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 12-01-2023, 3:33 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 44,356
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default WVA Fed Dist Ct: Brown v BATFE: Fed ban on under-21 sales is unconstitutional

https://t.co/02J9DLPbdi

Quote:
Considering this analysis, the Court concludes 18-to-20-year-
old law abiding citizens are part of ?the people? who the Second
Amendment protects. Plaintiffs themselves and the activity which
federal law and regulation currently prevent them from undertaking
are covered under the Second Amendment?s umbrella of
constitutional freedoms. Thus, the burden shifts to Defendants
who must demonstrate the challenged statutes are constitutionally
permissible under Bruen.
Quote:
The core issue the Court must answer under Bruen remains
whether our Nation?s history and tradition contains ?analogous?
restrictions on the ability of 18-to-20-year-olds to purchase
firearms. Bruen, 145 S. Ct. at 2133. Defendants have not
presented any evidence of age-based restrictions on the purchase
or sale of firearms from before or at the Founding or during the
Early Republic. Defendants have likewise failed to offer evidence
of similar regulation between then and 1791 or in a relevant
timeframe thereafter. For that reason alone, Defendants have
failed to meet the burden imposed by Bruen.
Quote:
In summary, because Plaintiffs? conduct ? the purchase of
handguns ? ?fall[s] [within] the Second Amendment?s ?unqualified
command?? and the challenged statutes and regulations are not
?consistent with the Nation?s historic tradition of firearm
regulation,? the Court FINDS 18 U.S.C. ?? 922(b)(1) and (c)(1)
facially unconstitutional and as applied to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs
having demonstrated there is no genuine dispute of material fact
and that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law, their
Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 28] is GRANTED. For the same
reasons, 11 Defendants? Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 24] is DENIED.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-01-2023, 7:36 PM
WithinReason WithinReason is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 683
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Awesome!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-02-2023, 12:02 AM
gobler's Avatar
gobler gobler is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SGV near Azusa
Posts: 3,332
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

It would appear that this strikes down, Nationwide prohibition on 18 - 20 year olds from perches of handguns. Several attorneys have already taken this stance..

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk
__________________
Quote:
200 bullets at a time......
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-5/198981/life01.jpg

Subscribe to my YouTube channel ---->http://www.youtube.com/user/2A4USA
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-02-2023, 2:00 AM
AlmostHeaven AlmostHeaven is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2023
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,132
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Lightbulb

Does this decision mean 18-20 year old Americans can start buying handguns from FFLs, or did the ruling get stayed?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-02-2023, 10:43 AM
CrazyCobraManTim's Avatar
CrazyCobraManTim CrazyCobraManTim is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: oh....Dorothy - you are not in Kansas anymore
Posts: 952
iTrader: 36 / 100%
Default

No - it just looks like the Motion to Dismiss is denied.

But as Librarian highlighted above - the court found it facially unconstitutional (WWE Smack down).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-02-2023, 2:00 PM
AlmostHeaven AlmostHeaven is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2023
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,132
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Question

The federal district court found the law facially unconstitutional, but the statute remains in effect, and 18-20 year-old Americans still cannot transfer handguns from dealers?

Last edited by AlmostHeaven; 12-03-2023 at 2:00 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-03-2023, 6:14 AM
GetMeCoffee's Avatar
GetMeCoffee GetMeCoffee is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 409
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyCobraManTim View Post
No - it just looks like the Motion to Dismiss is denied.

But as Librarian highlighted above - the court found it facially unconstitutional (WWE Smack down).
Additionally, the Plaintiff's Motion for summary Judgement was GRANTED, and the order further states:

Quote:
Defendants are ENJOINED from enforcing 18 U.S.C. ?? 922(b)(1) and (c)(1) against Plaintiffs and otherwise-qualified 18-to-20-year-olds.
The way I read that, the BATF cannot enforce that code nationwide. Perhaps some other agency (state level?) can. I'm not sure if BATF has an exclusive on enforcing that code. Also, some states may have their own statute which they would be able to enforce and would take a separate lawsuit.
__________________

NRA Patriot Life Member, Benefactor
CRPA: Life Member
FPC: Member

It's 2025. Mickey Mouse is in the public domain and Goofy has left the White House.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-03-2023, 2:00 PM
AlmostHeaven AlmostHeaven is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2023
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,132
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Thumbs up

I eagerly await the first reports of 18-20 year-old Americans exercising their Second Amendment rights in conservative states that lack separate age restrictions. Back in my youth, I possessed the money and desire to purchase handguns but had to wait until I turned 21. I acquired my first pistol the very week I gained the legal ability. At the time, I already owned multiple rifles, so the public safety argument made no sense whatsoever.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-04-2023, 10:02 AM
Dan_Eastvale's Avatar
Dan_Eastvale Dan_Eastvale is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 7,265
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Should an 18 year old be able to run for president?

It's a public office.

What about drinking? Are they saying younger people lack life's experience based common sense?

Some things age restricted for whatever reason they come up with.

Last edited by Dan_Eastvale; 12-04-2023 at 10:04 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-04-2023, 10:15 AM
SpudmanWP SpudmanWP is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,101
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

One is in the Constitution and the other is not.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-12-2023, 2:34 PM
Sputnik's Avatar
Sputnik Sputnik is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: East Bay
Posts: 1,956
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

And yet the 9th just decided (Jones v Bonta)that it is okay to restrict sales to 18-20 year olds.

Last edited by Sputnik; 12-12-2023 at 2:42 PM.. Reason: Adding citation
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-12-2023, 5:00 PM
AlmostHeaven AlmostHeaven is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2023
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,132
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Lightbulb

Circuit splits ultimately help the procedural posture of Second Amendment litigation in the ultimate pursuit of Supreme Court review.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-12-2023, 5:13 PM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Kootenai County Idaho (Hayden)
Posts: 4,608
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlmostHeaven View Post
Circuit splits ultimately help the procedural posture of Second Amendment litigation in the ultimate pursuit of Supreme Court review.
Yep.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-12-2023, 6:32 PM
Sputnik's Avatar
Sputnik Sputnik is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: East Bay
Posts: 1,956
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Indeed. It looks like another issue that should hit the Supreme Courts door step as soon as Jones is finalized in the 9th.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-12-2023, 7:00 PM
AlmostHeaven AlmostHeaven is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2023
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,132
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Exclamation

The gun rights movement desperately needs circuit splits on the issues of assault weapons bans and high-capacity magazine bans, but every single state with such legislation exists within a United States Court of Appeals circuit dominated by Democratic-appointed judges.

I thought the Seventh Circuit might produce the desired split, but the First, Second, Fourth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals all appear poised to uphold gun control laws.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-12-2023, 8:01 PM
XDJYo XDJYo is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: NorCal-East Bay
Posts: 5,924
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

So, another nothing burger? Just wait 2 weeks???
__________________
Les Baer 1911: Premier II w/1.5" Guarantee, Blued, No FCS, Combat Rear, F/O Front, Checkered MSH & SA Professional Double Diamond Grips
Springfield Armory XD-45 4" Service Model
Springfield Armory XD9 4" Service Model (wifes).
M&P 15 (Mine)
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 8:10 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy