U.S. Senior District Judge Robert Payne has delivered another blow to the Administration’s effort to limit gun rights. In a 65-page decision, Judge Payne ruled that the Second Amendment protects people 18-20 who were barred under the regulations from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Federal licensed dealers were previously told that they could not sell to buyers below the age of 21. The case is Fraser v. BATFE, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82432(Eastern District, Va. May 10, 2023).
The Biden Administration argued that 18- to 20-year-olds are not part of “the people” protected under the Second Amendment. It argued that the “age of majority” was 21 at the founding and that the Framers did not intend to protect the rights of citizens below the age of 21 for the purposes of gun purchases.
It is an argument with sweeping implications. If the Second Amendment does not protect those under 21, what about other rights like those under the First Amendment?
Moreover, when age was a key exclusion, the Framers would state so, including the right to hold office.
Historically, guns have been part of American culture with many introduced to hunting at young ages. Moreover, historical sites note that “the average age of soldiers who served in the Continental Army was 18 to 20 years old, some as young as 14.” Some child soldiers like Daniel Granger were only 13 and presumably could buy the weapons that they used against the British.
While acknowledging that the word “purchase” does not appear in the Second Amendment, Judge Payne noted:
“Commonsense and logic tell us that, unless one is a maker of guns, the right to “keep”/have a gun necessarily means that one must purchase it, steal it, be given it by another, or find one that another has lost. That, of course, includes a handgun which was the subject “arms” in Heller. 554 U.S. at 628. Thus, given its ordinary, commonsense, and logical meaning the right to “keep arms” (the right to “have”) of necessity includes the right, inter alia, to purchase arms. That then puts an end to the textual inquiry with the conclusion that the conduct at issue is protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment.”
This issue is already creating a split among the courts. While there are no direct appellate rulings on the issue, the Fifth, Seventh, and Eleventh circuits have discussed the question. Nat’l Rifle Ass’n., 700 F.3d at 203-04; Horsley v. Trame, 808 F.3d 1126, 1131 (7th Cir. 2015); Nat’l Rifle Assoc. v. Bondi, 61 F.4th 1317, 1324 (11th Cir. 2023). The Fourth and the Ninth Circuits have held that 18-to-20-year-olds are part of “the people” protected by the Second Amendment. Hirschfeld v. ATF, 5 F.4th 407 (4th Cir. 2021), vacated by 14 F.4th 322 (4th Cir. 2021); Jones v. Bonta, 34 F.4th 704 (9th Cir. 2022), opinion vacated on reh’g, 47 F.4th 1124 (9th Cir. 2022). District courts have split on the issue.
The Biden Administration is pushing a series of collateral limits on gun possessions and purchases into the appellate courts. The age limit cases are now becoming ripe for review by the Supreme Court, which is likely to approach the Administration’s sweeping argument on “the age of majority” for the Second Amendment with skepticism.
Thank you for your defense of the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment.
The right to arms is under heavy assault by the current administration and your comments are welcomed by millions of us who use firearms for lawful purposes.
Thank You Again!
From David B. Benson at 11:39 AM. Only in the last several years have neuroscientists been able to determine that the brain only fully matures at age 24.
So maybe those younger should not drink, drive not own a gun?
David, thank you for pointing out the science about maturity. Because of this information we should consider whether thirteen year olds have the mental maturity to agree to have their breasts or testicles removed. However, though mental maturity may not be complete until a person is twenty four the level of maturity comes into play considering some actions but not others. When your eighteen Biden will consider you old enough to carry your gun into war but he doesn’t believe that you are responsible enough to own a gun once you return home from the battlefield. You can rest assured that if we do go to war that the gun politics will quickly disappear.
What’s more important, being drafted for military service, driving a car, buying a gun, drinking alcohol or VOTING FOR A —-ING GOVERNMENT?
A person may drive a car at 16. A person may become a citizen at 18 – a citizen may keep and bear arms. A person may purchase alcohol at 21. Voting is an eminently solemn and serious act of great import that requires maximal mental maturity and stability. A person is an adult at 21. English common law set the age to become a knight and to vote at 21. The Founders set the voting age at 21. The age required to vote must be 21. The Founders, Framers and Constitution reserved the power to restrict the vote by any and all criteria entirely to the States (whatever the —- “Crazy Abe” Lincoln did was and remains invalid, illegitimate, illicit, illegal and unconstitutional – holding a gun to America’s head while “ratifying” not one, but three amendments is high-criminal. Inexplicably, the single and sole, only time the Supreme Court exercised its power of Judicial Review was when Chief Justice Taney informed Lincoln that his act was a high crime and that he was breaking the law and subverting and violating the U.S. Constitution by illegally suspending habeas corpus – a politically and constitutionally heinous crime).
____________
The Age of Majority – The Age of Adulthood
“Age of majority”
“The age of majority is the threshold of legal adulthood as recognized or declared in law. It is the moment when a person ceases to be considered a minor and assumes legal control over their person, actions, and decisions, thus terminating the control and legal responsibilities of their parents or guardian over them. Most countries set the age of majority at 18, but some jurisdictions have a higher age and others lower.”
– Wiki
_____
“Adulthood”
Adulthood is the period in the human lifespan in which full physical and intellectual maturity have been attained. Adulthood is commonly thought of as beginning at age 20 or 21 years. Middle age, commencing at about 40 years, is followed by old age at about 60 years.
Biological Development
Biological development consists of the progressive changes in size, shape, and function during the life of an organism by which its genetic potentials (genotype) are translated into functioning mature systems (phenotype). Most modern philosophical outlooks would consider that development of some kind or other characterizes all things, in both the physical and biological worlds. Such points of view go back to the very earliest days of philosophy.
– Britannica
_________
“The concept that a person becomes a full adult at age 21 dates back centuries in English common law; 21 was the age at which a person could, among other things, vote and become a knight. Since a person was an official adult at age 21, it seemed to make sense that they could drink then, too.”
– Ethan Trex
Voter Criteria of the American Founders, 1788
_____________________________________
Age 21, European, Male, 50 lbs. Sterling or 50 acres.
“10 Steps to Naturalization Understanding the Process of Becoming a U.S. Citizen”
“Determine your eligibility to become a U.S. citizen.”
“In general, you may qualify for naturalization if
you are at least 18 years old and have been a
permanent resident for at least 5 years (or 3 years
if you are married to a U.S. citizen) and meet all
other eligibility requirements. You may also qualify
for naturalization based on military service, which
has different requirements.”
– U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
It seems pretty evident today that 18-21 year olds excercising their 1st amendment rights is more damaging to this country than them excercising their second amandmants rights.
Not that one should presume that the Biden Administration is composed of individuals with commonsense or are able to think logically but the argument that 18 to 20 year old’s are not of the people is absurd.
This age group must register for the draft, are able to enlist in the Armed Forces. The group writes on enlistment a blank check to the United States promising to give there lives for the country. If we can trust 18 to 20 year old’s with weapons that include artillery, missiles, and other munitions. They’re old enough to purchase a weapon.
If we entrust them with a drivers license to operate a motor vehicle they’re old enough to purchase a gun.
However, these restrictions are part of a larger pattern of government behavior, one by one the government is trying to strip Americans of their Constitutional protections.
Only in the last several years have neuroscientists been able to determine that the brain only fully matures at age 24.
So maybe those younger should not drink, drive not own a gun?
Driving on public roads is a privilege, not a right. In many states, alcohol use is a parent decision. Kids can drink with their parents in restaurants in Wisconsin, by state law.
When I was growing up in Wisconsin that was true but only for beer and only after 16 years old. Also was not limited to restaurants. Maybe the law has changed, but I doubt it.
I don’t see how the government can say that they’re old enough to serve in the military but not old enough for what you list.
That said, I think we should enact a variety of constitutional gun control regulations, including having to pass a safety test and background check, no assault weapons for anyone, no ghost guns, and requiring gun owners to have insurance to cover accidental harm and illegal use.
gun control regulations, including having to pass a safety test and background check, no assault weapons for anyone, no ghost guns, and requiring gun owners to have insurance to cover accidental harm and illegal use.
Education and test to vote
Waiting period between registration and voting
Assault weapons? Define it before you regulate it. AR platform weapons are not more lethal than other rifles.
Cant build your own gun?
Federal Courts have just ruled the manufactures cannot prevent owners from doing their own repairs and service, by requiring special tools then only sell those tools to approved shops
.
Insurance. you are placing an economic burden on people to exercise a right.
Antonin Scalia: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” “The right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
Conclusion to Scalia’s majority opinion: The Second Amendment extended to private citizens.
What purpose would thise laws serve?
Your post is a beautiful example of the overall problem with the left.
You want to enact a bunch of regulation – you have a long list.
But you do not demonstrate any benefit from any of these – you presume them.
Where in your post – or anywhere here is there an argument that any of these regulations would have any benefit ?
People must already pass a background check to buy a gun legally, in nearly all cases. Illegal gun sales still happen all the time.
No law ever has prevented criminals from getting guns.
Legal gun owners have an excellent safety track record. Their is very little problems with legal gun owners.
There is no such thing as an Assault rifle – that is a made up name from the left – machine gun ownership is incredibly restricted in the US.
There is little difference in functionality between the winchester repeating rifle of the 19th century and an AR-15 – except appearances.
Further what you call “assault rifles” are very very very rarely used in crimes.
Your so called “Assault Riffles” are best described as area DEFENSE weapons. They are useful to keep others away from you in open spaces.
To keep evil doers away from your home. In confined spaces hand guns and shotguns are more useful both for defense and offense.
The majority of so called mass shootings do NOT involve “assault weapons” – there were none at Columbine as an example.
And ever where they are found – most of the shooting was done with hand guns. Because they are better for the job.
Guns made by gun enthusiasts – what YOU call “ghost guns” have very little use in crimes.
It is beyond the skills of the ordinary criminal, and possibly more importantly, it is possible to illegally buy manufactured weapons from other criminals much easier and cheaper. More common “ghost guns” in crimes are guns with their serial numbers filed or etched off.
How are you planning to stop that ?
Though I would separately note that – you will not succeed in regulating “ghost guns”. The cat is out of the bag. For about $1000 you can buy a CNC machine that with a computer can make you a Colt 1911, A solid semi-automatic pistol in use for over a century.
If those of you on the left ever succeed at “gun control” – you will just create a mass market for home manufactured guns.
How well did prohibition work ? How Well has the Drug War worked ?
When has government ever successfully regulated something that people want into disuse ?
We have spent forever teaching people the evils of smoking, and still sell as many cigarettes as ever.
A gun owner is already liable for the misuse of their gun – just as they are for the misuse of an axe, their lawnmower, or chainsaw.
How many criminals do you know who are going to buy insurance.
You have a long list of laws you want – yet NONE of those will make us any safer.
Again this is a common MO of the left – pass lots of fell good laws that accomplish nothing – except restricting peoples rights.
80% of all murders in the US involve drugs or alcohol. 80% of traffic fatalities involve alcohol.
Should we go back to prohibition ?
You are not looking to “solve problems” – you are just looking to do something to feel good about yourself.
One of the problems with those on the left is that you belive that utopia is acheivable through government and law.
It is not. Most of the big problems we face today are HARD. They are NOT solveable, though we can sometimes make them smaller.
Further what is necescary to improve them – rarely involves government and never involves stupid on size fits all fell good solutions.
It has taken 300,000 years to reduce the rate of violent death of humans from 25% to about 3/100th of a percent.
Farming has probably been the single most effective factor in that reduction.
We have tried nearly everything to deal with problems of mental health over the past 200 years. And all that can be said is that each generation calls the methods of the prior generation barbaric. In the past we locked those with mental health problems in special hospitals. Today they make up most of the homeless and alot of our prison population.
Is modern treatment of mental health issues less barbaric than that of the past ?
Do you have an answer we have not tried that works better ?
