Do you agree with the Federal Appeals Court ruling that barring the sale of handguns to people under 21 years old is unconstitutional?

[Physics-Man]

• https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/562834-appeals-court-rules-21-year-minimum-age-for-handgun-purchases-is?amp
• https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/07/13/politics/handgun-appeals-court/index.html
• https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1273884
• https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/handgun-sales-to-young-people-are-protected-by-second-amendment-court-rules-11626216376
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/gun-laws-age-requirement/2021/07/13/574446b8-e3f3-11eb-8aa5-5662858b696e_story.html
• https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/7955496002
• https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/handgun-ban-under-21-law-unconstitutional-federal-appeals-court/

Yes

No

[Anonymous]

I agree 100%. The court's job is to interpret the constitution, not re-write it to their liking.

[Opinion Owner]

Thanks

[Feelicks]

Exactly

[scentoflavender]

Technically all gun laws are Infringement

[abc3643]

Just a minor bit of advice...

When asking questions like this, it's important to identify which Federal court exactly issued the ruling.

In this case, it's a panel of judges on the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. The 4th Circuit consists of the Carolinas, the Virginias, and Maryland.

I wanted to point this out because, just like people, each of these courts often has something of a personality. The 4th Circuit doesn't seem as wacky as the 9th or 5th which are left- and right-leaning respectively.

Another thing: This ruling is 2-1 meaning that the entire 4th Circuit was not involved. I am not sure, but this may be a preliminary ruling before going into actual court in the 4th Circuit.

Personally, I have a hunch that I do agree with the 4th Circuit on this.

However, I also suspect that the 10th Amendment may rule here over the 2nd and that the states can determine this since there is no constitutional amendment regarding gun sales. For instance, 50 years ago in 1971, there was a constitutional amendment (the 26th) that made 18 the minimum age for voting throughout the US. Before that, states could do whatever they wanted. Well, there is no "26th Amendment for Gun Sales" and the 10th Amendment gives states the ability to establish laws that are not explicitly enumerated ("spelled-out") as powers to the Federal government, so this means that the states may have the power to limit ages of gun sales. They do so already with gambling...

I need to look at the case and ruling and may comment further.

[abc3643]

OK, I see that this ruling is in response to Federal laws, not state, so the 10th Amendment is out. Also, as I hypothesized, this isn't necessarily a final ruling.

Specifically, the 3-judge panel of the 4th Circuit ruled, 2 to 1, that the existing minimum age requirement (21) for purchases from federally licensed gun dealers restricts the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens and that the Federal Government's age limit of 21 was arbitrary and unjustified.

What the ruling says is that the decision of the District Court - the (United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia - is "VACATED, REVERSED, AND REMANDED". What that means is that the decision of the District Court has no power as if it didn't exist (Vacated) and that the previous decision it made was wrong (Reversed), and that the District Court needs to reassess the case (Remanded) based on this opinion of this panel of judges of the 4th Circuit.

So, the case is headed back to the District Court. Whatever the District Court then rules is likely to be appealed and the full 4th Circuit court, and not just a panel of 3 judges.

Both the opinion of the Court written by one of the two judges) and the dissent of the Court written by one dissenting judge are persuasive.

This case will likely return to the full 4th Circuit and may even go higher to the US Supreme Court.

>>>> This will be an interesting case to watch!

[Sargentcaptain]

I hate the insane idea that an 18yo is old enough to die in a fucking war but he's national enemy #1 if he has a drink or a smoke whilst thinking about his actions after being forced to murder another human being a continent away from home. The entire age rating system in the US makes zero sense. Say what you will about Europe, but basically everything being 18+ is good.

[Lliam]

If they're old enough to vote and to go into the military, they are old enough to own a gun.

Democrats are bound and determined to strip Americans of the second amendment rights by hook or by crook. And they are dishonest about their concern for the suffering of commoners. Even the logic for gun control is absurd.

Gun control isn't about reducing violence of death. It's about totalitarian control.

[Goatmeal]

If you consider guns effective vs. an aspiring authoritarian state, by that logic they would be equally effective for overthrowing a democracy.

[Lliam]

@Goatmeal, who said anything about overthrowing the government?

