bro?

Explain again how we have no gun show loophole, I like twisted mental gymnastics.

 

One other question (though I find you despicable at times like this):

Q. Where is your "research", specifically, the figures to support your proposed widespread self defense shootings by citizens?

A. No such study exists, according to Dr. David Hemenway and other trained, professional, scientific researchers.

All of whom were described by yourself as other than reputable. You are a joke, Tom Ray.

 

And mmmm look around, other stats indicate that US youth has evolved away from being attracted to firearm possession.

Why? Beause, according to them, they feel threatened, daily, by the plethora of guns. Their discretion is in play.

 

Darwin rocks, TR. The gun industry's better days are behind us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A pretty steady stream of misinformation from the Washington Post...

 

Background checks designed to keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons, domestic violence perpetrators or the severely mentally ill are mandatory for gun sales at retail stores, but not at gun shows or for private sales, such as between neighbors and family members or between individuals online.

The first few hundred times, a mistake like the emphasized "or" above can be written off as ignorance of the law or a simple mistake in wording, but after a while it becomes apparent that it's no mistake. The article is yet another attempt to mislead the public into thinking dealers are not required to do background checks at gun shows.

 

...

How much are you being paid by the gun lobby?...

 

Significantly less than Philip Rucker is being paid by the anti-gun lobby. That's why he will never publish the fact that dealers must do background checks at gun shows. His meal ticket from the Washington Post depends on it, at least for now. Maybe Jeff Bezos will be more sensible. He might even allow this:

 

gunsource.png

 

If anyone is interested in paying me to post here, I'm open to the idea!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dodgy stuff. Because the issue is the viable loophole for weapons-plus-sick-o's at gunshows and the internet, and you evaded that per your SOP.

 

The days of BEGONE on PA are no more, Tom.

BTW the Center of Disease Control (defined as the research arm of we the people) released another gun-related study last week. Their studies do not encourage gun ownership.

Their current work took an executive order of the POTUS.

 

They are asking questions among themselves about which model firearms are doing the most damage currently.

They have little interest in mass shootings, since most of the damage done is everyday stuff, and suicides.

That 's right, they do not write off the 9000 suicides every year; their reality extends beyond PA.

The rate of youth suicide in particular is horrifying, Thomas, the US eclipses all 22 civilized countries and something like 85% die by gunfire in our country.

 

Both industry insiders and studies speak of a broad rejection of guns among the young'uns.

Like other of their behavioral associations (choices about drunk driving and smoking cigarettes), yup, kids will draw their own conclusions. And so on behalf of a lucrative and destructive industry, in the name of scientifically unsubstantiated self defense, you reach out for them with armament.

 

How touching, you douchebag.

 

The end of an era, thus this thread. Yeah, It's timely for you and other artifacts to go to work expanding gun rights, TR.

At least you have Boothy to encourage you onwards.

I await your next thread promoting guns to the unstable American Public,

to the other deplorable depths to which you and the Gun Club Choir may stoop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What they actually did instead? Well, the NRA does seem to have the same active imagination that you do. They seem to think the 2A says something about an age of majority.

 

The Framers' decision to enshrine the Second Amendment and this Courts decisions recognizing that the right it secures is both individual and fundamental are decisions with consequences, the filing continues. One obvious consequence is that individuals above the legal age of majority cannot be denied any meaningful ability to purchase the quintessential means for exercising the core individual right.

 

But the 2A in fact says nothing about any age of majority, gender, race or sexual preference.

 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

Its language is very clear. So if you and the NRA want the Adam Lanzas to legally arm up and you want to use the 2A to do this thing, then you have to let the Dylan Klebolds arm up as well.

 

The language in the rest of the BoR is also very clear and I see nothing whatsoever about age of majority there either. Are you telling me that children have the same rights to free speech or free assembly as adults do? If so, curfew laws for minors would be pretty clearly unconstitutional. Do they have the same 4th Am rights? That would mean a school would have to get a search warrant in every case to search a locker or school bag.

 

I don't have a problem with ADULTS 18 and older being allowed to buy a gun if they pass the requisite checks (which I think should be strengthened, BTW). If you are old enough to be handed an M-16 a sent off to die for your country in a far off dusty shithole - then you ought to be old enough to buy a beer and buy a handgun. Just not at the same time :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Minimum enlistment age is 17, not 18.

 

The point of the whole argument here is that age problems are complex and that the Constitution is a blunt instrument to solve them with. The NRA using it for 18 year olds (but not 17 year olds!) illustrates just how ludicrous that approach is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Minimum enlistment age is 17, not 18.

 

The point of the whole argument here is that age problems are complex and that the Constitution is a blunt instrument to solve them with. The NRA using it for 18 year olds (but not 17 year olds!) illustrates just how ludicrous that approach is.

 

How do you suggest the NRA approaches it then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The current law makes the same distinction Olsonist is objecting to, it just does it for 21 year olds (but not 20 year olds!)

 

The objection is to the practice of using the second amendment rights to evaluate the constitutionality of gun control laws, which is understandable for someone like Olsonist who would like to repeal that amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Minimum enlistment age is 17, not 18.

 

The point of the whole argument here is that age problems are complex and that the Constitution is a blunt instrument to solve them with. The NRA using it for 18 year olds (but not 17 year olds!) illustrates just how ludicrous that approach is.

How do you suggest the NRA approaches it then?

The NRA sees a problem with the current age restriction law. I don't. But if you want to use the God Damned Piece Of Paper as written, then you fucking better actually read what the words say and let children buy guns.

 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that the second amendment now protects a constitutional right is a consideration in establishing age of majority for that right, but that does not mean it is the only consideration.

 

You're just annoyed because it's a consideration at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Shall not be infringed" was a pretty good line but I thought "the Congress shall make no law" was the real BoR classic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Shall not be infringed" was a pretty good line but I thought "the Congress shall make no law" was the real BoR classic.

 

Oh snap!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Supreme Court passed on the three gun cases

 

 

The U.S. Supreme Court declined Monday to consider whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms applies outside the home, taking a pass on a hot topic that has divided the lower courts.

The court declined to grant review of two laws that restrict handgun ownership by young adults — a federal law barring the sale of handguns to customers under 21 and a Texas law forbidding anyone under 21 to carry a handgun in public. Both laws were upheld by the lower courts.

In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to possess a gun at home for self-defense. Since then, the lower courts have split over the nature of gun rights beyond the home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites