Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-09-2018, 3:29 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 578
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default NRA v. Bondi and Swearingen - Link to Florida Lawsuit on Age of Eligibility

As was noted by Robotron2k84 on the Florida Senate Passes Gun Control thread, the NRA has filed a lawsuit in Florida (naming the AG and the State Law Enforcement Commissioner) against raising the age of eligibility to purchase firearms to 21.

Rather than leaving it buried in that thread, I thought I'd start this one.

Here's a link to the filing.

Quote:
Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief: a declaration that Florida’s law banning adult, law-abiding citizens under the age of 21 from purchasing firearms of any kind is unconstitutional under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and an injunction compelling Defendants to refrain from enforcing that invalid ban and to allow Plaintiff’s members to purchase firearms to defend themselves, their families, and their homes.

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 03-09-2018 at 3:43 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-10-2018, 2:42 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 578
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Without trying to detract from the other thread, but since links to the actual filings are getting buried, here's something to consider.

The NRA lost a similar lawsuit in Texas about 5 or 6 years ago.

Quote:
This appeal concerns the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(b)(1) and (c)(1), and attendant regulations, which prohibit federally licensed firearms dealers from selling handguns to persons under the age of 21. Appellants—the National Rifle Association and individuals who at the time of filing were over the age of 18 but under the age of 21—brought suit in district court against several federal government agencies, challenging the constitutionality of the laws. The essence of their challenge is that the laws violate the Second Amendment and the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment by preventing law-abiding 18-to-20-year-old adults from purchasing handguns from federally licensed dealers.
For those who would immediately chime in that such a suit involved handguns and this suit is regarding long guns, note the Court's rationale...

Quote:
Unlike race- or gender-based classifications, which require a “tighter fit between the discriminatory means and the legitimate ends they serve,” the government may “discriminate on the basis of age without offending” the constitutional guarantee of equal protection “if the age classification in question is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.” ... For the same reasons that the challenged laws are reasonably adapted to an important state interest, see supra Section III.E, the laws are rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Appellants have failed to show that Congress irrationally imposed age qualifications on commercial arms sales.
So, if Florida can show a compelling State interest...

Insofar as denial of a Second Amendment right, here's the rationale specifically cited in the Texas case...

Quote:
First, these federal laws do not severely burden the Second Amendment rights of 18-to-20-year-olds because they impose an age qualification on commercial firearm sales: FFLs may not sell handguns to persons under the age of 21. Far from a total prohibition on handgun possession and use, these laws resemble “laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms,” which Heller deemed “presumptively lawful.” ... It is not clear that the Court had an age qualification in mind when it penned that sentence, but to the extent that these laws resemble presumptively lawful regulatory measures, they must not trigger strict scrutiny... Second, these laws do not strike the core of the Second Amendment because they do not prevent 18-to-20-year-olds from possessing and using handguns “in defense of hearth and home.” ... Under this federal regulatory scheme, 18-to-20-year-olds may possess and use handguns for self-defense, hunting, or any other lawful purpose; they may acquire handguns from responsible parents or guardians; and they may possess, use, and purchase long-guns. Accordingly, the scheme is sufficiently bounded to avoid strict scrutiny... Third, these laws demand only an “intermediate” level of scrutiny because they regulate commercial sales through an age qualification with temporary effect. Any 18-to-20-year-old subject to the ban will soon grow up and out of its reach.
Note the portion I placed in Bold.

Does the Florida law simply prohibit purchase or does it prohibit purchase, possession, and use?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-11-2018, 6:10 PM
WizardLR WizardLR is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 12
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post

Does the Florida law simply prohibit purchase or does it prohibit purchase, possession, and use?

On Joe Pags show said they could possess a parents rifle according to the law.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-11-2018, 8:19 PM
rootuser rootuser is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,019
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Without trying to detract from the other thread, but since links to the actual filings are getting buried, here's something to consider.

The NRA lost a similar lawsuit in Texas about 5 or 6 years ago.



For those who would immediately chime in that such a suit involved handguns and this suit is regarding long guns, note the Court's rationale...



So, if Florida can show a compelling State interest...

Insofar as denial of a Second Amendment right, here's the rationale specifically cited in the Texas case...



Note the portion I placed in Bold.

Does the Florida law simply prohibit purchase or does it prohibit purchase, possession, and use?
The law raises the age to buy all guns to 21 instead of only handguns.

Not only is it constitutional, it will hold up in court without much issue. The age limitation however is not the only thing it does however and without giving away too much, there may be challenges yet to come.

The idea that this creates a blanket ban as some have lied are simply just that, lies. The commercial sale of guns CAN be regulated and is routinely regulated in this country. Just a fact of life.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-11-2018, 8:53 PM
Aragorn's Avatar
Aragorn Aragorn is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 189
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser View Post
The law raises the age to buy all guns to 21 instead of only handguns.

Not only is it constitutional, it will hold up in court without much issue. The age limitation however is not the only thing it does however and without giving away too much, there may be challenges yet to come.

The idea that this creates a blanket ban as some have lied are simply just that, lies. The commercial sale of guns CAN be regulated and is routinely regulated in this country. Just a fact of life.
What foolishness is this? Of course this is a 'blanket ban' on the purchase of ALL commonly available firearms for a sub-class of adult citizens; namely 18-19-20 year olds. As such it clearly violates Heller. Previously, what passed 2A muster is that handguns were the only firearms so restricted to under 21, not ALL firearms (which even that, IMHO, is very wrong!). This will be a much different story and this NRA lawsuit has an excellent chance to be successful on 2A grounds. And it won't need to get to SCOTUS either.

And regarding similar challenges in Oregon, the litigant has it much easier there as state law is quite clear - it's a slam dunk case of outright age discrimination.

'Just a fact of life' my *****!
__________________

President of Front Sight, Life Member
Gun Owners of America Life Member
NRA Benefactor Life Member

"When seconds count, the police will be there in a few minutes."
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-11-2018, 10:35 PM
rootuser rootuser is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,019
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aragorn View Post
What foolishness is this? Of course this is a 'blanket ban' on the purchase of ALL commonly available firearms for a sub-class of adult citizens; namely 18-19-20 year olds. As such it clearly violates Heller. Previously, what passed 2A muster is that handguns were the only firearms so restricted to under 21, not ALL firearms (which even that, IMHO, is very wrong!). This will be a much different story and this NRA lawsuit has an excellent chance to be successful on 2A grounds. And it won't need to get to SCOTUS either.

And regarding similar challenges in Oregon, the litigant has it much easier there as state law is quite clear - it's a slam dunk case of outright age discrimination.

'Just a fact of life' my *****!
I'm not saying I agree with it, but it does not violate Heller in any way. Re-read Heller. Let's just go by the numbers:

First, the commonly available argument is non-sequitur. It has nothing to do with anything. The guns are not banned entirely, nor is some one under 21 restricted from shooting one, or using one in self-defense, or anything of the sort. Moving on.

The Federal handgun purchase restrictions, which have already been upheld (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-5th-circuit/1614698.html) are exactly inline with the Florida law in terms of scope.

In Heller, Scalia specifically says that the 2A is NOT unlimited. That's part of the double-edge of Heller.

So because Heller expressly allows regulation, AND it actually took a Constitutional amendment to give voting rights to 18 year olds (used to be 21, so the age question has been at least danced around before) AND the new law does not prevent possession of a rifle it withstands at least intermediate scrutiny which is basically what the courts have been applying to the 2A (even though it should probably be strict).

I don't like it, but this is regulation on commerce. The law is pretty crafty in that way, specifically allowing for existing Florida law that allows hunting, sport shooting and other lawful activities for anyone 16 years and older without adult supervision, and under 16 with adult supervision.

I have not gotten through ~105 pages of the law, comments and writings, but in section 13 where it says "A person younger than 21 years of age may not purchase a firearm" is basically going to be upheld.

If you have read something in the law that I have missed or haven't gotten to yet, by all means enlighten me.

I share your sentiment but I've been around this a long time and can tell you, it won't be struck down due to age discrimination.

There are other interesting avenues to explore on this one, I just think the NRA is off base on their approach and we will likely lose yet again.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-12-2018, 12:02 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,546
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser View Post
I'm not saying I agree with it, but it does not violate Heller in any way. Re-read Heller. Let's just go by the numbers:

First, the commonly available argument is non-sequitur. It has nothing to do with anything. The guns are not banned entirely, nor is some one under 21 restricted from shooting one, or using one in self-defense, or anything of the sort. Moving on.
Now raise the minimum purchase age from 21 to 65, and recompute. Is it an infringement now, or is it still a "regulation"? After all, it's not a complete ban, now is it?


Quote:
In Heller, Scalia specifically says that the 2A is NOT unlimited. That's part of the double-edge of Heller.
Thus far, the courts have interpreted "not unlimited" to mean "limited in every single way save for what Heller explicitly protects".

Which is another way of saying that "not unlimited" is being used as blanket permission to allow any and all infringements.

In fact, even that last condition ("save for what Heller explicitly protects") isn't necessarily there. It's because of this that I'm watching Doe v East St. Louis Housing Authority with great interest.


Quote:
it withstands at least intermediate scrutiny which is basically what the courts have been applying to the 2A (even though it should probably be strict).
Under "public safety", everything survives "intermediate" scrutiny, because intermediate scrutiny is identical to rational basis when "public safety" is the "government interest" in question.


Quote:
I share your sentiment but I've been around this a long time and can tell you, it won't be struck down due to age discrimination.

There are other interesting avenues to explore on this one, I just think the NRA is off base on their approach and we will likely lose yet again.
I agree, we're going to lose this. If we couldn't win where the "quintessential self-defense weapon" was in play, there's no way we win this when everything is the same except that the weapon in question isn't even as protected.


But it won't be because the "regulations" are truly Constitutional in the way the founders envisioned. It'll be because the courts are in the business of rubber stamping any and every law governing firearms.

The 2nd Amendment is dead and buried at least until the Supreme Court's composition changes drastically for the better. Until then, we are finished as regards the courts.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

Last edited by kcbrown; 03-12-2018 at 8:31 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-12-2018, 12:18 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 578
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser View Post
The law raises the age to buy all guns to 21 instead of only handguns.

Not only is it constitutional, it will hold up in court without much issue. The age limitation however is not the only thing it does however and without giving away too much, there may be challenges yet to come.

The idea that this creates a blanket ban as some have lied are simply just that, lies. The commercial sale of guns CAN be regulated and is routinely regulated in this country. Just a fact of life.
Based on what I've argued in other threads, I agree that, for now, it is Constitutional or will be found to be such (there's an important distinction between 'Constitutional' and 'found to be so' on a theoretical level, but the practical impact is what counts) and, based on the language in Heller (2008), those who wish to 'regulate' commercial sales have some leeway. From Heller...

Quote:
... 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...
Unfortunately, for now, SCOTUS is allowing considerable leeway. Too much in my opinion. But, Scalia wasn't specific and that's why he was actively encouraging 2nd Amendment cases to be brought shortly after release of both Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010); i.e., the decision(s) represented a compromise and he wanted to explore some of the boundaries specifically. It's the same thing Thomas is griping about; i.e., that too much leeway is being taken by the lower courts vis a vis what was actually said or meant. But, lacking such clarification, especially when SCOTUS appears reluctant to provide any, we have what we currently have.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-12-2018, 12:37 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 578
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aragorn View Post
What foolishness is this? Of course this is a 'blanket ban' on the purchase of ALL commonly available firearms for a sub-class of adult citizens; namely 18-19-20 year olds. As such it clearly violates Heller. Previously, what passed 2A muster is that handguns were the only firearms so restricted to under 21, not ALL firearms (which even that, IMHO, is very wrong!). This will be a much different story and this NRA lawsuit has an excellent chance to be successful on 2A grounds. And it won't need to get to SCOTUS either.
As has been discussed on a number of threads, it's not about the 2nd Amendment. It's about 'commercial sales.' That's why I asked whether the Florida law forbids possession/use as well as purchase. If it does not preclude possession/use, then it is not a 'blanket ban' (as you refer to it), but simply a limitation on commercial sales where you would have to rely on State Laws related to 'age discrimination.'

That's why the Michigan and Oregon cases are different...

Quote:
And regarding similar challenges in Oregon, the litigant has it much easier there as state law is quite clear - it's a slam dunk case of outright age discrimination.
You might want to peruse this thread for some of the particulars...

Age Discrimination lawsuit against Dick's and Walmart

Unfortunately, I don't believe Florida has laws similar to Michigan and Oregon in relation to age discrimination.

This would be the applicable Florida Statute which would be equivalent to the ones being used in Oregon and Michigan cases. Carefully note that while both the Oregon and Michigan statutes specifically cite 'age,' the Florida one does not.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-12-2018, 2:07 PM
rdtompki rdtompki is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Hollister, CA
Posts: 664
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

At what age does one become an "adult". 18 y/o can marry, have kids, work for a living, live in dangerous neighborhoods. It's not the fault of responsible young adults that their snowflake brethren still live at home and need a parent to buy a gun for them. Give me a break.
__________________
San Benito County, CA
NRA Life Member
CRPA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-12-2018, 4:03 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,546
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
As has been discussed on a number of threads, it's not about the 2nd Amendment. It's about 'commercial sales.' That's why I asked whether the Florida law forbids possession/use as well as purchase. If it does not preclude possession/use, then it is not a 'blanket ban' (as you refer to it), but simply a limitation on commercial sales where you would have to rely on State Laws related to 'age discrimination.'
You can't possess/use that which you can't acquire.

You know, based on the reasoning you're using here, they could ban the sale and transfer of all guns to all citizens, and it still wouldn't count as a "ban" in the sense of Heller, right? After all, it's just a "regulation" of commercial sales of arms (LEO could, of course, still get them, so it's not a complete and total ban, right?). And you could still use/possess them, right?
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

Last edited by kcbrown; 03-12-2018 at 4:10 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-12-2018, 4:18 PM
userformerlyknownasfitty's Avatar
userformerlyknownasfitty userformerlyknownasfitty is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 418
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Not a legal expert by any means. I'm just struggling to see why they can't bump up the long run purchasing age to 21 since they've already done it to hand guns? I hope it doesn't pass, because I bought my first rifle when I was 18.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-12-2018, 4:49 PM
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 387
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Because in doing so there is a segment of the population: 18-20 year-olds, living independently without family to transfer a gun, that are completely shut out from availing themselves of their 2A rights.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-12-2018, 4:50 PM
Mr. Snuffalupagus Mr. Snuffalupagus is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 88
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser View Post

First, the commonly available argument is non-sequitur. It has nothing to do with anything. The guns are not banned entirely, nor is some one under 21 restricted from shooting one, or using one in self-defense, or anything of the sort. Moving on.

so riddle me this... a young man or lady decides to strike out on their own the week after they turn 18.

they get a job, an apartment, a reasonable car - and they live in a "meh" neighborhood...
so said young person who lives on their own, pays their own bills, and manages their own affairs decides they want to buy a shotgun for home defense.

