Conservative Court of Appeals supports Federal gun infringement

[JollyRoger]

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals covers the liberal states of Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. This case demonstrates how weak the reasoning was in the Supreme Court gun cases in regards to robust 2nd Amendment rights.

Here is a summmary of the case:

The instant appeal concerned the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. Sections 922(b)(1) and (c)(1), and attendant regulations, which prohibited federally licensed firearms dealers from selling handguns to persons under the age of 21. The appellants, the 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 the appellees, several federal government agencies, challenging the constitutionality of the laws. The essence of their challenge was that the laws violated 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. The district court rejected their constitutional claims and granted summary judgment for the appellees. The Fifth Circuit observed that because Congress intended scheme reasonably fits its objective, the ban at bar survived “intermediate” scrutiny. The court therefore held that the challenged federal laws were constitutional under the Second Amendment. The United States Supreme Court's opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) did not cast doubt on them. The court also rejected the appellants’ contention that the ban violated the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment. As the challenged laws were reasonably adapted to an important state interest, the laws were rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Thus, the appellants had failed to show that Congress irrationally imposed age qualifications on commercial arms sales. Accordingly, the district court's judgment was affirmed.

Here is a link to the entire opinion:

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/11/11-10959-CV0.wpd.pdf

What the summary leaves out is the court's analysis on whether the prohibition fits into a longstanding tradition of gun regulation. The court cites pre-Constitution safety regulations, but only finds age bans beginning in the 19th century. Nevertheless, the Federal ban was upheld.

 

[GhostWriter16]

It hardly matters if there's a "Robust tradition." All gun control is still unconstitutional, and worse, it is evil.

 

[JohnRM]

I am not going to get overly dramatic like Ghost, but I generally agree. If we've decided that 18 is the age of majority then how could it possibly be constitutional to deny an adult the right to bear arms? It shouldn't matter that we're talking about handguns. There is no rationality behind this law.

 

[dutchfire]

Old enough to fight in Vietnam/Iraq/Afghanistan, but not old enough to have a gun?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Old enough to fight in Vietnam/Iraq/Afghanistan, but not old enough to have a gun?

Your parents have give you a gun. You just can't buy one and I also believe this ban is only relevant to the states mentioned, not all of them. Many states also allow minors under 21 to buy rifles and shotguns, but not concealable pistols or other weapons until 21.

It hardly matters if there's a "Robust tradition." All gun control is still unconstitutional, and worse, it is evil.

Not according to the most conservative and originalist supreme court in decades. You got anything to back up your statement or are we back to mind-reading dead people?

 

[Formaldehyde]

It is very interesting, and highly hypocritical, that some red states consider young adults to be too immature to have the same basic constitutional rights as everybody else. It really shows that many think the Second Amendment means something entirely different than what they typically claim it does.

Even depriving young adults the right to consume alcohol is also just as hypocritical. If you are old enough to join the military and be legally responsible, you are old enough to have all rights and privileges in a free and open society.

 

[Crezth]

I am not going to get overly dramatic like Ghost, but I generally agree. If we've decided that 18 is the age of majority then how could it possibly be constitutional to deny an adult the right to bear arms? It shouldn't matter that we're talking about handguns. There is no rationality behind this law.

How could it possibly be constitutional to deny an adult the right to murder people?

 

[JohnRM]

How could it possibly be constitutional to deny an adult the right to murder people?

Ignored.

 

[Crezth]

Well, as long as you never have to double-check your own statements or think about them, have at it.

You're being unreasonable in your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Not only was it not even contrived for the purposes of unimpeachable rights to gun ownership in the first place, but it's terribly irrational. We're comfortable with denying adults rights that are constitutionally assured all the time: felons, after all, cannot vote.

Add on to this the stubborn petulance of your post in the first place and it is quite the statement.

 

[Agent327]

What the summary leaves out is the court's analysis on whether the prohibition fits into a longstanding tradition of gun regulation. The court cites pre-Constitution safety regulations, but only finds age bans beginning in the 19th century. Nevertheless, the Federal ban was upheld.

This has direct bearing on the 2nd Amendment. Perhaps we should have a look at it:

There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with slight capitalization and punctuation differences, found in the official documents surrounding the adoption of the Bill of Rights.[5] One version was passed by the Congress,[6] while another is found in the copies distributed to the States[7] and then ratified by them.

As passed by the Congress:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[8]

As you can see this paragraph clearly relates that the right of the people (not individual citizens then) to keep and bear arms, and also gives the reason: a well regulated Militia, followed by the clarification that such a militia is necessary to the security of a free State.

You will note that no mention is made of any individuals running round carrying handweapons.