[Goatmeal]

Jesus Christ, you're not very good at this, are you?

[JackSmy]

@Goatmeal WHAT? Where did sedition, and revolution, or overthrowing the government come into the chain?
You know you are on a Watch List, right? Or will be, soon. . .

[Goatmeal]

@JackSmy I introduced it into the discussion. Because, if gun rights are sufficient to fight off an aspiring authoritarian government, presumably they are also sufficient to overthrow a democratically elected one. At least that seems like a real risk.

Which, as far as I can see, invalidates a central argument for gun rights.

[Daniela1982]

You do realize that all of the school shooters were mostly kids under 18. Do you really thing all the other kids should have guns too?

[hellionthesagereborn]

Well it is, by definition. Gonna be a bit awkward dealing with that but historically children would use guns at a very young age so I don't think its that weird when you look at it from a historical context. So yes I agree that this is the law and I'm not entirely against it on principle either.

[libsaretards]

Yes, I agree with this ruling. Kids used to hunt at a young age to help the family. The issue is not firearms or what age to have them. The issue is not teaching proper responsibility and usage of firearms. Instill correct habits at a young age and they will stick.

[bolverk]

If you can join the Armed Forces and be active service from 17+ then the court ruling makes sense, Of course the Democrats and their like would argue against it because they do not want a population being able to push back against the policies they are pushing, also given that a majority to those joining the Armed Forces would most likely be from rural areas and would probably have a familiarity with firearms of various types.

[Matt57]

Yeah, it never made sense to me that you could buy long guns at 18 but had to be 21 for handguns. Maybe this will effect the recent California law that you have to be 21 for all firearm purchases. Doesn’t matter to me as much now that I’m 22, but it did feel like the state kept moning the goalpost on me when I was 18-20 because of that law and now with requiring the REAL ID which is pretty stupid.

[jspl90]

maybe its because you can hide a handgun a lot easier then you can a long gun

[HiveBee]

Its unconstitutional but who cares? Does that matter anymore?

Its funny to me how they put out this bill. As if that is going to help in the war on gun deaths.

This bill won't do shit for that lol. Its an absolute absurdity.

The only thing that will cure the war on guns is to literally remove all guns from the US.

Not only is it unconsittutional, its qlso silly and does nothing. its all for good looks. To act like they did a good progresive thing for the greater good!

[cth96190]

Any restriction on sales is an infringement.
The meaning of “shall not be infringed” could not be more clear.
The restriction is, therefore, self-evidently unconstitutional.

[JackSmy]

@cth96190 I disagree! Like YELLING FIRE, in a crowded theater, is NOT PROTECTED FREE SPEECH, REASONABLE background checks, to ensure people with VIOLENCE and ABUSE judgements, or others, lacking MENTAL COMPETENCE, are also NOT UNREASONABLE, and NOT VIOLATING the 2nd Amendment!

[cth96190]

@JackSmy
There is no mention of a background check, mental competence, or anything else in the Second Amendment.
It does not say 'shall not be infringed', except for the following things. . .
No, it says simply 'shall not be infringed'.
Like most Democrats, you need to improve your reading comprehension.

[JackSmy]

@cth96190 That's why we have the JUDICIAL BRANCH, TO DECIDE/DETERMINE, based on the current, social environment, what is a reasonable interpretation, of the Constitution, and Bill of Rights!
Things have changed, from the time it was written, and it seems the COURTS have the responsibility to INTERPRET, for the BETTER GOOD, while complying with the SPIRIT, or INTENT, of what the Founders Wrote, and couldn't anticipate!!
Is a Background check that unreasonable? Is applying for a permit, as a Law-Abiding citizen, that much of an inconvenience?
Whenever I buy a hunting rifle, or shotgun, they call a number, the FBI, the Instant Background Check, and they run me through whatever databases, to be sure I have no outstanding warrants, or judgments, or anything that should prevent me from buying this rifle.
Yeah, it takes 15-20 minutes, but some of the stores have some really cute sales ladies, and while they are running the check, she is showing me other things, I might want to buy, and showing me her nice curves!!
I have NOTHING to BITCH ABOUT, with that!
Nobody is INFRINGING on my RIGHTS, in any way, but I follow the law, and don't have a criminal record!

[Dargil]

What in the constitution prohibits it? If at 18 I can drink, vote and die in combat, 'splain me.

[MCheetah]

The question is confusing as hell to me and I think I voted incorrectly, but basically, I think it'd be wrong to ban guns to people under 21.

[Rangers]

99.999% of the gun laws in this country are unconstitutional, including that one. 1 down, 19,999 to go, this may take a while...

[rcljr]

Absolutely, you can vote, drink, join the military at 18, drive and legally have sex at 16, why should owning a handgun be any different? It’s a tool or implement just like a car or hammer.

[Aether1]

Yes because 18 is the legal age of majority in the US.

[TheOracle10]

Sounds absolutely stupid, I can sign up for the marines, go through training, and be certified to shoot muzzies in the middle east at 18, yet I cannot as a civilian own a firearm for self defense or recreational purposes.

[Anonymous]

If the democrats want 16 year-olds to vote then they should also be allowed to drink and purchase handguns

[Opinion Owner]

preferably all at the same time

[Anonymous]

It has to be, because under 21ers are allowed to use gun in military, so this law is illogical

[Daniela1982]

Kids have to be 21 to vote so they don't need guns either if under 21.

[JimBeams]

And they can be drafted into the military at 18.

[Daniela1982]

@JimBeams Well that solves their problems. They can play with real guns then when they play cowboys and Indians.

[JimBeams]

I don't really think that being forced into the military is looked at as solving one's problems.
My point is that we need to stadardize this age thing.

[Daniela1982]

@JimBeams Trying to get Congress to agree with anything is a pipe dream. So it will never happen.

[JimBeams]

They don't have to agree, they just need to have the majority vote. Nancy Pelosi wants to lower the voting age to 16.

[Daniela1982]

@JimBeams kIds who are 16 can't make rational decisions or even keep themselves from getting pregnant. You really want to give them guns too?

[JimBeams]

I told you what Nancy's plan was, not mine.

[libsaretards]

Actually the voting age is 18.

[bulletbob555]

Yeah it probably is. If it's a right for citizens then you should be able to at 18.

[genericname85]

the constitution is a mild joke anyway. you can play so much with semantics, that constitutions don't matter.

[Anonymous]

I don't recall anywhere in the constitution where it says the government can deny you Bill of Rights protections if you're under 21.

[Anonymous]

... and here we go.
Every "right" that we have comes with stipulations. Why are guns any different? Shall we use the 2nd amendment to justify owning rocket launchers too?

[libsaretards]

The government has them so the citizens should too. The point of the Constitution is not to limit the rights of the citizens, but to limit the ability of the government to take those rights. Allow the government to dictate what rights you can and cannot have just for the government's convenience and you end up in the very situation that led to the forming of the U. S. in the first place. The British made the colonies pay taxes to a level (relative to their incomes back then) that would make life unsustainable for anyone. The ONLY course of action the colonies had to fight the tyranny caused by those taxes was to fight. The 2nd Amendment is the tool in the Constitution that enables citizens to protect their rights when the government will not. Yes, there should be limits, but the limits should be the same for both citizens and the government.

[EnglishEuropean]

Yes, the same as barring sales of alcohol. Get them drunk and give them a gun, I say.

[Anonymous]

If a cop can murder you for having a gun then you do not have the right to bare arms.

[lpoots]

as these 21 year olds will only kill other americans
the world does not care

[LeftHappy]

Our Government dealing drugs then giving guns to cops is what's unconstitutional.

[Leavesbound]

They bar people under the age of 21 from drinking.

[libsaretards]

Drinking was not an issue covered by the Bill of Rights, so this statement is irrelevant to this discussion.

[Nachowedgie]

Completely unconstitutional

[888theGreat]

I think that should each states right to decide

[FunkyMonkee]

It's not unconstitutional.

[beefy40]

if you don't own a gun, you aren't American.

[Exterminatore]

Yes, yes I do.

[joeldalton]

Yes, 100%

[Anonymous]

kyle rittenhouse should be in jail for a long time

[msc545]

No - bad ruling.

[CantGetItUp]

It’s dumb