How, pray tell - does said young person acquire the shotgun if it is against the law to buy one at 18?

ask mommy and daddy to buy it for you?

isn't that a "straw purchase" asking someone to buy an item for you that you are otherwise restricted from buying yourself?

I think that is called "committing a felony."

No?

so in order to acquire the shotgun at age 18 to secure your new household. you have to ask a parent or legal guardian (laughable... since an 18 year old IS an adult) you'd need to have the buyer commit a straw purchase...
seems legit.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-12-2018, 4:51 PM
Mr. Snuffalupagus Mr. Snuffalupagus is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 88
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robotron2k84 View Post
Because in doing so there is a segment of the population: 18-20 year-olds, living independently without family to transfer a gun, that are completely shut out from availing themselves of their 2A rights.

winner winner chicken dinner...
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-12-2018, 5:43 PM
scratchgolf scratchgolf is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Martinez
Posts: 152
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Without trying to detract from the other thread, but since links to the actual filings are getting buried, here's something to consider.

The NRA lost a similar lawsuit in Texas about 5 or 6 years ago.



For those who would immediately chime in that such a suit involved handguns and this suit is regarding long guns, note the Court's rationale...



So, if Florida can show a compelling State interest...

Insofar as denial of a Second Amendment right, here's the rationale specifically cited in the Texas case...



Note the portion I placed in Bold.

Does the Florida law simply prohibit purchase or does it prohibit purchase, possession, and use?
The rationale of the court does specifically state that age 18-20 can still purchase long guns.

Quote:
18-to-20-year-olds may possess and use handguns for self-defense, hunting, or any other lawful purpose; they may acquire handguns from responsible parents or guardians; and they may possess, use, and purchase long-guns.
The ability of persons age 18 to 20 to legally purchase long-guns of any kind is now prohibited in Florida.

Last edited by scratchgolf; 03-12-2018 at 6:01 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-12-2018, 6:18 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,546
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scratchgolf View Post
The rationale of the court does specifically state that age 18-20 can still purchase long guns.



The ability of persons age 18 to 20 to legally purchase long-guns of any kind is now prohibited in Florida.
That is true. But the court's "reasoning" didn't hinge solely upon that, and therefore its decision would almost certainly have been the same even under current conditions.

The courts simply don't care. This is a "right" that most of them want to see dead and buried, and they're doing their best to make that happen.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03-12-2018, 6:30 PM
scratchgolf scratchgolf is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Martinez
Posts: 152
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
That is true. But the court's "reasoning" didn't hinge solely upon that, and therefore its decision would almost certainly have been the same even under current conditions.
Then why even bother mentioning it? The court clearly reasoned that it's not unconstitutional to prohibit people under age 21 from purchasing handguns in part because they could legally purchase long-guns.

The Florida law is a blanket prohibition for under 21 to purchase any firearm whatsoever with no exceptions (that I am aware of).

Here's another passage from the decision:
Quote:
Second, Congress selected means that were reasonably adapted to
achieving that objective. Congress found that the ease with which young
persons under 21 could access handguns—as opposed to other guns—was
contributing to violent crime, and also found that FFLs—as opposed to other
sources
—constituted the central conduit of handgun traffic to young persons
under 21.

Congress, in turn, reasonably tailored a solution to the particular
problem: Congress restricted the ability of persons under 21 to purchase
handguns from FFLs, while allowing (i) 18-to-20-year-old persons to purchase
long-guns


Alternatively, Congress could have prohibited all persons under 21 from
possessing handguns—or all guns, for that matter. But Congress deliberately
adopted a calibrated, compromise approach.
The court quite clearly gave significant consideration to the fact that Congress only restricted hand gun purchases, to buyers under age 21, from FFL dealers.

This case was reviewed under intermediate scrutiny. Can we really expect the same level of scrutiny, despite a significantly more broad restriction?

Does the state of Florida have a compelling interest to ban all long-gun purchases to those under age 21 despite their very rare use in crime?

Last edited by scratchgolf; 03-12-2018 at 7:48 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-12-2018, 8:17 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 578
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
You can't possess/use that which you can't acquire... based on the reasoning you're using here, they could ban the sale and transfer of all guns to all citizens, and it still wouldn't count as a "ban" in the sense of Heller, right? After all, it's just a "regulation" of commercial sales of arms ... And you could still use/possess them, right?
You're really stretching here. First, I didn't say it was "my argument." I said it is the argument being used in an attempt to 'exploit a loophole' perceived in Heller; an argument which is recognized by Volokh, as well as the Oregon and Michigan lawsuits. Second, I noted the NRA's lawsuit in Florida is different, suing on 2nd Amendment grounds, because Florida has no age discrimination statutes equivalent to Oregon, Michigan, and an handful of other states. The problem is, neither does the Federal Government.

Finally, there is no 'age' specifically stipulated in the 2nd Amendment; though it is implied by the use of the word 'militia.' The problem is that there are varying cohorts in the definitions referenced for militia; with 'protections' now afforded for older cohorts, but not necessarily for younger ones. This has been hashed over on the Age Discrimination lawsuit against Dick's and Walmart.

'Acquisition' does not require 'purchase.' As you often do, introducing an illusory semantic change to create a strawman, without acknowledging or recognizing issues discussed near continuously on this site, may be convenient for engaging in a discourse, but doesn't necessarily bear much relevance to the realities at issue.

There is a difference between acquisition and purchase. Acquisition by purchase is only one way to 'acquire,' 'possess,' 'use' something, legally or otherwise. For instance, there's the fact that possession does not require ownership; neither does use. While you might have a case to make under the UCC with the term "Transfer," that would still be a bit of a stretch in that the Florida Law specifically deals with the purchase and transfer of firearms, with nothing specifically addressing what ATF typically deems 'temporary loans for lawful sporting purposes' or bequest, etc.

Second, until the end of 2017 and, presumably, the first part of 2018, here are the statutes in relation to purchase, possession, and use of weapons and firearms in Florida.

It would be too lengthy to post all the details here. Suffice to say that there is a range of ages for specific types of possession/activity, purchases, etc. But, as a 'for instance'...

Quote:
(3) A minor under 18 years of age may not possess a firearm, other than an unloaded firearm at his or her home, unless:
(a) The minor is engaged in a lawful hunting activity and is:
1. At least 16 years of age; or
2. Under 16 years of age and supervised by an adult.
(b) The minor is engaged in a lawful marksmanship competition or practice or other lawful recreational shooting activity and is:
1. At least 16 years of age; or
2. Under 16 years of age and supervised by an adult who is acting with the consent of the minor’s parent or guardian.
(c) The firearm is unloaded and is being transported by the minor directly to or from an event authorized in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b)...
What this constitutes is an 'exception,' recognized by ATF, in terms of "Transfers" related to firearms; i.e., the UCC recognizes the 'loan' of a piece of property as a 'transfer,' but ATF acknowledges some exceptions.