 

[JollyRoger]

That's all well and good, but was pretty much done away with by Heller. The point I am making is that Heller did not do much to establish an individual right since most infringements will be able to stand and the courts will use the language of Justice Scalia's opinion in Heller as justifiation.

 

[GhostWriter16]

It is very interesting, and highly hypocritical, that some red states consider young adults to be too immature to have the same basic constitutional rights as everybody else. It really shows that many think the Second Amendment means something entirely different than what they typically claim it does.

Even depriving young adults the right to consume alcohol is also just as hypocritical. If you are old enough to join the military and be legally responsible, you are old enough to have all rights and privileges in a free and open society.

I agree. They should be allowed to do that as well.

 

[Berzerker]

seems to me the issue of guns was left to the states and the 2nd amendment explains why, the law would ban sales to people old enough to serve should the state need them. If their states have deemed them "of age", the Feds have no business getting in the way

 

[GhostWriter16]

Actually no. The states (Or the people, I guess the courts decide, but either way its not under Federal jurisdiction) get to decide in cases where the constitution isn't clear.

On guns, however, it says the right "Shall not be infringed." Thus, neither the Federal government or the states have any jurisdiction over it, or rather, they shouldn't.

 

[Chimera Kitty]

Ghost is correct and the Court is incorrect. It's not really a matter of reading the minds of dead people so much as reading everything that they wrote down.

You can spew all the crap you want about whether or not the law is "reasonably adapted to an important state interest" or "rationally related to a legitimate state interest", or make hyperboles involving a "right to murder people", or try to fabricate a distinction between "the people" and "the militia", but SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED means SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

 

[Agent327]

You are msireading: the whole sentence starts with a Militia (well-regulated, so not a spontaneous one); what follows is a clarification of its rights and necessity. And "the people", in legal terms, means again the State. That it shall not be infringed refers back to the whole prior sentence, not a part of it.

Actually no. The states (Or the people, I guess the courts decide, but either way its not under Federal jurisdiction) get to decide in cases where the constitution isn't clear.

On guns, however, it says the right "Shall not be infringed." Thus, neither the Federal government or the states have any jurisdiction over it, or rather, they shouldn't.

You can't take a part of a sentence as a right in itself: it is clearly referring to a militia to defend the state and nothing is mentioned of any individual's right "to keep and bear arms"; in fact, it is clearly stated that the purpose of armament is the defend the State (not the individual). Nothing ambiguous in there.

The practice of individuals bearing and keeping arms isn't even addressed in the 2nd. Which is hardly surprising, as it wasn't an issue at the time. Consequently any reference to the 2nd Amendment to justify an individual's right to keep and bear arms is nonsensical.

It seems to me that an established practice is the sole "legal" ground here; so Custom, not Constitution.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

You will note that no mention is made of any individuals running round carrying handweapons.

Or AK's, high capacity magazines, automatic pistols, cannons, heavy machine guns or hand grenades.
___________________________
Hahahaha well regulated is right there in the most holy of the commandments Dommy. Are you finally going to concede that states do have the right to regulate firearms as related to them through Jeffersonjesus in the good parchment?

 

[Berzerker]

You are msireading: the whole sentence starts with a Militia (well-regulated, so not a spontaneous one); what follows is a clarification of its rights and necessity. And "the people", in legal terms, means again the State. That it shall not be infringed refers back to the whole prior sentence, not a part of it.

You can't take a part of a sentence as a right in itself: it is clearly referring to a militia to defend the state and nothing is mentioned of any individual's right "to keep and bear arms"; in fact, it is clearly stated that the purpose of armament is the defend the State (not the individual). Nothing ambiguous in there.

The practice of individuals bearing and keeping arms isn't even addressed in the 2nd. Which is hardly surprising, as it wasn't an issue at the time. Consequently any reference to the 2nd Amendment to justify an individual's right to keep and bear arms is nonsensical.

It seems to me that an established practice is the sole "legal" ground here; so Custom, not Constitution.

Custom preceded the Constitution and that certainly "informed" the Framers, but this law violates every aspect of the 2nd Amendment - it bans sales to people old enough to serve the state. How does that not infringe upon the states and their security and the right of the people?

Therein lies the problem for me, rights belong to people, not states... It just aint logical to argue the only right mentioned in the 2nd Amendment which belongs to the people is actually a state's "right" to have militias - and then based on that, argue the Feds can ban sales to "the people" who may serve in those militias.

 

[galdre]

It seems to me that if you can join the military and vote at 18 you should be able to own a gun at 18.

 

[Evie]

Seems to me that someone who can't be trusted with something as simple as drinking shouldn't be trusted with implements specifically designed to kill.