Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    carbon cty, Pennsylvania
    (Carbon County)
    Posts
    1,973
    Rep Power
    21474849

    Default Appeals court finds age-based handgun purchase ban unconstitutional

    '
    Judges say they won't relegate ‘the Second Amendment or 18- to 20-year-olds to a second-class status’

    A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that the long-standing federal ban on sales of handguns from licensed dealers to 18- to 20-year-olds is unconstitutional, because Congress in the 1960s did not demonstrate a good enough reason for the law.


    In a 2-1 ruling, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, based in Richmond, Va., found that the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms is no different from other constitutional rights that start at age 18, so the government must have a justification to restrict that right.

    “Despite the weighty interest in reducing crime and violence, we refuse to relegate either the Second Amendment or 18- to 20-year-olds to a second-class status,” Judge Julius Richardson wrote for the majority.


    Richardson, a President Donald Trump appointee, was joined in the majority opinion by Judge G. Stephen Agee, a President George W. Bush appointee.

    Judge James Wynn Jr., a President Barack Obama appointee, wrote a dissent that said the panel had overstepped its role as a court, and that “the majority’s decision to grant the gun lobby a victory in a fight it lost on Capitol Hill more than 50 years ago is not compelled by law.”

    The Justice Department will almost certainly appeal the decision, which comes during an incendiary national debate over gun control laws prompted by everyday shootings as well as a series of mass shootings over the years at concerts, schools and other public spaces.

    The Supreme Court, with a newly expanded 6-3 conservative majority, has teed up a major case about state concealed carry laws for the term that starts in October that will be a test of how far the justices might extend constitutional gun rights outside the home.

    Meanwhile, Congress stands at a partisan deadlock over numerous gun control proposals backed mostly by Democrats, and President Joe Biden has issued executive orders and taken other actions to combat what he calls an “epidemic” of gun violence.

    The decision recounts how in 1964, Congress, concerned about increasing gun violence, began a “field investigation and public hearings" and concluded among other things that juveniles getting handguns without consent of parents "is a significant factor in the prevalence of lawlessness and violent crime in the United States."

    In 1968, Congress passed the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, which prohibited licensed dealers from selling handguns to anyone under age 21 but permitted the sale of shotguns and rifles to those individuals, the decision states.

    Later that year, Congress changed that law through the Gun Control Act of 1968, which prohibited licensed dealers from selling any firearm to those under 18 and maintained the ban on the sale of handguns for 18-, 19- and 20-year-olds

    The 4th Circuit majority found that Congress, when banning the sale of handguns and handgun ammunition to that age group, used “disproportionate crime rates to craft over-inclusive laws that restrict the rights of overwhelmingly law-abiding citizens.”

    “And in doing so, Congress focused on purchases from licensed dealers without establishing those dealers as the source of the guns 18- to 20-year-olds use to commit crimes,” Richardson wrote for the majority.

    The law restricts the rights of more than 99 percent of that age group because “a fraction of 1% commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime,” the majority wrote, and it is already illegal for felons, fugitives, drug users and immigrants who entered the country illegally to buy firearms from licensed dealers.

    “So the laws at issue by their nature prevent a more law-abiding, less dangerous subset of 18- to 20-year-olds from purchasing from a more regulated market,” the majority wrote.

    “The irony does not escape us that, under the government’s reasoning, the same 18- to 20-year-old men and women we depend on to protect us in the armed forces and who have since our Founding been trusted with the most sophisticated weaponry should nonetheless be prevented from purchasing a handgun from a federally licensed dealer for their own protection at home,” the majority wrote.

    There is no ban against 18- to 20-year-olds owning, possessing or using a gun, the opinion states. Dealers can sell guns to parents or guardians who can gift them to minor children, but not when the children provide the money.

    If it stands, the decision would mean 18- to 20-year-olds could buy a handgun from a licensed dealer but not cigarettes or alcohol.

    The majority also wrote that it’s unclear whether the ban has been effective, something Wynn cautioned against in the dissent.

    Wynn wrote that “doing so will place the nation and its lawmakers in a formidable catch-22: pass too onerous a regulation and see it struck down for violating the Second Amendment; pass too permissive a measure and suffer the same result.”

