Federal Judge Strikes Down Texas Law Banning Adults Under 21 From Carrying Guns
Pittman first mentioned that the Second Amendment text does not mention age, which is “notable” because “when the Framers meant to impose age restrictions, they did so expressly.”
U.S. District Court Judge Mark Pittman in Fort Worth, TX, struck down a Texas law prohibiting adults under 21 from carrying handguns.
The decision comes two months after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled “that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual right to carry weapons in public for self-defense.”
Under Texas law, a “person commits an offense if the person: (1) intentionally . . . carries on or about his or her person a handgun; (2) at the time of the offense is younger than 21 years of age” unless that person is “on the person’s own premises or premises under the person’s control, or inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person’s control.”
The Firearms Policy Coalition and two plaintiffs filed the challenge in 2021. The plaintiffs claimed the law prevented them “from traveling with a handgun between Parker, Fannin and Grayson counties, where they lived, worked and went to school.”
Pittman wrote that the law banning law-abiding adults under 21 “violates the Second Amendment, as incorporated against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment.”
“Based on the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by Founding-Era history and tradition, the Court concludes that the Second Amendment protects against this prohibition,” explained Pittman. “Texas’s statutory scheme must therefore be enjoined to the extent that law-abiding 18-to-20-year-olds are prohibited from applying for a license to carry a handgun.”
The Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Pittman first mentioned that the Second Amendment text does not mention age, which is “notable” because “when the Framers meant to impose age restrictions, they did so expressly.”
He also said the Court concluded the 18-20-year-olds fall under “the people” within the text, especially since Heller stated, “Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.”
Texas tried to argue “that there was a historical basis for determining who could carry guns based on age.”
Pittman provided Texas with a civics lesson:
So who are these militia members? In United States v. Miller, the Supreme Court explained that “the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.” 307 U.S. 174, 179 (1939). And in Heller, the Supreme Court affirmed this definition, stating that it “comports with founding-era sources.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 595 (collecting sources). Thus, at the Founding, the “militia” was generally understood to be comprised of “all able-bodied men,” which included 18-to-20-year-olds. Id. at 596.
The historical record supports this understanding. The First Congress enacted legislation “command[ing] that every able-bodied male citizen between the ages of 18 and 45 be enrolled in the militia and equip himself with appropriate weaponry.” Jones v. Bonta, 34 F.4th 704, 719 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting Perpich v. Dep’t of Def., 496 U.S. 334, 341 (1990) (alterations omitted)). Additionally, the 1792 Act required militia members to arm themselves rather than rely on the Government to provide arms. See Miller, 307 U.S. at 179 (recognizing that the militia presupposed firearm possession because “when called for service[,] these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time”). Likewise, at the time of the founding, most states had similar laws requiring militia service for 18to-20-year-olds. See generally Nat’l Rifle Ass’n v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives, 714 F.3d 334 (5th Cir. 2013) (Jones, J., dissenting). Thus, the undisputed historical evidence establishes that 18-to-20-year-olds were understood to be a part of the militia in the Founding Era.5 See Heller, 554 U.S. at 596 (explaining that the Constitution assumed the militia to exist at the time it was drafted). And because 18-to-20-year-olds were (and are) a part of the militia, the Second Amendment must protect their right to keep and bear arms.
The judge also reminds Texas it is a shall-issue state:
This means Texas implements nondiscretionary licensing restrictions. Texas, however, prohibits lawabiding 18-to-20-year-olds from applying for such a license. Thus, although Heller and Bruen reiterated that “nothing” “should be interpreted to suggest the unconstitutionality of the 43 States’ ‘shall issue’ licensing regimes,” id. at 2139 n.9, a shall-issue regime cannot allow a state to prohibit a class of persons from exercising their Second Amendment right solely based on their age.
Pittman said the Court stayed “this injunction for 30 days” to give Texas time to appeal.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Who knew Bruen would be so powerful?!