If you can not solve the problem of mental health – how do you expect to be able to get anywhere on problems like homelessness, drugs, alcohol, violence, crime ?
After 40 years of slowly deteriorating levels of crime and violence we have in the past 3 years seen that reverse and crime and violence spike.
We can not acheive zero violence. But we can do better. Rather than fixate on feel good measures that will accomplish nothing.
How about if we serious look at what caused violence to decline and what changed that has resulted in increasing violence.
We have enough data to have pretty good ideas of what worked and what did not.
Neither the left or right is likely to be happy about the conclusions.
But instead of passing stupid feel good laws in frutless efforts to create utopia, why not look for changes that will reduce violence if not end it.
This idea that the brain is only functioning fully at age 24, or 27 is hilarious. People have always been considered adults before that time, throughout all history. Funny that nobody has ever noticed that people under 24 or 27 were unable to think, unable to do certain tasks, etc.
I suggest you start using common sense, and not adhere to whatever a bunch of flaky “scientists” with an obvious political agenda say.
gyurujoe, sorry to read that you are stuck in the middle ages.
Young men apprenticed at age 14 for seven years before becoming their own man, a journeyman, at age 21. That didn’t make them a master.
The neuroscientists are but interested in understanding brain function. They have no so-called political agenda. The point is that self-restraint and ‘wisdom’ is not fully supported by brain structures until age 21..
And by the way, boys begin driving on the farm as soon as their feet reach the petals. And using air guns on birds long before that.
David, you are 100% correct. 24 is a good age to be considered an “adult” for EVERY purpose, including drinking, driving and gun ownership, and, most importantly, voting. Congress should make enlistment in the military, or enrollment in a military academy, an exception because a fully developed brain is not necessary for that occupation. Matter of fact. . . . . .
Oh so witty, wiseoldlawyer. 🙂
David, maybe they shouldn’t VOTE! They especially shouldn’t be allowed to cut off their genitals at 10.
Banning sales based on age does not comport with Constitutional rights. A better approach would be for young adults to be required to have an older, more mature sponsor — with the sponsor taking responsibility for supervising the weapons safe use and storage. The sponsor, in co-signing for the purchase, agrees to face liability (criminal and civil) for any illegal use of the weapon.
This approach distributes responsibility (avoiding centralized authority), in a modern version of “a well-regulated militia” with a captain overseeing the use of firearms. In the 1790s, the captain had the power to disarm the habitually drunk, the mentally disturbed, the immature or irresponsible, the criminally-minded, and the senile.
The sponsor would re-create the role of the militia captain, and would be a person of trust who knows the young gun owner. Taking on liability for illegal use of the gun places a check on gang members and criminals being able to own legally, as nobody would co-sign knowing they could face prison as a result of criminal use of the weapon.
Yesterday’s gun violence:
https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/last-72-hours?__cf_chl_tk=8v0PG6ckjm5YguQl.geSC0O9JFXhtBLCf.aQu56pLr0-1683903954-0-gaNycGzNC1A
How old were the perps?
Huummm, history proves the Biden admin wrong, again.
Meanwhile the unsecured southern border is about to get a massive influx of illegal migrants.
“Federal licensed dealers were previously told that they could not sell to buyers below the age of 21.”
Let me get this straight.
According to the Left, those under 18 are mature enough to get genital-mutilation surgery (sorry, “gender-affirming care”). But those 18-21 are *not* mature enough to buy a gun.
So if you’re a child, you can emasculate yourself. But if you’re 18, you cannot defend yourself. Grotesques for amusement; pawns to control. What a wicked world view.
Sam, according to the right 18 yr olds are NOT mature enough decide on their own healthcare needs. Republicans are the ones saying this. But apparently they are mature enough to decide whether they can obtain a firearm without training requirements.
Anonymous, by “healthcare needs” do you mean chopping off their breasts and genitals? Just so we’re clear.
They are adults, their choice.
What training do you need to not shoot people for wearing the wrong clothes on the wrong ‘hood?
Who is saying 18yr olds can not make their own health care choices ?
I have not heard a single republican say that.
