Posted on 07/17/2024 12:23:33 PM PDT by Twotone
A federal appeals court upheld a ruling striking down a Minnesota law restricting public handgun permits from those under the age of 21.
The U.S. Appeals Court for the 8th Circuit panel of three judges ruled 3-0 in favor of the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus and other pro-gun groups. They found that the law, the Minnesota Citizens’ Personal Protection Act of 2003, barring 18 to 20 year olds from obtaining the permits, violated the 2nd and 14th amendments.
“Minnesota has not met its burden to proffer sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that 18 to 20-year-olds seeking to carry handguns in public for self-defense are protected by the right to keep and bear arms. The Carry Ban violates the Second Amendment as applied to Minnesota through the Fourteenth Amendment, and, thus, is unconstitutional,” Judge Duane Benton wrote in the court’s Tuesday opinion.
The judgment upheld a prior ruling by the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, which relied on the 2022 Supreme Court majority opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen.
“Politicians should carefully consider the legal ramifications of infringing on Second Amendment rights, ” Rob Doar, senior vice president and political director of the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, said in a statement. “The Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus and its allies will relentlessly pursue legal action against any unconstitutional measures introduced in Minnesota.”
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison said he was “extremely disappointed” with the decision.
“The people of Minnesota want and deserve solutions that reduce shootings and improve public safety, and today’s ruling only makes that more difficult. Despite this setback, I remain as committed as ever to improving public safety in Minnesota by championing and defending lifesaving, common-sense gun violence prevention measures,” Ellison said in a statement, per the Star Tribune.
An appeal of the Tuesday ruling would have to be taken up by the Supreme Court.
Enumerated rights are for all adult American citizens.
Enumerated rights are for all American citizens.
is there an age requirement in the constitution?
I doubt it.
Wrong again. The Second Amendment as all of the first ten amendments are aimed strictly at the feds and nowhere else as the 9th and 10th Amendments clarify.
This ruling is unconstitutional. The States have constitutional sovereignty to do what the people of that state wish. It is up to the STATE Supreme Court to rule on whether that state law violates that state’s constitution. Most likely it does.
It’s called DECENTRALIZED GOVERNANCE (= REPUBILICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT) and FREEDOM!!
Agreed. But a thought experiment: Where did we get the arbitrary age of adulthood as 18? Anywhere in the Constitution?
I'd almost be in favor of this law if we can make adulthood effective when you're 21. That means no alcohol, no VOTING, no sex (extramarital, anyway), no military service, etc. until you're an adult: 21.
It really seems that the founders had a much older age in mind to be considered an adult. Representative only at 25 yoa as an example.
Duane Benton, Lavenski Smith and David Stras re-affirm the decision of Katherine Menendez.
https://saf.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Worth-Opinion.pdf
When I was a teen, there was never a question about my shooting a rifle and such.
I even won a shooting contest (got a plaque), while a Freshman in high school, using an unfamiliar gun with unfamiliar ammo. The contest was not affiliated with school, however.
If you can vote, you should be able to carry gun, drive vehicle and have a drink.
All enumerative rights should be available to any citizen who can vote.
I think the 14th Amendment took care of that...
So you believe a state can allow a Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law, as long as they haven’t explicitly said it was not lawful?
I believe the feds have no constitutional power over the states regarding the first ten amendments.
However, almost every State Constitution has the same wording in their Constitution as the first Ten Amendments in the U.S. Constitution so the state act in question would be decided at the State Supreme Court.
sorta, between the 14th amendment and scotus they have been applied to the states.
The so-called “incorporation doctrine” incorporating the 14th Amendment into the first ten amendments, as Judge Bork said, has been tried and found wanting.
The so-called “incorporation doctrine” incorporating the 14th Amendment into the first ten amendments, as Judge Bork said, has been tried and found wanting.
Why would the Feds have power over the other Amendments, then?
Come on, slavery is legal, unless each state says otherwise.
No, the first 8 Amendments are strictly pointed at the feds as verified by the 9th and 10th Amendments and the history of Madison’s purpose in writing the first 10 amendments to satisfy the anti-federalists in ratifying the U.S. Constitution.
Of course the Civil War Reconstruction Amendments including the 14th Amendment give the feds LIMITED power over the states - basically prohibiting slavery and state segregation laws.
It may have been found wanting, but I would want all of the first 9 to be applicable within the states. Not just a federal issue.
Nice, so if a state wants to have slavery they can too?
I do know the that legal the age of majority - adulthood - is 18.
So many ramifications. You are tried as an adult. Can serve on a jury. Can he drafted. Can sign any contract and be held to it.
How we arrived at that I don’t know. But it is the standard.
We don’t have an enumerated right to drink alcohol or smoke. So states have been successful in raising the age to 21 there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.