So, once again, did the new law simply impact purchase (commercial sales) or did it address purchase, possession, and use?

According to the NRA suit (see link in the OP of this thread), the 'new' section in question is Section 790.065(13); declaring that the newly enacted section "prohibits law-abiding adults in this age group from lawfully purchasing a firearm of any kind." Note that it says PURCHASE, not 'acquisition.' In fact, to quote the section, as cited in the suit...

Quote:
Senate Bill 7026, among other provisions, amends FLA.STAT. § 790.065 to add a new Subsection (13), which provides as follows:

A person younger than 21 years of age may not purchase a firearm. The sale or transfer of a firearm to a person younger than 21 years of age may not be made or facilitated by a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer. A person who violates this subsection commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. The prohibitions of this subsection do not apply to the purchase of a rifle or shotgun by a law enforcement officer or correctional officer, . . . or a servicemember....
Note that it is using the terms 'purchase,' 'sale,' and 'transfer.' I have NOT seen the entirety of what the Governor actually signed. Thus, I don't know, with certainty, whether there exists another portion addressing 'possession' and 'use.' However, this is how SB 7016 existed on 3/7, two days before the Governor's signature. I haven't read it thoroughly, but a quick search didn't reveal anything in relation to possession/use insofar as 'age.'

(So that you might compare, 790.065 deals with the Sale and Delivery of Firearms. This is how 790.065 stood in 2017.)

In short, it is much more complex than your post represents. It is, however, a 'loophole' (as anti-gun forces tend to reference such) clearly acknowledged in Heller (2008). As I said, Scalia specifically wished to explore, clarify, and define things beyond Heller, as does Thomas and, presumably, Gorsuch. Until that occurs, the lack of clarity has been and continues to be exploited by anti-civil rights forces. Or, as you phrased it...

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown
But it won't be because the "regulations" are truly Constitutional in the way the founders envisioned. It'll be because the courts are in the business of rubber stamping any and every law governing firearms.

The 2nd Amendment is dead and buried at least until the Supreme Court's composition changes drastically for the better. Until then, we are finished as regards the courts.
Or... As I phrased it in an earlier post of this thread...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia
Based on what I've argued in other threads, I agree that, for now, it is Constitutional or will be found to be such (there's an important distinction between 'Constitutional' and 'found to be so' on a theoretical level, but the practical impact is what counts) and, based on the language in Heller (2008), those who wish to 'regulate' commercial sales have some leeway... Unfortunately, for now, SCOTUS is allowing considerable leeway. Too much in my opinion. But, Scalia wasn't specific and that's why he was actively encouraging 2nd Amendment cases to be brought shortly after release of both Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010); i.e., the decision(s) represented a compromise and he wanted to explore some of the boundaries specifically. It's the same thing Thomas is griping about; i.e., that too much leeway is being taken by the lower courts vis a vis what was actually said or meant. But, lacking such clarification, especially when SCOTUS appears reluctant to provide any, we have what we currently have.

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 03-12-2018 at 8:39 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-12-2018, 9:16 PM
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 387
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
A person younger than 21 years of age may not purchase a firearm.

The sale or transfer of a firearm to a person younger than 21 years of age may not be made or facilitated by a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer.

...
If that is really the text of the signed law, there are two operative clauses in that section. The first outright bans the sale of any firearm to an under-21, which would also implicate private sales. The second is a more narrow interpretation of the same condition, as applied to commercial entities. If it's preamble, it's not clearly called out or punctuated as such.

The avenues to possession for an 18-20 year-old would seem to be limited to only two options, a gift or a loan. While not a complete elimination of the right, possession would then be based on who you know as opposed to who you are, a more subtle, but equally damning restriction on a core enumerated right for an adult citizen.

Last edited by Robotron2k84; 03-12-2018 at 9:33 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 03-12-2018, 10:05 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 578
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robotron2k84 View Post
The avenues to possession for an 18-20 year-old would seem to be limited to only two options, a gift or a loan. While not a complete elimination of the right, possession would then be based on who you know as opposed to who you are, a more subtle, but equally damning restriction on a core enumerated right for an adult citizen.
So that I understand... You're arguing that such a 'restriction' would be sufficient to 'trigger strict scrutiny?'

Certainly, 'age' is insufficient to do so, for reasons already cited on several threads, including this one.

Thus, you would have to establish that a fundamental right is being threatened based on the narrow group you delineate. Using the language of the 5th Circuit's decision in the Texas case (linked to above), you would have to demonstrate that this standard has been broached...

Quote:
...18-to-20-year-olds may possess and use handguns for self-defense, hunting, or any other lawful purpose; they may acquire handguns from responsible parents or guardians; and they may possess, use, and purchase long-guns...
Put another way, it is no longer sufficiently bounded to avoid strict scrutiny, due to the 'limited group' you cite, while you openly acknowledge that the right is not 'completely eliminated.'

Once you got strict scrutiny to apply, you would have to make a convincing argument that the State's interest (public safety) is insufficiently compelling and that the law is no longer narrowly tailored in achieving the stated results; while acknowledging that 'age discrimination' does not apply due to lacking a State or Federal Statute protecting this cohort and that only a limited group of 18-20 year old's is prohibitively impacted, without complete elimination of their right.

In the current, judicial climate, how would you rate the odds of your success?

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 03-12-2018 at 10:07 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 03-12-2018, 10:22 PM
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 387
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

If I am a Floridian, 18-20, and don't know anyone with firearms, and my parents refuse to gift me a gun, or they aren't alive anymore, how can I exercise my right to the core of 2A as found in Heller: an operable weapon at home for use in personal defense?

If you have an answer as to how such a person can acquire a long gun in Florida now, what is it?

If this person is an adult, and 2A applies to them what instructions do you have to allow them to exercise their rights?
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-12-2018, 11:18 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 578
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robotron2k84 View Post
If I am a Floridian, 18-20, and don't know anyone with firearms, and my parents refuse to gift me a gun, or they aren't alive anymore, how can I exercise my right to the core of 2A as found in Heller: an operable weapon at home for use in personal defense?

If you have an answer as to how such a person can acquire a long gun in Florida now, what is it?

If this person is an adult, and 2A applies to them what instructions do you have to allow them to exercise their rights?
Again, you are asking the Court to balance this against a compelling State interest and that the right is sufficiently infringed to be prohibitive.

Your statement that this person is an 'adult' is irrelevant, for reasons repeatedly cited. You MUST remove this from your argument or, at least, not make it the foundation upon which your argument is based.

Remember, Hawaii and Illinois (I believe those are the two) already prohibit purchase of a firearm by those under 21. There is no 'age discrimination' protection for the 18 - 20 cohort under Florida or Federal Statute in this case. In addition, there are laws related to other things which preclude legal participation until the age of 21 and it took an Amendment to the Constitution to allow the 18 - 20 cohort to vote.

Thus, you are left with the right being sufficiently infringed; all the while acknowledging it has not been completely eliminated. It's not up to me to demonstrate how they might, legally 'acquire' or 'possess' a firearm for various uses. It is up to you to demonstrate how the right is sufficiently prohibited on that score to persuade our current judicial system that the new statute is unconstitutional under whatever level of scrutiny is deemed appropriate.

This is the 'weakness' of the NRA's case. They are attempting to establish that 18 year old individuals are 'adults.'

Quote:
At 18 years of age, law-abiding citizens in this country are considered adults for almost all purposes and certainly for the purposes of the exercise of fundamental constitutional rights. At 18, citizens are eligible to serve in the military—to fight and die by arms for the country. Indeed, male citizens in this age-group are designated members of the militia by federal statute, 10 U.S.C. § 246(a), and may be conscripted to bear arms on behalf of their country, 50 U.S.C. § 3803(a). Yet, newly-enacted Section 790.065(13) of Florida’s criminal code prohibits law-abiding adults in this age group from lawfully purchasing a firearm of any kind.
Just remember, however, that a significant portion of Heller (2008) was dedicated to determining that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right - SEPARATE - from service in a militia. Thus, relying on the definition of a militia is an intrinsically 'weak' argument or, at least, one that is readily challenged. Likewise, there are many 'restrictions' related to some things prior to attainment of the age of 21; i.e., those under that age are not fully/universally recognized, legally, as "adults."

Which leaves us with the NRA (and you) being able to prove that there are no, possible ways for 18 - 20 year old individuals to legally obtain/possess 'arms' sufficient for self-defense.

Remember, 'firearms' are not the only 'arms' protected by the 2nd Amendment. For instance, one device which jumps to mind is "stun guns." Does this new Florida statute preclude the purchase or, if you prefer, 'acquisition' of 'stun guns' by that age group? Are they 'electric weapons' or 'firearms?' (Bear in mind that 790.22 is the applicable statute.)

Again, it's not my job to prove the new law is Constitutional. (This is particularly true in that I also disagree with the new law.) It is your job to prove, in the current, judicial climate, that it is unconstitutional.

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 03-12-2018 at 11:24 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-13-2018, 6:38 AM
scratchgolf scratchgolf is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Martinez
Posts: 152
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia

Once you got strict scrutiny to apply, you would have to make a convincing argument that the State's interest (public safety) is insufficiently compelling and that the law is no longer narrowly tailored in achieving the stated results ; while acknowledging that 'age discrimination' does not apply due to lacking a State or Federal Statute protecting this cohort and that only a limited group of 18-20 year old's is prohibitively impacted, without complete elimination of their right.

In the current, judicial climate, how would you rate the odds of your success?
The Florida law certainly isn't narrowly tailored. It prohibits 100% of people under 21 from purchasing 100% of firearms within the state of Florida.

Why does the state of Florida have a compelling interest to ban people age 18-20 from purchasing an over-under shotgun or a bolt action .22 rifle? Even if you can argue that the state does have a compelling interest to prohibit people under 21 from purchasing semi-automatic rifles, this law goes significantly beyond to include 100% of firearms despite their rare / non-use in crime.

The Texas decision specifically states that Congress narrowly tailored the under 21 gun ban to include only hand guns being purchased at FFL dealers.

If a court can find both federal law and the new Florida state law to be similarly narrow in scope, then all of their arguments beyond age discrimination are completely moot.

Last edited by scratchgolf; 03-13-2018 at 6:46 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 03-13-2018, 8:05 AM
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 387
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Trapped, I do not have to remove the age group from my analysis, because you overlook the second claim in the suit: alleging 14A violation on the grounds of unequal treatment in targeting a specific group of people.

I agree that the Florida law is too broad and more so than the Fifth Circuit's ruling in National Rifle Association, et al v. Bureau of Alc, where it found the right was not foreclosed specifically because long guns were still able to be purchased.

Hawaii and Illinois haven't been challenged yet on these grounds, according to a quick google search. That doesn't mean that their laws are constitutional, only that a court has not reviewed them yet. Florida is also in the 11th Circuit, which is likely pro-gun, making this at least even odds for success, IMHO.

Illinois law also allows an under-21 age adult to obtain an FOID and therefore purchase a weapon with a letter from a parent or guardian. Likely same in Hawaii, since both states require permitting to purchase a gun, which is how this is not as crushing as what is taking place in Florida.

Trapped, I think your analysis needs to reflect what options are still available for the subject class to be able to keep and bear arms. The 2A covers all arms in common use and selecting a subset is not allowing the right, either, beyond what has already been decided by CA5. And, however improbable, it is at least possible that the NRA may get a circuit split over this issue and prompt SCOTUS to examine the constitutionality of 2A for people under 21.

Something, however is foggy in my rememberabce of FL law with respect to stun guns, knives and other arms: when I applied for my FL CWP, I seem to remember that other arms require a CWP to possess. I may be very wrong on that point, but can someone confirm or deny a CWP is needed to possess a stun gun?

Edit: my mistake, no CWP needed for a stun gun.

Last edited by Robotron2k84; 03-13-2018 at 9:33 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 03-13-2018, 9:01 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,546
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scratchgolf View Post
Then why even bother mentioning it?
Courts tend to like to justify their pronouncements to the maximum degree possible. They mention it because it's another excuse for upholding the law. That they mentioned it doesn't mean that it is necessary for upholding it (which is to say, removal of that doesn't mean that their decision would suddenly change).


Quote:
The court clearly reasoned that it's not unconstitutional to prohibit people under age 21 from purchasing handguns in part because they could legally purchase long-guns.
Yes. In part is the key term here. The question is whether or not that reasoning is necessary to the outcome.

The court brought up other reasons for upholding the law, not just that one, and it did so in such a way as to not inextricably link the two. The first one being:

Quote:
First, curbing violent crime perpetrated by young persons under 21—by preventing such persons from acquiring handguns from FFLs—constitutes an important government objective. See, e.g., Schall v. Martin, 467 U.S. 253, 264 (1984) (“The ‘legitimate and compelling state interest’ in protecting the community from crime cannot be doubted.”).
The above justification can be applied to anything that might be used in a crime. You may claim (correctly) that "intermediate scrutiny" requires more than the mere claim that something might be used in a harmful way, but most of the courts that have seen 2A cases have been more than happy to use that as the litmus test for "intermediate scrutiny".


Quote:
The Florida law is a blanket prohibition for under 21 to purchase any firearm whatsoever with no exceptions (that I am aware of).
Correct. But turning back to NRA v BATFE for a moment, look at the reason the court used to approve the handgun purchase law:

Quote:
curbing violent crime perpetrated by young persons under 21—by preventing such persons from acquiring handguns from FFLs—constitutes an important government objective.

That "reason" applies just as much to a complete ban on purchase by persons under 21 of any/all firearms.

The bottom line here is that when "public safety" is raised by the government, the courts will go to the ends of the earth to justify siding with the government when it's a disfavored right, such as the right to arms, that is in question.


Quote:
The court quite clearly gave significant consideration to the fact that Congress only restricted hand gun purchases, to buyers under age 21, from FFL dealers.
Yes, it did. But you're presuming that such consideration was necessary to arrive at their decision. I contend, in light of so many other decisions that we've seen from the judiciary (not the least of which is Friedman v Highland Park), that it wasn't. It was merely an additional consideration, something that provided additional justification. To these courts, the "public safety" claim is the only necessary justification.


Quote:
This case was reviewed under intermediate scrutiny. Can we really expect the same level of scrutiny, despite a significantly more broad restriction?
Of course. We've seen it happen over and over again, where the "scrutiny" chosen was "intermediate" because the law didn't strike at the "core" of the right, where that "core" was some highly limited thing (usually possession of a handgun in the home).


