New York has long been the source of major litigation over gun control. Indeed, these cases have resulted in some of the most significant victories for gun rights advocates. That includes the possible loss before the Supreme Court in a pending major gun rights case. Now, New York has moved to ban anyone under age 21 from buying or possessing a semi-automatic rifle in response to the recent shootings at a supermarket in Buffalo. The culprit was 18 years old. There is growing support for such age limits after the Uvalde massacre, even though a similar limit was struck down in California. An appeal is proceeding in that case.
The age limit bill passed the Senate along party lines, 43-20. There is already an age requirement for the possession of a handgun.
The age limit could pass constitutional muster despite the opposing ruling in California. There will obviously be challenges and courts will ask why this individual right should be denied to 18-20 year olds. Likewise, they will ask why high caliber weapons are not subject to such age limits. These are good-faith questions and the courts will have to resolve whether the firing rate of semi-automatic weapons justifies the need for delaying such sales or possession.
It is often said that the Second Amendment is not an absolute right. That is clearly correct. Even the First Amendment is not absolute. This point has been made repeatedly by President Joe Biden:
“At the same time, the Second Amendment, like all other rights, is not absolute. It was just — it was Justice Scalia who wrote, and I quote, ‘like most rights, the right — Second Amendment — by the — the rights granted by the Second Amendment are not unlimited.’ Not unlimited. It never has been. There have always been limitations on what weapons you can own in America.”
The President has often coupled this argument with a clearly false statement about bans on certain weapons when the Second Amendment was ratified.
The reference may be to this Scalia quote from the District of Columbia v.Heller decision:
There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285, 128 S.Ct. 1830, 170 L.Ed.2d 650 (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.
Scalia did not state that there were bans on cannons or other weapons at the time of ratification. Rather, he stated that historically there were regulations of guns and specifically suggested that there could be limits on where guns are allowed for “sensitive places”:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152-153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489-490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
The court also ruled in Heller that, while some regulations may be upheld, “the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.”
The New York law could offer an important test of the outer boundaries of this right after the Court rules in the pending case. However, we are all waiting to see if the Court will clarify the range of movement allowed under the Second Amendment.
Gun rights advocates have long objected to the use of one line from Heller by lower courts to uphold an array of gun controls: “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
The New York law falls into the category of “conditions and qualification on the commercial sale of arms.” The sustainability of that law may depend on the ruling in the next couple weeks in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen. While the case does not deal with this type of limit on rifles, it may offer dicta that clarifies how much leeway the Second Amendment allows in such conditions and qualifications.
In any case, it is likely that New York will once again be the lead jurisdiction in the next round of gun control litigation.
if 18 to 20-year-olds are not mature enough to buy a semi automatic rifle, then they’re not mature enough to vote.
Having had the opportunity to talk with several first year college students, they appear to view voting as yet anothr obligation that they are not yet ready to take on. There are a few exceptions, of course.
Nor are they mature enough to fight wars for the political class to get rich from….
OT
William “Mr. Deep Deep State” Barr, “There was no election fraud or corruption in 2020.”
“I’m going to appoint John Durham as Special Counsel, that’ll fix ’em.”
“Durham will wrap this “fake” issue up, whitewash it with impenetrable paint, put a nice little ribbon on it, and bury it so deep, not a peep will ever be heard again.”
Oops!
_____
“Former Arizona Democrat Mayor Pleads Guilty to Felony Ballot Harvesting in 2020 Primary Election”
“Former San Luis, Arizona, mayor Guillermina Fuentes, a major local Democrat operative, pleaded guilty this week to ballot harvesting, the Arizona attorney general’s office announced. Fuentes, along with Alma Juarez, was indicted in December 2020, each on one felony count of ballot abuse — also known as ballot harvesting, where political operatives collect ballots from voters and turn them in on their behalf. Juarez already pleaded guilty in March. This week, Fuentes pleaded guilty as well. According to prosecutors, Fuentes used her status as a powerful local Democrat operative to run a ballot harvesting scheme that collected ballots from voters in Arizona’s August 2020 primary election. Prosecutors accused Fuentes of collecting and filling out ballots from voters as part of the scheme. In some cases, prosecutors allege that Fuentes paid voters to let her collect their ballots.”