I have heard lots of republicans say that CHILDREN those under 18 should not be allowed to make life altering permanent choices without the permission of their parents.
That BTW is true of many many many things.
In most if not all of the country you can not
vote, buy cigarettes, attend adult entertainment, rent or buy a home or apartment, sign a binding contract, drive a car, get a tattoo, buy or drink alcohol, have sex with an adult
and many many other things until you are an adult – which depending on the state and activity is defined at ages between 16 and 21.
While I would advise anyone buying a gun to learn how to safely use it – and to an incredibly large extent those who buy guns legally, not only do learn how to use them safely, but overall have a much better track record than the rest of the population – they are LESS likely to committ crimes to engage in violence.
It is also true that a gun is easier to use than a car and less dangerous.
“It is also true that a gun is easier to use than a car and less dangerous.”
The car, gun, and knife all require the same thing, self-control.
A pandemic lack of self-control exists on the left. Do we see self-control with Antifa? No. Do we see self-control with leftist mobs? No. Do we see self-control in Joe Biden or his administration? No.
It is unseemly for the Government time and again to scheme and conspire so incessantly for any possible way to disarm the citizenry. Their purposes have nothiing to do with the safety of citizens, and everything to do with eliminating the fact, ugly to them, that they can govern us only with our consent, and we have a very palpable and effective way to remove them if they do not. It is the sole reason we are still free.
cionnath:
“[Government’s] purposes have nothiing to do with the safety of citizens, and everything to do with eliminating the fact, ugly to them, that they can govern us only with our consent, and we have a very palpable and effective way to remove them if they do not.”
********************************
It’s what all governments do. The Founders knew that and that’s what this case is about. Thakfully we stillhave people like Judge Payne who remember that warning from the past:
“It had become an universal and almost uncontroverted position in the several States, that the purposes of society do not require a surrender of all our rights to our ordinary governors; that there are certain portions of right not necessary to enable them to carry on an effective government, and which experience has nevertheless proved they will be constantly encroaching on, if submitted to them; that there are also certain fences which experience has proved peculiarly efficacious against wrong, and rarely obstructive of right, which yet the governing powers have ever shown a disposition to weaken and remove. Of the first kind, for instance, is freedom of religion; of the second, trial by jury, habeas corpus laws, free presses.” –Thomas Jefferson to Noah Webster, 1790. ME 8:112
You can add the right to keep and bear arms to Tom’s list.
Good on, Judge Bobby Payne – logical, concise and right-minded. He’s a tough-minded Constitutionalist and the right guy for this case. I recall being before him several times and coming to realize he’s the smartest guy in the courtroom which, believe it or not, is a rarity (and not because I’m there too, you haters ;D). Rarer still, he never lets you know it. Richmond has enjoyed some exceptional judges in the EDVa’s “Rocket Docket” like Bob Merhige and Bob Doumar. Judge Payne, who now enjoys senior status, was a fine athlete in college, too, playing on an undefeated football team at W & L.
Mespo, government does one thing well. It grows.
I doubt this impacts much on firearms acquisitions by ‘folks’ in places like Chicago’s South Side. Only the law-abiding will be engaged in said conflicts.
Sorry to be long winded
Well Justice Holmes makes nothing but an emotional statement with no logic. If we have a right to keep and bear arms as the 2nd amendment states then anyone who can vote and/or be in the military can keep and bear arms. The whole point of the 26th amendment was to bring the voting rights age down to 18 since you could serve in the military and be drafted (selective service still requires registration of all men over 18) without being able to vote.
On the other hand, if gun controllers used their heads instead of their emotions they might look at what the courts have given them. Under 18 should be illegal to own or use a firearm except in certain prescribed ranges, or with adults of 21 or higher supervising, or parents supervision. There could be other restrictions also that might pass muster. Also waiting periods could be used unless a person had a judgement to prevent others from being around them and potentially assaulting them. Such as a women who has a restraining order against some one who is threatening them or has assaulted them.