    “This heads-I-win, tails-you-lose approach is a recipe for national inaction on gun violence,” Wynn wrote.

    The plaintiff in the case is a 19-year-old woman who got a protective order against her abusive ex-boyfriend who, after that order, had been arrested for unlawful possession of a firearm and controlled substances, the decision states.

    She also works as an equestrian trainer and often finds herself in remote rural areas where she interacts with unfamiliar people, and she considers a handgun as the most effective tool for protection from those risks, the decision states.
    https://www.rollcall.com/2021/07/13/...onstitutional/
    Ecclesiastes 10:2 ...........

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    NA, Pennsylvania
    (Berks County)
    Posts
    571
    Rep Power
    21474840

    Default Re: Appeals court finds age-based handgun purchase ban unconstitutional

    Trumps judicial appointees (save SCOTUS) will be his greatest legacy

    The SCOTUS 3 can still become part of it

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Quakertown, Pennsylvania
    (Bucks County)
    Posts
    4,992
    Rep Power
    21474853

    Default Re: Appeals court finds age-based handgun purchase ban unconstitutional

    *Not applicable in NJ.
    Accuse your enemy of what you are doing as you are doing it to create confusion -Karl Marx

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Montco, Pennsylvania
    (Montgomery County)
    Posts
    695
    Rep Power
    21474843

    Default Re: Appeals court finds age-based handgun purchase ban unconstitutional

    Liquor next? (yes, I believe you should be able to buy liquor at 18....)

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Bethlehem, PA, Pennsylvania
    (Northampton County)
    Posts
    194
    Rep Power
    7397603

    Default Re: Appeals court finds age-based handgun purchase ban unconstitutional

    En Banc hearing and reversal in 5, 4, 3*..

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Bucks, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    13,085
    Rep Power
    21474864

    Default Re: Appeals court finds age-based handgun purchase ban unconstitutional

    Judge James Wynn Jr., a President Barack Obama appointee, wrote a dissent that said the panel had overstepped its role as a court, and that *the majority*s decision to grant the gun lobby a victory in a fight it lost on Capitol Hill more than 50 years ago is not compelled by law.*

    They literally can't help themselves from treating cases as an extension of politics, when their job requires them to treat laws as laws, and apply the Constitution to see if they are consistent.

    Americans can vote at 18. They could be drafted at 18 again, and they are required to register for the potential draft.

    They can be tried as adults at 18. They can leave their homes at 18, ignore their parent's wishes at 18.

    Who cares if they can't buy cigarettes or alcohol at 18; my copy of the Constitution is missing any guarantees of booze and smokes. But it's pretty explicit about "arms".

    Any statute infringing an enumerated right of "the people" has to be subjected to Strict Scrutiny, meaning that it has to be narrowly tailored. Seeing a tiny group of 18 year old thugs committing crime, and banning guns for all 18 - 21 year olds, is not "narrowly tailored" or Constitutional, any more than outlawing gun possession for all black citizens is narrowly tailored, or Constitutional.

    Back in 1968, the USSC had been ducking all discussion of the 2nd Amendment in any substantive case for most of 2 centuries; the Court only heard 1 case against the Feds, US v Miller, in 1938, because Miller had disappeared and no lawyer showed up to represent him, so that was a slam-dunk win for the Feds. The Court heard a few cases against States before that, and uniformly held that the 2nd Amendment wasn't binding on States. And then the 14th Amendment was passed, barring States from infringing rights of US citizens, and States were increasingly subject to restrictions of the Bill of Rights, as the Amendments and other rights began to be incorporated; and the Court stopped hearing those State cases, too. So from 1938 past 1968, the Court just ignored the 2nd Amendment entirely, meaning that the 1968 GCA was pure politics, unhindered by the Constitution. Four decades later, the Heller case noticed that "the People" means "the People", so you'd expect some cases like this, testing statutes enacted in a vacuum to see if they survive Constitutional analysis; they don't.
    Attorney Phil Kline, AKA gunlawyer001@gmail.com
    There's merit to carrying your backup mag in a backup gun.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    The cold, dark, void, Pennsylvania
    (Clearfield County)
    Posts
    3,418
    Rep Power
    21474848

    Default Re: Appeals court finds age-based handgun purchase ban unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by GunLawyer001 View Post
    Judge James Wynn Jr., a President Barack Obama appointee, wrote a dissent that said the panel had overstepped its role as a court, and that *the majority*s decision to grant the gun lobby a victory in a fight it lost on Capitol Hill more than 50 years ago is not compelled by law.*

    They literally can't help themselves from treating cases as an extension of politics, when their job requires them to treat laws as laws, and apply the Constitution to see if they are consistent.