All it took was a decent historical analysis and the spine to actually issue a ruling that says “The Constitution says what it means and means what it says.”
Adults under what?
Under medicated?
Underfunded?
Under cover?
Underwear?
Under 21. It’s in the article. The headline just seems to have lost the number somewhere.
Can’t a guy poke a little fun?
Banning Adults Under From Carrying Guns
Under a bridge? Underwater?
This headline is missing something important.
And it has now been fixed. Thank you. 🙂
Leftists hair spontaneously combusting everywhere…
The link still shows it “-adults-under-from-carrying-“…
Old enough to die in a war….Old enough to carry IMO
And as a side note, old enough to buy alcohol.
Concur on both points.
Either you’re an adult or you are not.
The difference is that buying alcohol isn’t a constitutional right, so the laws against it (for which Liddy Dole is to blame) are constitutional. Unwise and unjust, perhaps, but valid. Being armed is a constitutional right, so laws against that are not.
I see nothing but a big win here.
People have a cartoon image of this state (I’m in Texas) being the wild, wild West, guns are falling out of people’s pants and hats. We didn’t get concealed carry until freaking 1995. This state is so behind the curve in gun laws. It’s catching up, but good Lord. It is not the gun culture many believe it is. I see more in-your-face-gun-ness in other Western states.
I’m aware of that history… and yet.. Texas?
That’s why this smelled like a “sue-and-settle” action to me.
Texas was the first large state to open up its concealed carry laws after the 1991 Luby’s Massacre in Killeen (I was supposed to be meeting a friend of lunch there that day, but we were both delayed). While it’s laws were strict, they set the original model for others states to do the same and were the trend setter.
I applaud the win, but Texas needs to appeal so that the 5th Circuit gets to rule on this issue as well, The 5th Circuit had previously ruled the same law constitutional pre-Bruen, so needs a chance to correct that error.
My fear though is that the 5th Circuit will rule favorably, but that the SC will punt as the plaintiffs will be 21 by that time and render the case moot.
Florida went shall issue in 1989.
And in Chicago.
I agree. Texas is not even close to lawless. In fact, they actually have a lot of laws….they just mostly try to stay out of people’s homes and don’t infringe on their land rights.
Source: Lived in Ft Worth for 3 years and San Antonio for 1 year.
Texas was a Democrat stronghold until the 1990s.
If you take into account the well regulated militia portion, that indicates to me that at the very least, if you are legal to join the military, you are legal to carry (minus other disqualifications like felony convictions, mental illness,etc)
I may take it once step further and say you need to be able to carry so you can learn how to shoot. One simply does not know how to shoot when they turn 18. They need time to learn.
Interesting to see where this goes.
You know, you can join the military at 17 with parental consent. So if mom says it is OK to carry…and that doesn’t really bother me at all.
long as your age when entering basic training is 18.
used DEP myself back in 1985.
That changed quite awhile ago. The boy entered 19D (Cavalry Scout) OSUT during the ’07/’08 surge, when he was 17, and graduated just before his 18th birthday, although he didn’t actually deploy to Iraq until after he was 18.
The constitution puts no such limits on the possession or carrying of firearms. It doesn’t mention age nor felony.
So, would you require an amendment to the Constitution to prevent felons from carrying weapons in prison? Or to allow an unsupervised 6yo to walk around with a handgun? Or somebody who hears demonic voices urging them to hurt people?
Those are three instances where we draw all kinds of restrictions around people’s rights in almost every instance, without much fanfare. Until Progressivism.
Easily managed. All people retain their rights, but people who are legal wards of someone else have some of those rights managed for them by those wards. Covers inmates of both types and kids nicely. Also makes parents responsible for deciding what is appropriate, when.
“Anyone who owns a gun, or votes Republican, is obviously mentally unwell and henceforth is a ward of the state.”
-Democrats, sooner than you think.
But I’m not even suggesting new practice… only a clear, unified verbal framework for describing what is already current social and legal practice.
I think that’s a good answer.
