A Florida appeals court ruled Wednesday that the state’s ban on concealed carry by adults ages 18 to 20 violates the Second Amendment, finding that young adults are entitled to the same constitutional protections as law-abiding adults over the age of 20.
In a sweeping opinion, the court said 18-year-olds can serve in the military and defend the nation but face restrictions on their ability to exercise the same self-defense rights available to older adults.
“Eighteen- to 20-year-olds can defend the country without restriction but can only utilize their Second Amendment right to self-defense with severe restrictions,” Judge Spencer D. Levine wrote for a unanimous three-judge panel of Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeals.
“Restricting 18- to 20-year-olds — members of the same ‘political community’ as other law-abiding adults — from rights to self-defense would make the Second Amendment a ‘second-class’ right,” Levine wrote.
The ruling comes after Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier declined to defend the law earlier this year.
The only way this works is when the population is educated on guns. Uneducated children with guns is a catastrophe waiting to happen.
And an Uneducated people will never be free. Someone will eventually over them.
There are already lots of american school children with machine guns. And that is not a good thing under our family current circumstances.
Edit
Someone will eventually rule over them.
What in the retard are you blathering on about?
The age of majority used to be 21. It isn’t any longer. The 26th Amendment enfranchises Americans at age eighteen, as does the Florida Constitution. In Florida, all adult rights and obligations were lowered from 21 to 18 on July 1, 1973 with the passage of Chapter 73-21, Laws of Florida. Over the years, however, do-gooders were able to raise the legal drinking age back to 21, and then tobacco as well. These laws are also unconstitutional because they violate the 14th amendment. There cannot be two or more different “classes” of citizens in this country. These nanny laws treat adults 18 to 21 as if they were still minor children. Those laws will ultimately take a tumble in the courts, however. One canot be of age to be seated on a Federal Grand Jury, but not of age to buy a beer or a cigar.
I agree with this, and think it should ALSO apply to drinking age.
Cite and style for the case? At least the names of the parties?
Next needs to be the drinking age. We need a consistent policy about when someone:
1. Can drink alcohol
2. Can consent to sex
3. Can own/carry a gun (or any other deadly weapon)
4. Can enter into legal agreements (contracts, sign damage waivers, etc.)
5. Can smoke/partake in tobacco.
6. Drive a car/motorcycle on public roads.
7. There may be more I am unaware of.
The law should be consistent. All of these are potentially life-changing activities – if you’re adult enough for one, you should be adult enough for them all. 100 years ago, 14 year old women and 16 year old men married together would do all of these things, and operate a farm or other business, because society prepared them for it.