“Arizona Central reported the details of the case:
– Prosecutors were apparently unable to prove the most serious charges, dropping three felony counts alleging that Fuentes filled out one voter’s ballot and forged signatures on some of the four ballots she illegally returned for people who were not family members.
– Investigators wrote that it appeared Fuentes used her position as a powerful figure in the heavily Mexican-American community to get people to give her or others their ballots to return to the polls. Fuentes and her co-defendant were seen with several mail-in envelopes outside a cultural center in San Luis on the day of the 2020 primary election, the reports show. The ballots were taken inside and dropped in a ballot box.
– Although Fuentes was charged only with actions that appear on the videotape and involve just a handful of ballots, investigators believe the effort went much farther. Attorney General’s Office Investigator “William Kluth wrote in one report that there was some evidence suggesting Fuentes actively canvassed San Luis neighborhoods and collected ballots, in some cases paying for them.”
– John Binder
So, this proves Trump really won? Grasping at straws. He claimed he would be cheated even before Election Day, because all polls said he would lose, which he did. Minor irregularities do not amount to widespread fraud, which didn’t happen.
Every individual act of election fraud and corruption is minor until they burgeon into majority status, which is what transpired in 2020.
President Donald J. Trump is the real, actual and legitimate president.
Clueless Joke Buydumb has created a complete disaster in every facet and aspect of American endeavor.
Clueless Joke Buydumb doesn’t even know where he is.
Clueless Joke Buydumb is proof of his own illegitimacy.
Res Ipso Locquitor: Any election that would result in a victory for an idiot like Clueless Joke Buydumb is, by definition, contaminated and corrupt.
NUTCHACHACHA,
You’re Grrrrrreat!!!
You don’t need that crutch, right?
Can we level the playing field now so that MERIT MATTERS, and so that you go out into to that great big world and pursue your own happiness and make your own success in freedom?
Can we end unconstitutional matriculation affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, HHS, HUD, FED, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc., now?
There is plenty of evidence of far more than minor irregularities.
Regardless, as you are now admitting that there were “minor(major) irregularities” why were these not investigated.
The mayor of a town in AZ is pleading guilty to felony election fraud – she was caught on video filling out ballots for other people.
The Plea is for one count, but it resolves hundreds, possibly thousands of potential counts against her.
If as thoseon the left claim the 2000 mules claims are poor – then investigate them
2000 people across 5 states each traveled within 1 meter 5 501C3’s and 20 ballot boxes – in many instances being caught – sometimes multiple times placing 5 or more ballots into ballot drop boxes.
The cell phone data for these people is readily available. Law enforcement could easily subpeana the actual identities of these people and interview then, review their bank accounts, subpeana the records of thr 501c3’s they frequented.
If you do not accept that the evidence that already exist is conclusive – it certainly is more than enough to investigate.
Yet, you do not support investigation.
Turley stated shortly after the election – that Biden should have joined Trump is asking for an investigation.
Turley’s advice was based on his experience with past elections – investigations tend to find errors, but the errors tend to cancel out. It is very rare that subjecting an election to scrutiny changes the outcome.
Turley;s advice was likely correct. Given what we know now – it is not likely that the post election review that Trump and republicans wanted would have found anything that changed the outcome.
Trump, many republicans, and much of the country smelled a rat – but there were myriads of theories about where that Rat might been. There was much that was fishy about 2020, but the fraud that has subsequently been identified – would not likely have been found by any audit in November of 2020.
Had Biden followed Turley’s advice – the audit likely would not have changed anything. There would have been no J6 and it is likely that Democrats would have gotten away with many of the election process changes they accomblished outside of the law and had a leg to stand on to make them permanent.
But it is increasingly self evident that the 2020 election was the least secure and worst conducted probably in over a century.
While it is highly unlikely that DVS threw the election to Biden or that electronic systems were hacked from Europe,
What has been uncovered is that nearly the entitrety of the election systems – not just of 2020, but since HAV in 2001 are insecure and easily hacked. That is the scanners, the voting terminals where those exist, the registration databases, and on and on.
Further, not merely consequential laws, but nearly every aspect of voting procedures designed to prevent fraud were ignored in 2020, and again likely for decades.
It is these procedures that help us detect and prevent fraud, and to identify who committed that fraud when it does occur.
In the discussion of age to own a gun and age to serve in the military, there is a difference. The military is teaching 18 year olds to kill with guns, with ownership we are advocating that people have more maturity to not kill with guns at 21 than they have at 18.
Firearms restrictions and controls are very strict on military installations. All government weapons are secured in the unit arms room. All privately owned weapons located on or brought to the installation must be registered with the Provost Marshals Office. Privately owned firearms of troops living in the barracks must be secured in the arms room, the commander must give written permission to remove them for use. Privately owned firearms can be kept in government quarters under lock and key. There is no conceal carry of firearms on military installations, only exception is law enforcement officers during the execution of their office.
Jonathan: New alert interruption! Peter Navarro has just been arrested and indicted by a federal grand jury on 2 counts of contempt of Congress for refusing to testify before the House Jan. 6 committee. There are legal consequences for defying the law. Now Navarro joins Steve Bannon. Navarro worked with Bannon and other Trump allies in devising the “Green Bay Sweep”–a criminal conspiracy to illegally overturn the 2020 election. Navarro bragged about the plan in his book “In Trump Time”. Navarro will probably rue the day he wrote the book when prosecutors introduce salient portions of the book in his trial.
By the way, public hearings start next week by the House Jan. 6 committee. Prime time TV no less! Your loyal followers will then be confronted with cold hard facts. About how Trump and his criminal conspirators tried to prevent the counting of the Electoral College and make Trump a virtual dictator. I know where I’ll be next week. Glued to the TV with my can of beer and a large bowl of popcorn. I can hardly wait!
When Turley gets his talking points, and he will, Turley will show the world how to spin facts and the truth that would make Kellyanne Conway jealous.
I wonder if Navarro will have the luxury of being acquitted by a jury of his “peers”. Like Mr. Sussman did.
Dennis dear boy…..cool your jets Ace!
We will see another Democrat Dog and Pony Show that would compete with the sleazier Juarez or Tijuana production.
Just as we saw two failed impeachments…..this latest show shall fall on its face.
The show that matters and which is being ignored by the Media is the Biden Corruption involving Hunter…..and the Clinton attempt to sabotage a President having lost her bid for the Office.
Hang on to your hat however as the Wind is changing and growing in force that is going to bring fresh air into Congress come January….and probably the Senate….then the real investigations shall start as Durham begins to bring forth other Indictments.
It is a rocky road coming up for the Democrats…..and it is going to break some axles.
Pass laws to provide incentives for tolerable, even desirable, and punishment for intolerable use of force, be it with blades, objects, guns, chemical, incendiary, penile, or other. The psychopaths and sociopaths will always find a way (e.g. gun running programs, open borders, planned parent/hood) to secure the means and abort or otherwise injure another life for social, redistributive, clinical, lunatic, or fair weather causes.
Guns are third and fourth rate means to commit homicide, typically by criminals and government agents. Second is blunt force. First are blades including knives, machetes, and scalpels. We need to to pass age limits for wielding a scalpel to elect abortion of human lives, drive-bys to your to neighborhood Planned Parenthood, Gosnell the ripper, and preserve a symmetry of viability between the legal standard of life deemed worthy of life for baby and granny, albeit the former and latter are approaching different limits. Furthermore, we should be wary of normalizing any choice to abort or planned populationhoods (e.g. Holocaust, Rwandan genocide) of human life for social, redistributive, clinical, and fair weather causes.
What baffles me is how 18- 20-year-olds fall into a void with certain gun ownership. Federal and state levels have already deemed them fit to have a say in our electorial process, stand trial as a responsible adult should they be accused of a crime, even take up arms to fight for the nation.
What’s not confusing are the garden variety rulings for preventing some individuals from certain firearm possession. Chief among them being criminal background activity and a lack of a proper mental state. But here’s the thing: criminals have committed crimes. Lawful 18- 20-year-olds have not. Mentally ill patients have been diagnosed with a troubled past. Healthy 18- 20-year-olds have not. The same elected officials who have entrusted this age group with basic responsibilities seem to have no problem assuming they’re as unqualified as a one who either stepped out of prison or the booby hatch.
How such a selective mental profile of this age group manifested itself is beyond comprehension.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment Richard. I am generally not a big fan of 18-20 year old restrictions and I don’t think as a society we are being logical, thoughtful, or persuasive in why we allow or require them to do certain things but not other things. One other thing is the 21 drinking age so that should be considered when we look at a possible 21 semiautomatic age.
THis is why I have always said it should be 18 for everything or 21 for everything. Take your pick.
What about slingshots?
How old was David when he did in Goliath?
It has been said that Goliath brought a sword to a gun fight. Some have compared the impact from a well-handled sling to be the equivalent of a 45.
Yes, a long sling has a most serious impact.
Estovir might surmise from his biblical studies that Goliath had a pituitary tumor.
Even if you accept age restrictions, such laws will not stop an underaged criminal or mental patient from acquiring guns and committing mass murder.
Criminal gangs often recruit juveniles.
The notion that 2A was meant to give an individual a right to a gun is a modern Republican lie.
Sammy is not a fan of the Constitution. But no leftist is.
It is not about being a fan of the Constitution or not, it is about accepting Republican BS interpretations.
Sammy, give it up. their minds are made up, regardless of facts.
it is about accepting Republican BS interpretations.
No, that is the talking point you have been given.
The individual right is in the Constitution, as laid out by SCOTUS rulings. Are you saying SCOTUS does not have the power to interpret the Constitution? SCOTUS rulings are to be ignored?
SCOTUS are Republican partisans. Their opinions are nothing more then that.
Tell us why you believe that. There was substantial discussion about the Bill of Rights, and there is a significant history of guns in colonial times. The answers are there, but the intellectually challenged require someone else to dictate what they say. The problem is that someone isn’t there to defend you when you need it. Do you understand how silly you sound?
To the contrary, it is plainly there in the text.
It is not. 2A clearly is about militias, not individuals.
It’s obvious you’re not familiar with what Madison, Jefferson, Adams, Ames, Lee and other Framers actually said about the right to keep and bear arms.
In 2017, the Supreme Court reversed a lower court decision and held that the 2nd Amendment is not confined to firearms “in existence at the time of the founding” but to “all instruments that constitute bearable arms” including, in that specific case, stun guns. This decision seems to be at odds with the earlier position by Scalia, making that 2017 decision the controlling legal precedent. [https://jonathanturley.org/2019/08/09/screaming-into-the-void-why-gun-control-is-so-hard-to-enact/#more-146742]
In Heller and McDonald, we find that gun ownership is an individual right. An age restriction on buying certain firearms would not preclude acquiring other firearms, for say, protection, and therefore, it seems there would not be a severe burden on exercising Second Amendment rights. In such a case, a judge could apply the rational basis standard in reviewing an age case, and which would certainly guarantee a win for the government. I have not yet read the Ninth Circuit ruling in striking down the age limit, but I will do so today.
The Ninth Circuit opinion is nuanced. Among other things it found that since handguns were already banned until 21, layering on the semi-automatic rifle ban put too substantial a burden on the exercise of the right to self defence with a firearm.
Also, in Heller the court said that the right to bear other arms is “no answer” to a deprivation of the right to bear protected arms.
Here is a part of the finding that clearly gets over looked…..” …or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”.
Commercial sale of firearms….as in Retail Stores, Gun Stores, by manufacturers…..not PRIVATE Sales between PRIVATE PERSONS.
Think about the ramifications of that statement and the Left’s rants about Gun Shows, sales by Collectors, and ordinary people selling to others on the occasional basis.
Wouldn’t it just be quicker to ban all blacks from possessing a gun? We could to random property searches to enforce the law. Instant dramatic fall in gun deaths.
iowan2
Huh, since males are the overwhelming perpetrators of gun crimes, perhaps we should ban male ownership of guns!
Black males would make a much quicker effect, with the added benefits of saving a much higher percentage of black lives.
It is exactly the same logic banning only component rifles, despite the fact they are no more lethal than some rifles and less lethal than all the rifles left.
Surgically remove the thing that is supposed to do the most to reach the goal.
Banning black men from possessing all guns would be better, than the component rifle ban, because the fall in deaths would be dramatic. (or prove criminals ignore crimes, nothing happens, and that would create a discussion, that is itself, been banned)
I am about as close to a 2nd Amendment absolutist as you will find here but I also recognize that there can be reasonable and uniform restrictions placed on gun ownership. We don’t allow convicted felons to possess guns in many cases and currently, people under 21 are barred from buying handguns.
We restrict who can serve in certain offices by age, so I see no constitutional impediment to this age limit. What I do see is a challenge to the 26th Amendment. If the thought process and impulse control of those under 21, is so faulty that it poses a threat to public safety, they should not be allowed to vote and the 26th should be repealed.
hat the2nd A is not absolute is obvious and I agree that age restrictions may be acceptable. Nobody in his right mind would argue that a 5-year-old should be allowed to walk around with a handgun. My understanding is that 21 is the age at which the brain is fully developed (especially the part directing rational reasoning). Then, from that perspective, 21 should be restored as the appropriate legal age and, indeed, for the right to vote as well. An 18-year-old is generally quite immature, lacks life experience, never held a job, why would his/her vote count as much as their parents’ vote in matters of government. At an age younger than 21 you can still serve in the military and handle guns in that controlled environment. However, as a consequence of raising the age of maturity back to 21, nobody younger can join the military without parental consent. Also, for the purpose of consistency, nobody younger should be allowed to make impactful medical decisions without parental consent.
The draft was a big impetus to lowering the voting age in federal elections to eighteen,
I would be interested in your take on Sanford Levinson’s arguments re the 2nd Amendment.
Lefties love to punish the law abiding because the criminals are largely beyond their reach.
Lefties aren’t into justice, fairness, or even practical solutions.
They are into power – even if it means undermining the Constitution.
Ugly people – and America is starting to recognize it.
I wonder if the US government will obey the Possession ban at Fort Drum?
Fort Drum is Federal land and not subject to hochul’s political campaigning actions. However, many soldiers live off-base here and have personal weapons in their homes. I would suspect that this may cause a legal conundrum for a knee-jerk response by Cuomo’s substitute, I’m not sure, as a NY resident, which one of them is/was worse for our state.
If you can be forced to register for the draft and take an oath to defend our constitution upon entering our military, for some prog-possessed lefty governor to impose such a restriction as part of her re-election campaign is repugnant, illogical and most probably unconstitutional – if not totally hypocritical. Sadly this political hack is my governor only by virtue of our previous governor being a suspected criminal and that gross mess (NYC) that has become the prog-infested demographic core of this state.
I agree. Absurd law. I hope their National Guard loses recruits if this law goes through.
You can be inducted into the armed services but not into the U.S. Senate, or inaugurated as President. We do recognize different maturity levels with age.
Unless you are saying we need an 18 year old President?
Those are constitutional limits.
The people are free to change those limits at anytime.
Praise the Lard. And pass the ammunition!
I’m referring to Crisco on Monday.