“So, would you require an amendment to the Constitution…”
So, you you believe the constitution is toilet paper?
The constitution, when followed, is nearly perfect. Why do you think a 6 year old should not be allowed a gun?
Do we have a 6 year old gun problem? No
Have we ever had a 6 year old gun problem? No.
6 year olds are under the control and supervision of their parents. Seems to work fairly well except in places where the government gets involved. And here you are wanting more government involvement.
To answer, yes, if you wish the constitution to be followed then follow it. And that requires changing it when you find a need. Since no 6 year olds are bothering me I don’t find that need.
13th Amendment:
“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, …”
Convicted lawbreakers surrender all sorts of Rights.
Are you suggesting that the 13th restricts rights beyond that which is stated – upon conviction of a crime a person may be involuntarily held and required to work?
Barry: Are you suggesting that people convicted of crimes AREN’T, or shouldn’t be, involuntarily held and forced to work? What, pray tell, do you think prisons are for?
What’s that got to do with the 2nd amendment? The 13th doesn’t modify the 2nd. It just sets its own terms. Before the 13th was passed, slavery was legal. Now it’s generally illegal, but it’s still legal for a court to sentence someone to slavery as the punishment for a crime they’ve been convicted of.
txvet2,
I made no such assertion as is readily discernible form the comments I have made.
The 13th says what it says, and no more. Try reading for comprehension.
No, it doesn’t mention age or felony, but that doesn’t mean the right it protects applies to everyone regardless of age or felony. The amendment protects the right, but the underlying right is not absolute, and nobody seriously claims it is. That’s why both Heller and Bruen look to historical usage to determine what exactly the right comprised back in the 1780s when the states agreed to protect it. Anything that people then would have accepted as not infringing the right, still doesn’t infringe it. The best proof that people would have accepted something is if they did in fact accept such laws then.
“…but that doesn’t mean the right it protects applies to everyone regardless of age or felony.”
OK, I’ll bight. Who does it not protect? You are stating that there are multiple classes of people? So, give us your reasoning how the 13th, which is very specific, allows the government to take away the right to bear arms from anyone under some arbitrary age, or someone that committed a felony. I”l just put the 13th right here since it is short and to the point:
“Section 1
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”
Note: The 13th is very clear, outlawing slavery or involuntary servitude except in the case of conviction of crime. You cannot make the case that it allows the government to restrict the right to bear arms because you are under the age of 21, 55, 16, or any other age, unless you are a complete moron.
“…and nobody seriously claims it is.”
Bogus of course. Anyone that understands english can read for theirselves the 13th. It’s not the least bit vague. If you need someone else to explain the 13th to you then you are not very bright.
Huh? Who said anything about the 13th? We’re discussing the 2nd. The 2nd says the RKBA shall not be infringed. But it doesn’t say the RKBA is absolute, because it isn’t. Every serious person agrees on that. There are restrictions on keeping and bearing arms that don’t infringe the right, and therefore Congress (and the states) is free to impose them.
To know what restrictions infringe the right and what don’t, we need to look to how people in general understood the right in the 1780s. If we find laws from back then that impose a restriction, and we find no sign of anyone having protested that it infringes the RKBA, that is a good indication that they didn’t think it did infringe it.
This is the same way we deal with every term in the constitution, including the Bill of Rights. Congress can’t abridge the freedom of speech; but what is that freedom and what abridges it? History tells us that the freedom doesn’t include defamation, so laws against that don’t abridge it.
Likewise, what does “due process of law” include? The courts have said that it does not include a right to be present in the judge’s chambers when the judge is writing a decision; that means it never included that, and thus the judge is not denying the defendant due process.
Or, what is an “unreasonable search”, which the fourth amendment bans? There are thousands of court decisions exploring this very question. Over the years the courts have developed an understanding of what searches are reasonable, and thus permitted without a warrant, and what are unreasonable and thus forbidden without a warrant.
