Federal judge says 18-20 year olds are part of "the people", should be able to purchase hand guns

[dead0man]

Reason

The government argued that 18-to-20-year-old Americans are not part of "the people" whose "right to keep and bear arms" is guaranteed by the Second Amendment. When that amendment was ratified in 1791, the Justice Department noted, the age of majority was 21.

In granting the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, Robert E. Payne, a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, rejected that argument for several reasons. The Supreme Court has said "the people" protected by the Second Amendment, like "the people" protected by the First and Fourth Amendments, "refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community." The government therefore was arguing that 18-to-20-year-olds, who today can vote and are treated as adults in most other respects, are not part of "the political community."

The argument that the current meaning of that category is the same as the one that was accepted in the late 18th century, Payne notes in his 71-page opinion, has troubling implications. If the category is defined as people who are qualified to vote, for example, "the political community at the time of the Founding only included white, landed men."

<snip>

Payne has yet to issue a final order that would bar enforcement of the rule he deemed unconstitutional, and his decision is bound to be appealed. Critics of his ruling complain that it "would significantly increase gun access for a population that research shows is more impulsive and responsible for a disproportionate number of fatal shootings," as The Washington Post put it. But as Payne notes, "the 'general societal problem' of teenage impetuousness and rashness far [preceded] the Founding." Since that is hardly a new phenomenon, he says, "the lack of analogous evidence of Founding-era regulations demonstrates that the statutes and regulations at issue are inconsistent with the Second Amendment."

Defenders of the age restriction argue that it helps prevent homicides by limiting access to handguns by people who are especially prone to commit such crimes. "Research shows us that 18- to 20-year-olds commit gun homicides at triple the rate of adults 21 years and older," Everytown Law's Janet Carter said in a press release. "The federal law prohibiting federally-licensed firearms dealers from selling handguns to individuals under the age of 21 is not just an essential tool for preventing gun violence, it is also entirely constitutional. The Court's ruling will undoubtedly put lives at risk. It must be reversed."

This sort of reasoning could be used to justify restricting the Second Amendment rights of  other groups. People between the ages of 21 and 30, for example, are disproportionately likely to be arrested for murder, and so are African Americans. More to the point, Bruen made it clear that courts are not allowed to uphold gun control laws by balancing their purported benefits against the burdens they impose.

[progressive85]

I agree with the ruling.

I would say that to purchase any gun you would need to be trained in the proper handling of it, and if you are young, have somebody who is an experienced, responsible gun owner sign off on it on your behalf.

As far as where the age should be, there's probably high school students in rural areas who are very responsible with their hunting rifles.  Just because someone turns 18 or 20 or 22 doesn't make them automatically a responsible adult citizen.  There are people of all ages out there who shouldn't have guns.

So I wouldn't go by the age, I think it should be based on knowledge of guns, trust, support from other people, experience, and that kind of thing.

and I think there were probably 13-year-old boys running around with rifles back in the Revolutionary War period, so that argument that it was 21 back then seems odd.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

If Heller is correct that one has a right to a handgun under the 2nd amendment, then I think this follows from that. The laws in several states banning all guns for this age are even more surely unconstitutional.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

I was about to say age restrictions on guns past 18 don't make any sense since that is the age a person becomes draft-eligible, but from the article I learned something in an argument that the government wasn't able to rebut:

"The historical sources show that, at the time surrounding ratification of the Second Amendment, 16 or 18 was the age of majority for militia service throughout the nation," Payne writes. "In the decade following the ratification of the Second Amendment," he adds, "Congress and every state then in the Union passed a militia law requiring almost all able-bodied white men between the ages of 18 and 45 to serve in the militia."

Why is that relevant? "The fact that an individual could, or was required to, serve in the militia indicates that society believed that he lawfully could, and should, keep and bear arms," Payne notes. "Furthermore, because militiamen generally were responsible for providing their own firearms, it is logical to conclude that 18-to-20-year-olds were not prohibited from purchasing them."