Also requiring mental health exams if there is any reasonable chance the person exhibits a risk or is mentally unsound. States could put those requirements in even if they have a constitutional carry law. If you mandated that physicians had certain guidelines on evaluating and risk assessing people for mental instability in regards to firearms, then the medical profession could help you but there would have to be limited liability to the physician if they are wrong. Lying during the assessment should have penalties and permanent ban.
If you are being evaluated for a transplant of a major organ such as heart, lungs, liver or kidneys, you have to undergo a psychological or psychiatric evaluation, and evaluation of family support. Why? Organs are precious and highly sought after and the supply is less than the demand. Centers will not risk a transplant on someone who is unreliable in their self care or taking drugs and keeping followup. You would not think it but people who have received transplants are sometimes notorious from disappearing from followup or don’t take their drugs and then reject their transplant. Happens a lot more than you think.
Lastly, and this is a real head scratcher. Enforce the law and put illegal users of a firearm in jail and leave them there. No one should get bail who uses a firearm in commission of a crime. Never drop the firearm charge in negotiating. Enhance sentencing for use of a firearm. Military should always report to the database someone who is released or discharged for mental health reasons and no permit to purchase until cleared by a physician or licensed clinical psychologist or Psychiatrist.
As far as suicide is concerned, that is difficult to control with or without firearms. There are too many other effective ways to cause self extinction.
Frankly I don’t care how many people are in prison as long as they are there for the right reasons.
Oh and by the way, I have a lifetime concealed carry permit, had a voluntary psych evaluation (passed as being normal despite being a physician), and own firearms, proficient in their use and took training.
had a voluntary psych evaluation (passed as being normal despite being a physician)
😂
GEB,
Well said.
In this day and age who would even pass a mental health screening?
The push towards getting everyone diagnosed with *some kind* of mental health issue is likely a precursor to ensuring hardly anyone is deemed “mentally fit” enough to own a firearm. It’s a setup job.
However, it doesn’t help we’re doing a fine job ruining our own mental health with eating a lousy diet, not getting exercise, staying indoors too much, playing on devices and social media all day, and letting them stress us out with high stakes everything and calamitous news and propaganda that danger and inadequate safety lurks all around us all the time where we least expect it. So, we are doing just what they want us to do to ensure more of our rights and liberty are slowly leeched away.
Biden/Dims/Rinos/UN/NGOs are working their plans to Bum Rush the US citizens with at least 600 million people from every 3rd world Craphole as they turn off the US’s food, energy & collapse the economy.
At this point only Idiots would cheer for any Regs/Laws other then disarm most all fed agencies other then the US Marshalls while beef up State Guards.
IE: I didn’t know until a few weeks back even the Post Office has an Armed Army! lol, that’s sick.
*****
Southern Border Collapse
Reports and footage from the UN backed invasion at the US Southern Border
https://banned.video/channel/southern-border-collapse
****
Apology accepted. Thanks for the warning. Can you summarize?
“Enforce the law and put illegal users of a firearm in jail and leave them there. No one should get bail who uses a firearm in commission of a crime.”
Excellent, along with all the other suggestions. The left is unconcerned about the use of guns or anything else. It is politics, not the Second Amendment the left is concerned with. Jailing those who use guns in a commission of a crime takes them off the street. Since only a segment of the population uses them, their numbers will fall from dissuasion and incarceration.
. No one should get bail who uses a firearm in commission of a crime. Never drop the firearm charge in negotiating. Enhance sentencing for use of a firearm.
Sounds good, but a large majority of violators are minorities. So special treatment prevails.
GEB, that will work IF we can kick politics out of the medical professions, as it always should be. However, with the ‘official’ (over)reaction to CoVid, including the silencing of virologists, medical professionals and doctors who practiced time-tested viral protocols that were being used everywhere except US and UK, choosing which psychiatrists to make an unbiased decision on who can possess firearms, without any obvious signs of past anti-social behavior, makes that unlikely now. For example, if Doc can see a person’s disciplinary record when they were a minor – were they suspended or expelled from any school for anti-social activities – that might warrant further review. But that too would be difficult now due to so many ‘zero-tolerance’ policies schools practice today where otherwise ‘good’ students in every other metric would pass an eval, but uh-oh, there’s a demerit on the record for fighting back against the bully who punched first. Nearly all school-shootings involve current and/or prior students who had discipline problems. Any school adjudication of those disciplinary problems should be reviewable by a qualified, non-partisan psychiatrist in my view. The same is apparent for nearly all workplace and other ‘street’ shootings – the shooter almost always has a history of disciplinary problems. The tough part is finding a doctor who isn’t already or wouldn’t be threatened with their position or career by gun control-types, should they give the thumbs-up to a potentially new gun owner.
Turley states,
“It is an argument with sweeping implications. If the Second Amendment does not protect those under 21, what about other rights like those under the First Amendment?”
Those under 21 don’t have the full protection of the 1st amendment.
See Morse v. Fredrick. The “bong hits for Jesus” case.
The majority opinion sided with the school arguing they could suppress student speech. Justice Thomas went so far as to say that the right to free speech does not apply to students and his wish to see Tinker overturned altogether.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2006/06-278
Like the 2nd amendment the 1st does not state a minimum age the right applies to so why did the court restrict students their free speech rights? But can’t on the 2nd? It seems the court is being a bit loose with it’s interpretations.
in loco parentis is the situation with primary schools and even colleges, having powers AND responsibilities as to the care and safety of students.
An adults right to there constitutional rights runs head on into the schools need to control the population for the good of all. Tinker has all but been abandoned today. Kid sporting US flags on their bicycles to school were silenced by the school. Rainbow tee shirts are ok, but religous ones are banned.
We needd to ignore the treatment in schools as compared to populations.
If the administration is setting 21 as the age of gun use, they’re goiung to have to revamp the entire military, all branches of which accept applicants as young as 17. Unless, of course, the military doesn’t allow soldiers younger than 21 to use weapons. That would allow them to just concentrate on their drag performances.
GioCon,
The military does not need to be revamped, remember the 2nd amendment’s first line is “a well regulated militia…”. Obviously the military is well regulated when it comes to arms. The citizenry is not…well regulated.
Well regulated meant well trained and ready at the time of the writing. You can’t use today’s definitions of words for a document that was written years ago. Furthermore, the militia was NOT the organized army, but was constituted of civilians. Your argument is inaccurate.
Dwight,
Well said.
Also at the time, the states could not afford to buy and store rifles.
The militia consisting of every able bodied man, to include those under the age of 18 as the good professor points out, were expected to bring their own rifles, what supply of powder and shot they had. After they used up their own powder and shot, the state then would provided additional powder and shot. Powder and shot were easier to store and transport than rifles.
Militias were localized to a given community. They were not part of a standing army. Most could not travel any farther than a days ride on horse back, if they were to travel that far at all. Most did not go far from their homes.
Upstate you are right. The militia was any male 16 years or older who owned a firearm. Militias at the time of the War of Independence, the adoption of The Articles of Confederation and the drafting of, and adoption of the Constitution were not the Organized Reserves and National Guard of today. They were any male civilian with a firearm and the appropriate age, i.e., 16 or older.
The first part of the 2nd Amendment does not limited the right of the people as enumerated in second part of it, see Heller, et al.
The citizenry is regulated by penal codes.
Our founders did not intend a country that had a standing army. The milia in the constitution is NOT an army. It is every able bodied man over the age of 16. In many states at the time of ratification adult males were REQUIRED to own guns – generally rifles.
The Pennsylvania Rifle – also known as the Kentucky Rifle, was first maid by Martin Meylin in Willow Street PA about a mile away from where I lived much of my life, was the equivalent of the M16 of its time. Or possibly more accurate the best military sniper rifle, was one of the most common weapons of the time.
During the first century of US history no one tried to control the manufacture and sale of Pennsylvania Riffles. They remained in manufacture through to almost the 20th century, Because they were accurate to 300yds, and had stopping power unmatched by other weapons with the same range.