As Justice Thomas wrote in Bruen, we find founding-era restrictions on being armed in courthouses, and no sign of any protest at them, so the RKBA must not include that. This can be applied to other “sensitive places”, but only to an extent that we can assume would have been accepted back then. If you define the whole Manhattan as such an area, anyone in 1790 would have told you that was an infringement.
Whether felons can be denied the RKBA depends entirely on whether the average person in the 1780s understood the RKBA to exclude felons, and if so what kind of felons. That is something the courts are going to have to explore, because they never did that analysis in the past. Justice Barrett is on record as believing that only violent felons can be excluded; but she agrees those can be. Such a decision would be in line with the SCOTUS decision limiting the Fleeing Felon rule to violent felons.
Nope sorry, you are completely wrong.
Your extension is invalid in the sense you state it. The due process must meet all the other constitutional requirements, and when the constitution spells it out, that’s it. You can’t change it by passing a law, or passing it through a court.
Regardless of what morons that can’t read say, the 2nd is very clear, and it is the only authority on the subject. Other opinions are just like assholes.
The above was actually a reply to divemedic below. Occasionally someone complains about their comment appearing in the wrong place, so perhaps the fault is as follows:
I typed up my reply to divemedic below, but failed to hi the submit button. Then I selected the reply button in this thread. When I did that my text appeared in the “new” reply. I clicked submit and it switched the text from the original location to the new location.
“Huh? Who said anything about the 13th?”
That was introduced and being responded to, even by you above. And that is where we were. But it is not an issue.
“We’re discussing the 2nd. The 2nd says the RKBA shall not be infringed. But it doesn’t say the RKBA is absolute, because it isn’t.”
Apparently you are incapable of understanding english. Here, I’ll help you out with the textbook definition of “infringe”
“Definition of infringe
transitive verb
1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another
2obsolete : DEFEAT, FRUSTRATE”
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infringe
pretty damn clear. Anyone pretending the word infringe means you can violate the 2nd, just because, is just ignorant or has an agenda.
Now, lets note the wording of the 2nd:
“The 2nd
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
“,shall not be infringed”. In other words, shall not be encroached upon.
“Every serious person agrees on that.”
“All the scientists agree”. Sound familiar? A trick played by those ignorant of meaning or logic or both. NO, all serious people do not agree.
It’s there. The 8th Amendment:
No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law;
So by extension, if there IS due process, a person may be deprived of life, liberty, or property.
That’s the 5th, not the 8th. And it doesn’t mean due process is enough to strip someone of all liberties. Only those that are reasonable in the circumstances. For instance a criminal conviction can obviously deprive someone of the freedom of movement, but there’s no reason it should also deprive someone of the freedom of speech.
reposting as my comment in reply is in the wrong place and I no how it happens:
Nope sorry, you are completely wrong.
Your extension is invalid in the sense you state it. The due process must meet all the other constitutional requirements, and when the constitution spells it out, that’s it. You can’t change it by passing a law, or passing it through a court.
Regardless of what morons that can’t read say, the 2nd is very clear, and it is the only authority on the subject. Other opinions are just like assholes.
I have long advocated for firearms training (long gun and handgun) in our schools. We do Driver’s Ed in school, and that’s not a right.
We should require at an absolute minimum safety training (4 Rules, how NOT to handle a toy gun, how to secure a found firearm, etc.), and then training in actually handling a firearm, including marksmanship, and legal rules surrounding ownership and carry. If you or your family object to firearms training (except the safety bit – MANDATORY) you can opt out and will be required to take first aid and accounting courses. These are all required for graduation (because militia).
Then, if you objected you get a little circle on your DL that prevents you from constitutional carry. You can always take the equivalent of a concealed carry course (including some marksmanship) and get that circle removed. If you fail the school courses, you get a little diamond on your DL. Same removal method applies. If you’re a felon/nutjob/wife beater, you get a little star – it only gets removed through adjudication.
Now, your DL/ID is your carry permit, and it’s only marked for those that somehow managed to deny themselves the automatic right.