Quote:
Does the state of Florida have a compelling interest to ban all long-gun purchases to those under age 21 despite their very rare use in crime?
No, it does not. But that will make absolutely no difference as regards the outcome, if this circuit is as hostile to the right as the others we've seen.


That's the crux of the matter here: these courts are outcome-oriented. They don't care what they have to do to justify a decision. They make the decision first (on the basis of personal preferences) and justify the decision after the fact.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 03-13-2018, 9:08 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 578
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scratchgolf View Post
The Florida law certainly isn't narrowly tailored. It prohibits 100% of people under 21 from purchasing 100% of firearms within the state of Florida.

Why does the state of Florida have a compelling interest...
Remember, that was assuming that one could get the Court to look at it under Strict Scrutiny.

Intermediate Scrutiny is the more likely and that does not require the law to be narrowly tailored or that the State have a compelling interest. It only requires that the law serve an important government objective and be related (substantively) to achieving that objective.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 03-13-2018, 9:32 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,546
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
You're really stretching here. First, I didn't say it was "my argument."
My bad. Consider "your argument" to merely mean "the argument you raise".


Quote:
I said it is the argument being used in an attempt to 'exploit a loophole' perceived in Heller; an argument which is recognized by Volokh, as well as the Oregon and Michigan lawsuits. Second, I noted the NRA's lawsuit in Florida is different, suing on 2nd Amendment grounds, because Florida has no age discrimination statutes equivalent to Oregon, Michigan, and an handful of other states. The problem is, neither does the Federal Government.

Finally, there is no 'age' specifically stipulated in the 2nd Amendment; though it is implied by the use of the word 'militia.' The problem is that there are varying cohorts in the definitions referenced for militia; with 'protections' now afforded for older cohorts, but not necessarily for younger ones. This has been hashed over on the Age Discrimination lawsuit against Dick's and Walmart.
That is true. What, then, prevents a government from imposing a purchase ban on anyone under the age of 65? Would that qualify as a violation of the 2nd Amendment where a cutoff of 21 wouldn't?


Quote:
'Acquisition' does not require 'purchase.'
That's true too, but purchase is by far the most common means of acquisition.

If Florida does not prohibit face to face transfers, however, then this law isn't nearly the imposition it might otherwise be, because people under 21 could still purchase/acquire firearms from other individuals via a face to face transfer.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 03-13-2018, 9:38 AM
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 387
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

KC see post #20, on first read, this law makes private sales to under-21 adults illegal as well.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 03-13-2018, 9:39 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 578
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robotron2k84 View Post
Trapped, I do not have to remove the age group from my analysis, because you overlook the second claim in the suit: alleging 14A violation on the grounds of unequal treatment in targeting a specific group of people.
There is a better than even chance that they won't be relevant in that the 14th Amendment must show that Equal Protection applies. According to Volokh...

Quote:
...the Equal Protection Clause generally doesn't forbid even governmental age classifications...
As I said, if you don't entirely remove it, then you're going to have to find a different, foundation to base the argument upon. Remember, there is no age discrimination protection for that group under either Federal or Florida Law. In other words, it's not just "me" who is proffering the argument. The reason the Oregon and Michigan lawsuits exist and the basis upon which they rest are that each of those States DO have such protections under State Law.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robotron2k84
...where it found the right was not foreclosed specifically because long guns were still able to be purchased...
Not specifically, put in part.

Quote:
...18-to-20-year-olds may possess and use handguns for self-defense, hunting, or any other lawful purpose; they may acquire handguns from responsible parents or guardians; and they may possess, use, and purchase long-guns...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robotron2k84
Hawaii and Illinois haven't been challenged yet on these grounds, according to a quick google search. That doesn't mean that their laws are constitutional, only that a court has not reviewed them yet. Florida is also in the 11th Circuit, which is likely pro-gun, making this at least even odds for success, IMHO.
Given that Hawaii is in the 9th Circuit, it's highly likely that any challenge would have to be granted cert by SCOTUS to stand a 'likely' chance of achieving an 'unconstitutional' affirmation. I'm not as sure how the 11th Circuit would rule; but, if we were to take their ruling last year regarding the ability of doctors to ask patients about firearms as a 'signal,' it might not be 'even' odds, though not necessarily as unlikely as in the 9th.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robotron2k84
Illinois law also allows an under-21 age adult to obtain an FOID and therefore purchase a weapon with a letter from a parent or guardian. Likely same in Hawaii...
Not necessarily. Hawaii statute 134-2 states...

Quote:
...No person shall acquire the ownership of a firearm... until the person has first procured from the chief of police of the county of the person's place of business or, if there is no place of business, the person's residence or, if there is neither place of business nor residence, the person's place of sojourn, a permit to acquire the ownership of a firearm as prescribed in this section... The chief of police of the respective counties may issue permits to acquire firearms to citizens of the United States of the age of twenty-one years or more...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robotron2k84
Trapped, I think your analysis needs to reflect what options are still available for the subject class to be able to keep and bear arms.
I've already cited one, stun guns. Whether there are more 'options' or whether such 'electric weapons' would be found sufficient is something I don't know off the top of my head and I don't have time, at the moment, to look into it further. (I might look a little deeper when I get that time.) The bottom line, however, is that this case isn't the 'slam dunk' some appear to think it is.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 03-13-2018, 10:06 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 578
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
That is true. What, then, prevents a government from imposing a purchase ban on anyone under the age of 65? Would that qualify as a violation of the 2nd Amendment where a cutoff of 21 wouldn't?
As was hashed out on the linked thread, the Federal Government does have age discrimination laws protecting citizens over the age of 40. Under that age becomes a bit more nebulous, but would likely or commonly fall under the 14th Amendment for those 21 - 40. But, therein lies the major issue.

Those in the age group 18 - 20 are not 'fully' protected and, therefore, are denied some of the 'rights and privileges' granted to those over 21. There's a reason that it literally took a Constitutional Amendment to allow 18 - 20 year old individuals the right to vote.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown
That's true too, but purchase is by far the most common means of acquisition.
Most common, but not exclusive. In addition, there are other, common means by which 18 - 20 year old individuals legally obtain possession/use of arms. Likewise, as in my rejoinder to Robotron2k84, you would have to establish that firearms and not simply arms is so encompassing as to negate the thought that commonly available arms (other than firearms) is sufficient to meet the fundamentals of the right for that age group within the context of other prohibitions placed on that same group.

Again, you are looking at a very narrow group of individuals, even within the 18-20 cohort, which are precluded almost entirely from the legal possession/use of firearms, but not necessarily precluded from legal purchase, possession, and use of commonly available "arms."

From Heller...

Quote:
...but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes...
Note he said "weapon," not firearm specifically. In the Florida Statutes, stun guns (which is the one exemplar I quickly found) are specifically referred to as "electric weapons." Are stun guns (and other forms of 'weaponry' sufficient to meet the right, at least for that age group given other restrictions placed on the group?
That would be the question.

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 03-13-2018 at 10:16 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 03-13-2018, 10:08 AM
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 387
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Looking at the Hawaii code, and it doesn't give an exception for parental approval, so looks like 21 is the minimum age to even possess. However, they will approve permits for 18-20 year old foreign nationals with a hunter course for 60 days. It seems like that could be challenged, however...

Hawaii being in the 9th Circuit would almost certainly result in a favorable judgement for the state, if this particular issue was challenged. Possibly the NRA is looking for a circuit split in CA11.