    Americans can vote at 18. They could be drafted at 18 again, and they are required to register for the potential draft.

    They can be tried as adults at 18. They can leave their homes at 18, ignore their parent's wishes at 18.

    Who cares if they can't buy cigarettes or alcohol at 18; my copy of the Constitution is missing any guarantees of booze and smokes. But it's pretty explicit about "arms".

    Any statute infringing an enumerated right of "the people" has to be subjected to Strict Scrutiny, meaning that it has to be narrowly tailored. Seeing a tiny group of 18 year old thugs committing crime, and banning guns for all 18 - 21 year olds, is not "narrowly tailored" or Constitutional, any more than outlawing gun possession for all black citizens is narrowly tailored, or Constitutional.

    Back in 1968, the USSC had been ducking all discussion of the 2nd Amendment in any substantive case for most of 2 centuries; the Court only heard 1 case against the Feds, US v Miller, in 1938, because Miller had disappeared and no lawyer showed up to represent him, so that was a slam-dunk win for the Feds. The Court heard a few cases against States before that, and uniformly held that the 2nd Amendment wasn't binding on States. And then the 14th Amendment was passed, barring States from infringing rights of US citizens, and States were increasingly subject to restrictions of the Bill of Rights, as the Amendments and other rights began to be incorporated; and the Court stopped hearing those State cases, too. So from 1938 past 1968, the Court just ignored the 2nd Amendment entirely, meaning that the 1968 GCA was pure politics, unhindered by the Constitution. Four decades later, the Heller case noticed that "the People" means "the People", so you'd expect some cases like this, testing statutes enacted in a vacuum to see if they survive Constitutional analysis; they don't.
    By his logic every single law that has been ruled unconstitutional was actually legitimate, since "the fight was lost on Capital Hill more than x years ago"
    NOBODY NEEDS ASSAULT SPEECH

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    127.0.0.1, Pennsylvania
    (Lancaster County)
    Posts
    19,578
    Rep Power
    21474871

    Default Re: Appeals court finds age-based handgun purchase ban unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by raxar View Post
    By his logic every single law that has been ruled unconstitutional was actually legitimate, since "the fight was lost on Capital Hill more than x years ago"
    ...and by extension, the Supreme court isn't necessary, since the battle was lost in the legislature.
    Rules are written in the stone,
    Break the rules and you get no bones,
    all you get is ridicule, laughter,
    and a trip to the house of pain.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    715
    Rep Power
    11119529

    Default Re: Appeals court finds age-based handgun purchase ban unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by flygrimm View Post
    En Banc hearing and reversal in 5, 4, 3*..
    2nd Amendment cases seem to get granted a lot of en banc requests. In the interest of the republic, I would like to see all of this get resolved once and for all. I see this being brought right back.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Oakland Mills, Pennsylvania
    (Juniata County)
    Posts
    4,186
    Rep Power
    21474849

    Default Re: Appeals court finds age-based handgun purchase ban unconstitutional


    Who cares if they can't buy cigarettes or alcohol at 18; my copy of the Constitution is missing any guarantees of booze and smokes. But it's pretty explicit about "arms".

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
    "Cives Arma Ferant"

    "I know I'm not James Bond, that's why I don't keep a loaded gun under the pillow, or bang Russian spies on a regular basis." - GunLawyer001

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: August 4th, 2020, 05:21 PM
  2. Replies: 17
    Last Post: January 24th, 2018, 07:18 PM
  3. US Court of Appeals for DC Eviscerates May Issue
    By Statkowski in forum National
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: October 5th, 2017, 04:41 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 9th, 2008, 06:20 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •