This Fourth Circuit ruling will be heading to the US Supreme Court after a three-judge panel ruled that a 1968 law prohibiting adults under the age of 21 from buying firearms is unconstitutional.
Get this: “We first find that 18-year-olds possess Second Amendment rights.” You don’t say?
“They enjoy almost every other constitutional right, and they were required at the time of the Founding to serve in the militia and furnish their own weapons.” [And that] “Congress may not restrict the rights of an entire group of law-abiding adults because a minuscule portion of that group commits a disproportionate amount of gun violence.”
That’s a statement with some legs and not just for the 18 to “almost 21” crowd – but the lone dissenter made time to blame the gun lobby without ever mentioning the even-more deep-pocketed anti-gun lobby.
“The majority’s decision to grant the gun lobby a victory in a fight it lost on Capitol Hill more than fifty years ago is not compelled by law. Nor is it consistent with the proper role of the federal judiciary in our democratic system.”
The Second Amendment, he said, is different “not because it is uniquely oppressed or imperiled, but rather because it is singularly capable of causing harm.” [And] “The law does not ban the possession of handguns by those under 21, only the sale of them by licensed dealers.”
So your argument is this.
- What congress did thanks to the anti-gun lobby was unconstitutional but that’s the gun lobby’s fault?
- The law “as is” does not prevent someone under 21 from legally “possessing” a firearm or handgun.
- The Second amendment is singularly capable of causing harm.
This guy is a judge? The entire Bill of Rights protects people from harm caused by the government that pays him his salary. There is no singular anything here.
A State suppressing the right to speech or press, or assembly is causing harm. Warrantless search, seizure, and detention without trial are all harms. Most of which lead to greater harms if potentially less immediate. All of which is exacerbated by the absence of a lawfully armed civilian population.
But putting all that aside, and his argument is still dumb for more obvious reasons.
I think we can stipulate without looking that a super-majority of acts of violence (harms) involving handguns by those “under 21” are committed with illegal weapons or guns obtained illegally?
This 1968 law is not only incapable of preventing gun violence its only function is to hinder the young adult’s ability to legally defend themselves against legitimate threats of violence. And since “Congress shall make no law” abridging that right, no matter when they did it, that law is unconstitutional.
Judge James A. Wynn Jr. is on the record ensuring that law-abiding citizens are harmed instead of criminals.
If that’s not one of the best examples of Democrat logic, I’m not sure what is?
Note: The current ruling only applies to Virginia, Maryland, West Virginia, North and South Carolina, states overseen by the 4th Circuit Courts. Review by the full circuit is possible, or the challenge will be presented o the US Supreme Court for Consideration.