This case was in Texas, so not directly relevant, but in CA I could not purchase a handgun from anyone if I was under 21. But yes, let’s assume this is a total ban for the 18 year old to purchase a handgun.
It’s the same way the dissent to the en banc denial got to their conclusion. The en banc petition lost 7-6. We know that banning handguns for everyone is unconstitutional. Any total ban on handguns is unconstitutional. This is a total ban on handguns for people in this age group. Therefore, unconstitutional.
The position that the 2nd doesn’t apply to those ages 18-20 (5th circuit) and therefore the ban is permissible is consistent with Heller. That is, if you remove those in that age group from the protections of the 2nd, while I disagree with the result, the result follows from that analysis.
Your position however, is difficult to reconcile with Heller. Because the 2nd explicitly protects handguns through Heller, you can’t ban handguns for those that enjoy the protections of the 2nd. Any such ban wouldn’t pass any level of scrutiny, per Heller.
I assumed (not stated of course) that the age of Heller was also litigated in my hypothetical. So, make that assumption, and that SCOTUS granted cert. Would you approve of the result going the other way because he was 20?
I think there is a difference between total ban full stop, and total ban for a small subset of people (and we can justify that ban in light of important state interests).
I don’t think that’s what Heller said. They didn’t say that ANY ban on handguns was impermissible, they said a “total ban” or “complete prohibition” is impermissible.
The court would address the age issue first to determine standing on the second issue. I suspect the court would have upheld the age restriction and told Gura to go find a different plaintiff for the second issue.
Like I said, I think intermediate scrutiny is the most likely outcome and I think that implies that restrictions and regulations are permissible.
This is a key point of disagreement between us then.
As above, I construe the ban on 18 year olds a total ban.
So my earlier prediction was correct - you would approve of that ruling going the other way if Heller were 20 years old. Or am I misinterpreting? Perhaps you think it would go the other way but you do not approve?
No one has argued otherwise. I don’t take a position on this (levels of scrutiny) - it’s not relevant to the question at hand. It seems to me the operative questions are (1) whether the 2nd applies to 18-20 year olds, and (2) whether restricting them from purchasing handguns constitutes a total ban on handguns.
I honestly have no idea how you construe the restriction on 18 year olds to purchase handguns to not be a total ban for those people with respect to handguns, but I understand your position. It just makes no sense to me. It didn’t to the 5th circuit who dissented on the en banc denial, and it wasn’t consistent with the 5th circuit ruling. For me the answer to both questions above is yes and therefore the result is proscribed clearly. You see it differently. I’m fine with that, I think we explored this issue enough.
I agree, I thought we stipulated that this was a total ban on handguns for people 18 to 20. Like I said, they didn’t say that ANY ban on handguns was impermissible, they said a “total ban” or “complete prohibition” is impermissible.
I agree that you’ve defined the issue but I disagree that your conclusion is as obvious as you’re saying.
Consider the hypothetical: would you say that five year olds have the right to purchase and carry firearms? I’m assuming the answer is no in which case you’re acknowledging that there is an age limit out there. So the issue is where to place it.
And if an age limit is legal, then I still maintain that twenty-one is a reasonable one. I don’t see anything in the Constitution which would support the idea that a citizen has to receive full Constitutional rights at eighteen. You could argue that the Twenty-Sixth Amendment implies this but I’d counter-argue by saying that the fact that an amendment specifically guarantees one right implies that other rights are not guaranteed unless they have similar amendments.
How do you reconcile that with the fact that soldiers/policemen, others who have to carry weapons in the line of duty, are unable to carry/own one outside of work?
Five year olds are children. 18 year olds are adults. There is a bright line distinction. Yes it is arbitrary but it is the law. I feel the same way about restrictions on drinking. If you are an adult, you are an adult, no halfsies, IMO of course.
Keep in mind that the right to arms is not granted by the constitution, it is a pre-existing right. The history of how the right was codified (example mentioned above in the militia act of 1792) recognized that right in all adults.
Look - if you were to argue that the age of majority should be 21 I don’t know that I’d disagree. But if you are to say that 21 is reasonable, what is meaningfully different than the next person who says 22 is reasonable? Can you find a limiting principal that works to prohibit 21 year olds but allows 22 year olds? By using the actual age of majority there is a limiting principal and it allows the law to be consistent.