The 11th Circuit case about doctors regarding guns was a 1A challenge, asking that a Florida law be struck down that prevented doctors from inquiring about guns in the home on privacy grounds. It was also a loss for Florida, if that's any consolation.

Last edited by Robotron2k84; 03-13-2018 at 10:26 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 03-13-2018, 10:24 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 578
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robotron2k84 View Post
Hawaii being in the 9th Circuit would almost certainly result in a favorable judgement for the state, if this particular issue was challenged. Possibly the NRA is looking for a circuit split in CA11.
First, you'd have to get the split. As you say, Hawaii hasn't been challenged, so far as I know.

Then, you'd have to get SCOTUS to grant cert; something they have clearly demonstrated a reluctance to do at the moment. (Though, by the time such a split was established and a case made it to SCOTUS...???)

In other words, it's certainly not a short term solution.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 03-13-2018, 10:30 AM
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 387
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

No, a circuit split between CA5 and CA11 in regards to 2A and 18-20 year-olds.

My first impression on reading the NRA filing was they may see this as a way to take a second swipe at the handgun limitation, too.

IMHO, making the 14A claim stick will be the only wedge that allows light-enough to get a favorable ruling.

Last edited by Robotron2k84; 03-13-2018 at 10:40 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 03-13-2018, 12:00 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,546
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
As was hashed out on the linked thread, the Federal Government does have age discrimination laws protecting citizens over the age of 40. Under that age becomes a bit more nebulous, but would likely or commonly fall under the 14th Amendment for those 21 - 40. But, therein lies the major issue.
Hmm... I suppose that raises the question of why people who are 18-21 are not protected by the 14th Amendment.


Quote:
Those in the age group 18 - 20 are not 'fully' protected and, therefore, are denied some of the 'rights and privileges' granted to those over 21. There's a reason that it literally took a Constitutional Amendment to allow 18 - 20 year old individuals the right to vote.
That's an interesting point. A very interesting one indeed, and it makes the 14th Amendment argument a much weaker one. Indeed, it implies that the entirety of the 2nd Amendment right to arms could be eliminated from those under 21.


Quote:
Most common, but not exclusive. In addition, there are other, common means by which 18 - 20 year old individuals legally obtain possession/use of arms.
There are, but I can't say how "common" they are, except perhaps for transfers between individuals.

Even so, just how little of a right has to be left before one decides that there's enough of an infringement to warrant striking the law? As we've seen in other cases, the judiciary has decided that the right to arms is so weak that if anyone can exercise the right in any way, then what's at issue isn't a "total ban" and therefore the infringing law stands.


Quote:
Likewise, as in my rejoinder to Robotron2k84, you would have to establish that firearms and not simply arms is so encompassing as to negate the thought that commonly available arms (other than firearms) is sufficient to meet the fundamentals of the right for that age group within the context of other prohibitions placed on that same group.
I don't know that it's so clear cut as that. If it were, then Heller would have upheld the ban on handguns due to the availability of shotguns and rifles. But it explicitly said that the availability of other weapons did not prevent the handgun ban from being an infringement on the right.


Quote:
Again, you are looking at a very narrow group of individuals, even within the 18-20 cohort, which are precluded almost entirely from the legal possession/use of firearms, but not necessarily precluded from legal purchase, possession, and use of commonly available "arms."
True as that may be, that only addresses the question of whether or not the law can be struck on facial grounds. But what of an "as applied" challenge?

I think what might "save" this law is if people in that age group are able to purchase or otherwise acquire firearms from other individuals. If they're not, then there will be some who simply cannot lawfully acquire any firearm, which would mean the right would be eviscerated for them, at least.


Quote:
Note he said "weapon," not firearm specifically. In the Florida Statutes, stun guns (which is the one exemplar I quickly found) are specifically referred to as "electric weapons." Are stun guns (and other forms of 'weaponry' sufficient to meet the right, at least for that age group given other restrictions placed on the group?
That would be the question.
What has the age group, or any grouping of people for that matter, have to do with the question of whether or not the availability of one class of arms is sufficient to uphold wholesale bans on other classes of arms? The "other classes of arms are available" argument has already been addressed in Heller, and dispensed with.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

Last edited by kcbrown; 03-13-2018 at 1:18 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 03-13-2018, 1:09 PM
Mr. Snuffalupagus Mr. Snuffalupagus is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 88
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robotron2k84 View Post
Looking at the Hawaii code, and it doesn't give an exception for parental approval, so looks like 21 is the minimum age to even possess. However, they will approve permits for 18-20 year old foreign nationals with a hunter course for 60 days. It seems like that could be challenged, however...

Hawaii being in the 9th Circuit would almost certainly result in a favorable judgement for the state, if this particular issue was challenged. Possibly the NRA is looking for a circuit split in CA11.

The 11th Circuit case about doctors regarding guns was a 1A challenge, asking that a Florida law be struck down that prevented doctors from inquiring about guns in the home on privacy grounds. It was also a loss for Florida, if that's any consolation.

The Hawaii revised statutes address that in another law:
https://law.justia.com/codes/hawaii/...pter134/134-5/

a firearm may be possessed via loan by a minor (and I guess by assumption any adult under 21 years) if they are actively engaged in hunting in an approved hunting zone or target shooting on a legal shooting range.
ie: I could take my 17 year old buddy hunting - but he has to use one of MY guns, and when we exit the hunting area he needs to surrender it back to me for storage and transport. or if at the range, he can step up to the line and shoot my gun while I am there - but at the end of the day, when we pack up I have to bring them back to the car and transport them


Hawaiis gun laws are pretty Borked - they are not insurmountable but they are obviously designed to make it very difficult to purchase a gun, and actually use it.

still - not nearly as bad as Cali... but pretty screwy.
on the plus side - so far they don't seem to be interested in jumping on the bandwagon every time a new ban idea comes down the pike.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 03-13-2018, 10:24 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 578
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown
What has the age group, or any grouping of people for that matter, have to do with the question of whether or not the availability of one class of arms is sufficient to uphold wholesale bans on other classes of arms? The "other classes of arms are available" argument has already been addressed in Heller, and dispensed with.
Except... This, specific age group, 18 - 20, is not just 'any grouping of people' or even just any 'grouping based on age.' You have, in part, addressed the issue earlier in your post...

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Hmm... I suppose that raises the question of why people who are 18-21 are not protected by the 14th Amendment... That's an interesting point. A very interesting one indeed, and it makes the 14th Amendment argument a much weaker one. Indeed, it implies that the entirety of the 2nd Amendment right to arms could be eliminated from those under 21... Even so, just how little of a right has to be left before one decides that there's enough of an infringement to warrant striking the law? As we've seen in other cases, the judiciary has decided that the right to arms is so weak that if anyone can exercise the right in any way, then what's at issue isn't a "total ban" and therefore the infringing law stands...
The 18 - 20 age cohort is, in some respects, still treated as ‘minors’ or ‘juveniles;’ if not officially designated such, the practical effects, including limitations on their rights, are undeniably similar. Limitations on the fundamental rights of minors/juveniles is a conundrum or a ‘puzzle’ or a ‘contradiction’ which was recognized and highlighted in a concurrence opinion Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)

Quote:
Although I agree with much of what is said in the Court's opinion, and with its judgment in this case, I cannot share the Court's uncritical assumption that, school discipline aside, the First Amendment rights of children are coextensive with those of adults. Indeed, I had thought the Court decided otherwise just last Term in Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U. S. 629. I continue to hold the view I expressed in that case:

"[A] State may permissibly determine that, at least in some precisely delineated areas, a child -- like someone in a captive audience -- is not possessed of that full capacity for individual choice which is the presupposition of First Amendment guarantees." Id. at 649-650 (concurring in result). Cf. Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U. S. 158.
In practical effect, the same can be claimed for 18 - 20 year old individuals; i.e., that in some delineated areas (which I don't need to list), their rights are not coextensive with those who are 21 and older. Whatever the rationale in each delineated area, there is a clear schism, based, in part, on somewhat inconsistent definitions of 'adulthood,' which, as mentioned, leads to apparent contradictions. One example of such a 'contradiction' is highlighted by the ATF's own answer to the question...