If a state wants to do the “sensitive area” thing, I think it should be required to provide an “enhanced carry” of some sort that would authorize you to carry in those places. That must be “shall issue”, too.
And, if you don’t want a state DL or ID? Well, then, you’ll just have to obtain and carry a license for the firearm.
And all of that is automatic at 18.
(BTW, I think soft alcohol should be allowed at any age 13 or above, with parental permission and adult supervision.)
I’ve always been in favor of this approach: that your personal ID is your default carry permit unless it is downmarked, and it is only downmarked after due process. That makes it unnecessary to ask the feds’ “permission” every time somebody exercises a right.
Would you both be in favor of requiring ID to attend church, maybe with a state approved course in religion that, once completed, earns you a little “R” on your ID, and turns it into a church permit?
Unless my rights have been properly adjudicated away, the constitution is my license to exercise them.
There are levels and there are levels. Best practice would be that anyone on the street has all his rights back, and if there is someone you wouldn’t trust on the street with all his rights, you don’t put him back on the street until you do. But there’s no way to do that under due process because it extends sentences indefinitely.
Second, we made it clear that your ID is downmarked only after due process, so you rights would indeed have been adjudicated away.
Third, it’s almost impossible to think of a crime for which potential victims would be safer if the criminal were sentenced never to go to a church again. But there have been sufficient cases where a criminal was told he could never engage in his old profession again, and some of those were media people, so same amendment. I daresay if I looked hard enough, I could find one where the criminal was forbidden to minister in the future.
Note that my idea is to mark those who renounce the right or have had it adjudicated away. It’s a method of ensuring good training and safety knowledge, while allowing maximum freedom. It also minimizes gov’t interference except where it already occurs – school and IDs. It also sets the expectation that one IS allowed to freely exercise their rights without regulation.
Pull your blinders off and look at the big picture. This would increase freedom.
I like that approach. Have you talked to any legislators about it? I would think the NRA could put the materials together for age appropriate gun safety classes. One thing – driver’s ed is not necessarily taught in school in every state.
“that your personal ID is your default carry permit”
I don’t often disagree with Henry, but here I depart.
We already have a default carry permit, the Constitution of the US. The only battle should be keeping the constitution as our guide rather than the rule man.
Let me correct one thing I said:
And, if you don’t want a state DL or ID? Well, then, you’ll just have to obtain and carry a license for the firearm.
Really, that should be “Well, then, exercise your right, but be prepared to be hassled if the cops ask to check your ID, and they have to run a check on your firearms education. If they can’t find a reason to stop you, they have to let you go on your way, but that hassle is the price of not wanting to fit in.”
(BTW, I’m also a small government and small jurisdiction guy. I think all local gov’ts should be at the level of communities, and not entire cities. The cop should know you already, because he lives near you, as does the teacher in your kids’ high school, the doctor you visit, and the mayor and town councilmen. They are much more amenable to actual citizen input and authority and it removes bureaucratic layers to dealings with the gov’t.)
This way lies fascism.
The constitution served us well for 200 years, until the government started violating it. Now, you wish to violate it further for some perceived safety value.
I’m sure the criminals will all get rid of their guns/weapons when they get that little scarlet letter on their drivers license. Just like they do when they see a “gun free” zone sign.
Californiajimbo,
The NG is part of the organized militia. Many people are surprised to be informed that if they are able bodied and 18-45 years old they are already in the militia; the unorganized militia.
I guess us codgers are aged out?
Of the “legal” unorganized militia. But we can still perform militia-useful activities such as training programs, and many of us do.
Retired Veterans can serve past 45, the upper limit is 62. Everyone else at 46 is no longer in the unorganized militia. Keep in mind the Gov of each State does have the power to ‘call forth the militia’ which is the unorganized militia as well as the NG.
All the Texans constantly complaining that Gov Abbott must do something…. well if you are 18-45 and able bodied then that something just might include you. Pay is set at something like $10 per day for State mobilization orders. Good luck making your mortgage payment on that.
