
As Judge Edith Jones notes in the 5th Circuit’s opinion, however, “there are no age or maturity restrictions in the plain text of the Amendment, as there are in other constitutional provisions,” which “suggests that the Second Amendment lacks a minimum age requirement.” She also observes that “the right of the people peaceably to assemble” (protected by the First Amendment), “the right of the people” to be secure from “unreasonable searches and seizures” (protected by the Fourth Amendment), and the unspecified rights “retained by the people” under the Ninth Amendment “undoubtedly protect eighteen-to-twenty-year-olds as much as twenty-one-year-olds.”
Jones adds that “the history of firearm use, particularly in connection with militia service, contradicts the premise that eighteen-to-twenty-year-olds are not covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment.” Under the 1792 Militia Act, “eighteen-to-twenty-year-olds not only served in that militia, but were required to serve,” she writes. “Eighteen-to-twenty-year-olds therefore must be covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment, as they were compulsorily enrolled in the regiments that the Amendment was written to protect….While the core of the right [to arms] is rooted in self-defense and unconnected with the militia, the text of the Amendment’s prefatory clause considered along with the overwhelming evidence of their militia service at the founding indicates that eighteen-to-twenty-year-olds were indeed part of ‘the people’ for Second Amendment purposes.”
In short, Jones writes, “the text of the Second Amendment includes eighteen-to-twenty-year-old individuals among ‘the people’ whose right to keep and bear arms is protected.” Having failed to dodge the Bruen test, the government had to cite historical precedents that are “relevantly similar” to Section 922(b)(1). It relied “principally on mid-to-late-19th century statutes (most enacted after Reconstruction) that restricted firearm ownership based on age.”
Those laws “were passed too late in time to outweigh the tradition of pervasively acceptable firearm ownership by eighteen-to-twenty-year-olds at ‘the crucial period of our nation’s history,'” Jones says. “The federal government has presented scant evidence that eighteen-to-twenty-year-olds’ firearm rights during the founding era were restricted in a similar manner to the contemporary federal handgun purchase ban, and its 19th century evidence ‘cannot provide much insight into the meaning of the Second Amendment when it contradicts earlier evidence.'”
— Jacob Sullum in The 5th Circuit Says the Federal Ban on Handgun Sales to Young Adults Is Unconstitutional
“Having failed to dodge the Bruen test, the government had to cite historical precedents that are ‘relevantly similar’ to Section 922(b)(1). It relied ‘principally on mid-to-late-19th century statutes (most enacted after Reconstruction) that restricted firearm ownership based on age.’ ”
Translation: “We know you thought you could fool us with straw grasping hand-waving freak-outery. But nope, you know you are straw grasping and trying to get something to stick – we know it too and will not let you get away with such infringements ’cause you say so’ to turn this into ‘interest balancing’. “
Reminder the Continental Army (who are the ones the 2A was meant to protect) was largely under 18, with its most famous enlisted member (Joseph Plumb Martin) having been 15 at enlistment. Also Thomas Jefferson, father of the Bill of Rights and 2A with it, encouraged his 15 year old Nephew to make a gun the constant companion of [his] walks. A minimum of 18 is an infrigment.
““The federal government has presented scant evidence that eighteen-to-twenty-year-olds’ firearm rights during the founding era were restricted in a similar manner to the contemporary federal handgun purchase ban, and its 19th century evidence ‘cannot provide much insight into the meaning of the Second Amendment when it contradicts earlier evidence.’”
I think I’m in lust. 😉
any time government at any level is having a difficult time controlling the citizen in any way, is a happy time for the citizen.
Now, would someone please tell the NV SC this so they can reverse their restriction on 18-20yr olds purchasing MSR’s – and why are we restricting handgun sales to under-21 adults?
The Government Is Having a Hard Time With Bruen in Defending a Range of Long-Standing Gun Control Laws
World’s smallest violin!
Seriously though, please take a look here: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/23-1072P-01A.pdf
This pdf shows how “Obama judges” work around Bruen to find high/large capacity magazine bans constitutional. Familiarize yourself with their methods.
Yes, there were never any laws banning magazines with more than 10 rounds in the history of our nation, but the Obama judges state that nowadays we care about school shooters, whereas our ancestors didn’t, and since sawed off shotguns are banned it’s ok to ban big mags. I kid you not, that’s the argument.
They also purport that only 1 person in US history has ever fired more than 10 rounds in self-defense—of course ignoring all the times when cops did—as if that mattered to the exercise of the right. Also ignoring the flip side that no “mass shooting” has ever occurred in RI much less one in which the shooter fired more than 10 rounds. Doesn’t seem so reasonable to impinge on hundreds of thousands of gun owners in the state for something that has literally never happened inside its borders.
Oh and the also being in some supposed expert testimony that the point of high cap mags is so mass shooters can hip fire and spray bullets.
You want to talk about tradition and normal use? what about all the other states who have no 10+ round mag bans?