Quote:
May an individual between the ages of 18 and 21 years of age acquire a handgun from an unlicensed individual who is also a resident of that same State?

An individual between 18 and 21 years of age may acquire a handgun from an unlicensed individual who resides in the same State, provided the person acquiring the handgun is not otherwise prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A Federal firearms licensee may not, however, sell or deliver a firearm other than a shotgun or rifle to a person the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe is under 21 years of age.

There may be State or local laws or regulations that govern this type of transaction. Contact the office of your State Attorney General for information on any such requirements.
If they may acquire an handgun from an unlicensed individual, then why not a licensed one? Simply because there is a statute or regulation? Or, is it due to the power not being relegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution (or not being interpreted as such) and, thus, we face myriad State or Local laws/regulations governing this type of transaction?

That is precisely where we are at with the Florida Law, the restrictions in Hawaii and Illinois, the lawsuits in Oregon and Michigan, etc. We are, currently, at the mercy of State and Local laws/regulations. While there may be an amendment dealing with that age cohort's right to vote, that doesn't mean they derive relief on all their other rights from that amendment.

In 2015, David Kopel had an interesting piece, entitled Handgun bans for persons under 21: A hidden problem in Everytown’s ‘universal background checks’. Note the following observation...

Quote:
The federal Gun Control Act of 1968 forbids a gun store from transferring a handgun to a person who is under 21, or a long gun to a person under 18. This means that in most states, a 20-year-old can buy or borrow a handgun privately, or receive one as a gift, but she cannot purchase a handgun from a retailer. The federal statute was upheld in National Rifle Association of America Inc. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, 700 F.3d 185 (5th Cir. 2012). You can criticize the law on policy or constitutional grounds, but at least Congress knew exactly what it was doing when it enacted the statute.
You can view a .pdf copy of the GCA here.

Quote:
"(b) It shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to sell or deliver—

"(1) any firearm or ammunition to any individual who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe is less than eighteen years of age, and, if the firearm, or ammunition is other than a shotgun or rifle, or ammunition for a shotgun or rifle, to any individual who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe is less than twenty-one years of age.
Thus, in the GCA, Congress carved out a clearly delineated area where the rights of the 18 - 20 crowd are differentiated from both the younger and the older cohorts. While you might oppose such a delineated area on policy or Constitutional grounds, that doesn't change the fact that it exists and, as the DOJ states: The GCA, as amended over the years, continues to be the primary vehicle for the federal regulation of firearms. What you are now seeing is the same/similar arguments which led to that delineation playing out in terms of long guns. In the 1960's, the Kennedy/King assassinations were blamed. In the modern era, it's 'mass/school shootings.'

To that end, the DOJ also declares in that piece: Through their independent efforts and in collaboration with the federal government, state and local governments play a crucial role in the effort to reduce firearms crimes and accidents. Some state laws place more stringent controls on the use and possession of firearms than federal law.

Which brings us back to the seeming 'contradictions' and the point that's been repeatedly made. While it may (or may not) be legal under Federal law/regulation, it may (or may not) be so under State or Local laws. That brings us back to the issue you expressed...

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown
Even so, just how little of a right has to be left before one decides that there's enough of an infringement to warrant striking the law?
That's the question being asked, not only in relation to the 18 - 20 cohort, but for all of us on a variety of issues. It's also the question I invoked in noting National Rifle Association of America Inc. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (2012). Will the 'test' or standards used by the 5th Circuit remain the same in the 11th Circuit or have the boundaries been sufficiently altered to create a different standard or set of standards?
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 03-14-2018, 7:51 AM
Jimi Jah's Avatar
Jimi Jah Jimi Jah is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: North San Diego County
Posts: 12,516
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

This will stand. Youngin's don't have the same age discrimination rights as the old. Rental car companies regularly prevent 18 year olds from renting a car even if they have a perfect record and a valid driver's license.

The arguments will be it's not a permanent ban, they will "grow out of it".
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 05-03-2018, 9:47 AM
mit31 mit31 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 184
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Until they raise the legal age to 25. Or 30.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimi Jah View Post
This will stand. Youngin's don't have the same age discrimination rights as the old. Rental car companies regularly prevent 18 year olds from renting a car even if they have a perfect record and a valid driver's license.

The arguments will be it's not a permanent ban, they will "grow out of it".
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 05-14-2018, 8:19 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 578
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I have mixed feelings on the ruling that came out today in relation, I assume, to this suit...

NRA plaintiff can't keep name secret in gun lawsuit, judge rules

Quote:
Expressing sympathy for her plight, a federal judge nevertheless turned down a request by the National Rifle Association to keep the identity of a 19-year-old Alachua County woman secret in a challenge to a state law that raised from 18 to 21 the minimum age to purchase rifles and other long guns.

Lawyers for the NRA late last month asked U.S. District Judge Mark Walker to keep the identity of “Jane Doe” secret, based in large part on a declaration filed by the gun-rights group’s Florida lobbyist Marion Hammer, who detailed threatening emails she had received featuring derogatory words for parts of the female anatomy...

But the judge said he was hamstrung by previous court decisions, which forced him to deny the request to keep secret the identities of Jane Doe and John Doe, a 19-year-old man who is also a part of the case.

Walker gave the NRA until May 21 to file an amended complaint, without the pseudonyms...

The debate over the pseudonyms came in a lawsuit filed on March 9 by the NRA, just hours after Gov. Rick Scott signed into law a sweeping school-safety measure that included new gun-related restrictions. The legislation was a rapid response to the Feb. 14 shooting at Parkland’s Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School...

In late April, the NRA filed a motion to add “Jane Doe” as a plaintiff to the lawsuit, which contends the age restriction in the new law “violates the fundamental rights of thousands of responsible, law-abiding adult Florida citizens and is thus invalid under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.”

The NRA asked Walker to allow the woman to remain anonymous due to fear that public exposure could result in “harassment, intimidation, and potentially even physical violence.”

But, representing the state, lawyers for Attorney General Pam Bondi argued the request for anonymity “does not provide a sufficient basis for overcoming the strong presumption in favor of open judicial proceedings.”

Suggesting that the courts have not kept up with the times, a reluctant Walker agreed...
I'm sympathetic to the idea that revealing the names would put a target on the backs of these people, unleashing the anti-civil rights network on these individuals.

By the same token, it's perceptually difficult to claim that 18 - 21 year old's are 'adults' for the purposes of buying guns, but then claim that 19-year old's should be 'protected' due, in part, to their age.

Does anyone else suspect this is gonna get nasty?

Worst of all, at least in some respects, these are Republicans defending anti-gun legislation that Republicans passed.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 7:52 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.