Women wouldn’t necessarily be excluded either, women are already serving as CPB officers which is kind of the point. Ladies shouldn’t expect this won’t ruin your weekend as well as that of your husband, boyfriend, son or nephew.
I think your numbers are state-dependent. I know of some states where the upper limit is 62. And that’s not limited by veteran status.
GWB,
Each State can adopt rules for their State Defense Force, if they have them, which is part of the organized militia.
The Swiss Army has mandatory military conscription and everyone is issued a rifle and trained in its use for their short stint in the army as they turn 18. They also have next to no gun crime. Gun crime is not a laws problem, it’s a culture problem.
The Swiss also have no “diversity” in their population.
As for ‘age’…hopefully this codifies the age of majority. The idea of being 13 and paying adult prices at the movies, but not being able to see adult movies, 16 to drive, 18 and drafted and voting, but not buy smokes, alcohol, or some type of firearms…21 to be complete…26 and still a child for insurance…or go the route of an emancipated minor…with some of the rights and privileges of adulthood….
Set the age of majority…with it all the rights and privileges…and with the responsibility and consequence
And debt (e.g. loans, medical care) accrue.
Movie tickets are not subject to the law unless you are a Communist or totalitarian type that believes in price fixing by government decree. That’s a mistaken road to go down. Businesses have every right to decide who gets to pay what rate based on age. Consumers have every right not to patronize that business if they don’t like their rates or value of the goods/services provided.
As for driving, no one is required to be an adult to drive, just have a brain that has at least developed enough to handle the capabilities of driving.
For the insurance law you might have a point, but that was done more for the need to cover students that need to go to college for longer to get a meaningful advanced degree in many fields. That should have been a condition of doing so. However, it was a bit of a grift of Obamacare to incentivize parents to keep their children on insurance even though they don’t usually need much. It’s actually a bit of a win for the insurance company to get the extra premium without much need to payout statistically speaking.
As for driving, no one is required to be an adult to drive
Huh? To obtain an unrestricted license, in every state in America you have to be of the age of majority. And you can’t drive on public roads without that license.
And I don’t know of any state that actually requires you to be smart enough to drive, just smart enough to pass the driving tests ONCE. And then they never vet your driving ability again.
And the insurance thing still infantilizes people who should be adults. Period.
I was 14 when I got my drivers license. 14 was the age becuase it was lowered during WW2 when the adults were occupied, and they needed bus drivers for the schools.
My father started driving at the age of 10, driving a truck down rock and dirt roads taking apples to the market. No license, and no one cared. He drove on the highway to the market/warehouse without issue.
So, what is the correct age for driving?
18-year-olds were a lot older in 1792 than they are today.
Whether sex or a firearm, with liberty comes responsibility.
And the loss of that concept is part of what has so corrupted our society today.
Now we need the judiciary to strike down NY’s new law requiring proof of age and 21 or older to buy canned whipped cream, that super dangerous stuff.
Is it because of ‘huffing’? Or flames/explosions? Or something else?
Good ol’ whippets. Snorting nitrous oxide out of whipped cream cans.
Nowadays, I think they’ve replaced N2O with other non-huffable gases.
holy crap I thought you were joking.
nope.
https://www.syracuse.com/state/2022/08/stores-requiring-id-to-buy-whipped-cream-in-new-york-state-under-new-law.html
Yeah, I knew the country was on its way to shit city when the spray paint at Home Depot got locked up in a cage.
Decades ago, someone started a rumor that smoking a banana could get you high. There were actually several supermarkets in produce stands the demanded identification and would not sell bananas to anybody under the age of 18.
I first started carrying a firearm in 1963, a 22 rifle. I was 10. I carried it down the street to where I would go hunting. I carried it to elementary school where the teacher would direct me to put it in the corner.
And nothing in the constitution mentions an age or adulthood.
I carried my 12 gauge Winchester on the school bus for a shop class project in junior high. Reblued the barrel and refinished the stock… it looked really good when it was finished.
Also hitchhiked while carrying that shotgun. I was wearing a safety vest, hunting license plainly displayed and folks would drop me off at the nearby State Gamelands. It was a different world in the 60s.
Not so keen on under 21 carrying handguns. Too many intellectually impaired children out there who are not mature enough to exercise restraint. I like the idea of open carry though I don’t advertise when I am carrying.
The issue of under-21 not being particularly astute citizens nowadays is an issue that needs to be taken up with society, though, not by restricting adulthood to an older and older age.
(BTW, if you’re still a “kid” for purposes of medical insurance, why not raise ALL the minimum ages to 26? Drinking, driving, contracts, everything?)
As labor-intensive as it might be, I like the non-collectivist version of the age of majority: do it like a bar exam. Different for everyone, some will never pass it. Responsibility prodigies can get emancipated at an early age. The fatal flaw, of course, is that the government will continually gerrymander the test contents for political reasons.
Could have an unintended effect….some might not want to pass it to get to have no responsibility. There’d have to be an age where they say you are an adult by the simple logic of having wasted oxygen this long; now get a job and get out of mom’s basement.
Why a test? Just allow people to declare themselves emancipated, for which they have to demonstrate only sufficient income to be self-supporting. At that point they can vote, carry firearms, drink, etc. If charged with a crime they are tried as an adult, and if they apply for government assistance they lose their emancipated status – if you depend on government payments to feed yourself and your family you’re essentially a ward of the state. Convicted of a felony, same result. Emancipating yourself at that point would require convincing a judge that you are now self-supporting and unlikely to return to the government teat, or reformed and unlikely to commit another crime. No second chances, go on the dole again or get convicted of another felony after being re-emancipated, and your “adult” rights.
Oh, and I like open carry laws because it means if I happen to flash my weapon I’m not in violation of the law, just good concealment practices.
Be careful with that. A person in my state of VA (which is an open carry state) got convicted of brandishing even though the gun never left its holster on his hip. It’s a misdemeanor, but it cost him his 2nd amendment rights.
Brandishing laws vary by state, but in Virginia, the laws say “point, hold, OR brandish” indicating that the law treats brandish as something slightly different than pointing or holding.
The definition is technically “wave or flourish (something, especially a weapon) as a threat or in anger or excitement.”
This person was in a road rage incident with someone and got out of the car to argue/yell with his gun holstered on his hip while the other person was in their car. The state successfully argued that he used body language and stance to violate the brandishing law in this state because of the “flourish” aspect of the definition. The VA law says that doing any of these in a manner that “could reasonably induce fear in another of being either shot or injured” is enough to qualify for violation of the statute.
As you know, laws written this way are designed to allow the state to find you in violation for breathing.
I thought that Dobbs reaffirmed the idea that impairment of Rights required examination under Strict Scrutiny?
Not specifically mentioned in the Judges history lesson, but most definitely relevant: the weapons all men were to supply themselves with were expected to be of a type comparable to the most advanced military weapons available in the world.
We had just defeated Britain, the world’s most advanced power, and private cutizens were required by law to own weapons capable of facing such a power on the battlefield.
Seems clear that this makes all bans on “assault weapons”, including actual assault weapons – capable of burst or fully auto fire – Un-Constitutional.
Of course they are unconstitutional. The problem here is the people who believe they are good upstanding conservatives, and yet they are unable to read the constitution or history. The government is corrupt and wants you unarmed. Imagine, You are not allowed a shotgun with a barrel shorter than 18 inches, but a pistol firing a shot shell is perfectly legal… And then for those uninformed read on how the shotgun law was formed. Then recall that the government will send goons to murder you if you made the mistake of building one a half inch short at the request of a government agent.
We do not have a gun problem in the USA and we never have. We have an inner city democrat run cultural problem.
Remove the 5 worst cities, all D run, from the murder statistics and what happens? The USA is one of the safest countries on the planet.
Contrast those shitholes with the city of Miami, run by a republican.