Moving away a bit from firearms, this would also imply that conscription was the default for every war until Vietnam and therefore abolishing or even suspending the draft is a somewhat recent concept for the US to support. Putting these together, the all-volunteer military and lowered voting age are the two principle liberal policy outcomes that happened as a direct result of Vietnam. And really the only things about the war that can be considered positive.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

So when are we lowering the drinking age?

[dead0man]

So when are we lowering the drinking age?

soon, ideally, but you know how Dems and Pubs are.

[DaleCooper]

So when are we lowering the drinking age?

Probably not anytime soon because Americans are continuing to infantilize young adults. If anything, it's probably more likely that the age of majority gets raised to 21 than it is for the drinking age to get lowered.

[Torie]

While I think the 2nd amendment is an individual right, and agree with the recent SCOTUS decision on the matter I dissent here. Reasonable restrictions on possessing guns are Constitutional, and if the evidence supports denying 18-20 year olds guns because the rate of misuse is far higher, that should be upheld. The Constitutional is not a suicide pact, and if are streets became murder ally due to these young people having guns, that is a form of suicide.

If there were not evidence that the risk is materially higher, that is another matter. Then the reasonableness of the restriction becomes problematical. It is a question of what the evidence is.

[politicallefty]

The decision seems right to me. I think the only reason it hasn't happened sooner is because the courts take too long and the issue ends up moot. The problem with the gun debate as a constitutional matter isn't Heller though. It's the shoddy reasoning that came out of Bruen.

So when are we lowering the drinking age?

Probably not anytime soon because Americans are continuing to infantilize young adults. If anything, it's probably more likely that the age of majority gets raised to 21 than it is for the drinking age to get lowered.

Unfortunately true and we're going backwards. The smoking age has been raised to 21 and every marijuana legalization law sets the minimum at 21 as well. (Interestingly, the first marijuana legalization ballot initiative in California in 1972 would've set the age at 18.) We've really gone backwards on this stuff and not given it much of a thought. I doubt even overturning South Dakota v. Dole would make a difference in any state.

[UWS]

Reason

The government argued that 18-to-20-year-old Americans are not part of "the people" whose "right to keep and bear arms" is guaranteed by the Second Amendment. When that amendment was ratified in 1791, the Justice Department noted, the age of majority was 21.

In granting the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, Robert E. Payne, a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, rejected that argument for several reasons. The Supreme Court has said "the people" protected by the Second Amendment, like "the people" protected by the First and Fourth Amendments, "refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community." The government therefore was arguing that 18-to-20-year-olds, who today can vote and are treated as adults in most other respects, are not part of "the political community."

The argument that the current meaning of that category is the same as the one that was accepted in the late 18th century, Payne notes in his 71-page opinion, has troubling implications. If the category is defined as people who are qualified to vote, for example, "the political community at the time of the Founding only included white, landed men."

<snip>

Payne has yet to issue a final order that would bar enforcement of the rule he deemed unconstitutional, and his decision is bound to be appealed. Critics of his ruling complain that it "would significantly increase gun access for a population that research shows is more impulsive and responsible for a disproportionate number of fatal shootings," as The Washington Post put it. But as Payne notes, "the 'general societal problem' of teenage impetuousness and rashness far [preceded] the Founding." Since that is hardly a new phenomenon, he says, "the lack of analogous evidence of Founding-era regulations demonstrates that the statutes and regulations at issue are inconsistent with the Second Amendment."

Defenders of the age restriction argue that it helps prevent homicides by limiting access to handguns by people who are especially prone to commit such crimes. "Research shows us that 18- to 20-year-olds commit gun homicides at triple the rate of adults 21 years and older," Everytown Law's Janet Carter said in a press release. "The federal law prohibiting federally-licensed firearms dealers from selling handguns to individuals under the age of 21 is not just an essential tool for preventing gun violence, it is also entirely constitutional. The Court's ruling will undoubtedly put lives at risk. It must be reversed."

This sort of reasoning could be used to justify restricting the Second Amendment rights of  other groups. People between the ages of 21 and 30, for example, are disproportionately likely to be arrested for murder, and so are African Americans. More to the point, Bruen made it clear that courts are not allowed to uphold gun control laws by balancing their purported benefits against the burdens they impose.

I agree with the federal judge