There were many factors to the US victory in the Revolutionary war. One of the more important ones was the number of Pennsylvania Riffles held by colonials. Colonials were never able to make enough as they were much harder to make than muskets. But those they had were instrumental in driving the british out of much of new england early in the war. Revolutionary millitias could lethally engage better trained british soldiers at 3 times the distance. Fire a volley and then retreat to reload. This is why the british stayed almost entirely in cities and rarely ventured where they did not have naval support.
A very selective Biden administration application for the “age of majority”. So, the “age of majority” doesn’t apply to a 12-year-old who want to pursue gender affirming surgery without their parent’s consent ? Apparently, that’s ok. Thank you, Jonathan, for an excellent article.
Exactly. Who’s the responsible adult in the room? I thought we were all about worshipping at the Altar of Science, which holds that the average person’s reasoning capability does not mature until about age 25.
mistressadams: Except in the case of Democrats, who rarely reach reasoning capability at any age.
It is perfectly consistent that the Biden cartel would use children as guinea pigs, ruling that they are capable in making mature, rational decisions about taking prescription hormones that permanently alter their endocrine system, and hence development, while ruling that they are too immature to handle a weapon. Authoritanism is like that, replete with swarms of mobs/trolls to drive home their talking points for the Politburo.
Biden’s cartel is not interested in life. They see the life of an individual as a widget so as to transact as if a coin, and exchange for advancing their religious dogmas in our post-modernist world: relativism, self-referential and condescension.
It is well established that the brain undergoes a “rewiring” process that is not complete until approximately 25 years of age
Arain M, Haque M, Johal L, Mathur P, Nel W, Rais A, Sandhu R, Sharma S. Maturation of the adolescent brain. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2013;9:449-61. doi: 10.2147/NDT.S39776.
Out of 19 million adolescents (15–24 years) in the US that were diagnosed with HIV/AIDS, 39% admitted that they had unprotected sex. In addition to risky sex behavior, 30% of adolescents had been involved in motor vehicle accidents, with 41% of these linked to deaths; 12% committed suicide; and 15% were victims of homicide as illustrated in this figure (Steinberg 2004, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)
Guyer AE, McClure-Tone EB, Shiffrin ND, Pine DS, Nelson EE. Probing the neural correlates of anticipated peer evaluation in adolescence. Child Dev. 2009 Jul-Aug;80(4):1000-15. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01313.x.
Great example of laws that get enacted and enforced for years, are not always constitutional.
The left has control of all the institutions. Those institutions have created a citizenry, unmoored from religious teachings, and ignorant of this nations founding, and the Constitution that protects the citizens from an ever increasing tyrannical Government. The leftist are scarred to death of an armed citizenry.
“The leftist are scarred to death of an armed citizenry.”
That’s quite the Freudian slip.
Anonymous:
We can only hope for as much!
Iowan2, soooo….you would prefer armed and angry leftists? Surely you support their right to bear arms, right? Antifa has been showing up at events fully armed and it seems they are not being harassed as much as they used to be. A good thing perhaps? Taunting an armed Antifa member would be a bad idea, no? At least the violence would be less since nobody wants to threaten legally armed people, especially in states with stand your ground laws. Right?
John Browns gun club.
Yrs, people on Antifa have rights
Does that surprise you?
I have no problem with Antifa Excercising there 2nd amendment rights.
I have a great deal of problems with the fact that they are a violent domestic terrorist organization.
They have committed plenty of violent crimes without guns.
I do not care that angry leftists are armed.
I care that leftists beleive they are entitled to get what they want by any means necescary.
Most of those not on the left understand this is not a democracy – that individual rights trump vague claims of greater good.
Those on the left who claim to support democracy, do so only as lip service.
Angry right wingers use whatever tools they have including guns to protect individual rights from government infringement.
Angry left wing nuts use whatever tools they have – including guns to infringe on individual rights – even to infringe on the will of the majority to impose their demands – often through government on the rest of us by force.
It is not the gun that is the problem – it is the person with the gun.
I would by far rather have to deal with an angry right wing nut – armed or not, than an angry left wing nut – the left is far more dangerous.