Federal ban on handgun sales to 18- to 20-year-olds ruled unconstitutional

2A Victory: Judge​ Rules Federal Ban on Handgun Sales to 18- to 20-Year-Olds Unconstitutional

A federal judge on Friday delivered ⁤a major ⁣blow ‌to​ the Biden administration’s attempt to prohibit⁤ adults between the⁣ ages of 18 and 20 from purchasing handguns. Judge Thomas Kleeh, an ⁢appointee of former⁢ President Donald Trump ‍and Chief Judge of the United States District Court‍ for⁤ the Northern District of West Virginia, ruled in favor of Steven Robert‌ Brown and Benjamin Weekley, ​who‌ were affected by the ban. This ruling ‌marks a significant victory for Second Amendment rights, particularly​ for young adults.

The ruling stated that the purchase of handguns ⁤by the plaintiffs falls within ⁢the “unqualified command” of⁢ the⁣ Second Amendment and that the challenged statutes and regulations are not‌ consistent​ with the nation’s historic ⁣tradition of ‍firearm regulation. The judge deemed​ the ban on Brown and Weekley from buying handguns as facially unconstitutional and as applied to the plaintiffs.

This decision heavily ‌relied on the precedent⁢ set‌ by the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court‌ ruling in New York State ‌Rifle and Pistol⁣ Association Inc. vs. Bruen, which established that any gun control law must‍ have its roots in the historical tradition of‍ firearms regulation.

Under this standard, the government must demonstrate that the regulation aligns with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then⁢ can a court​ conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”

The judge dismissed ⁢the federal government’s argument that the parents of the plaintiffs could purchase guns for them to use, emphasizing that this workaround does not address the plaintiffs’ injury. Kleeh highlighted that the deprivation of a constitutional right is an injury in itself, regardless of the existence of a lawful alternative.

According to Kleeh, Americans have the right to ⁢possess guns unless the government can prove otherwise, which it failed to do in this case. The burden falls on the ⁢government to justify any challenged regulation, and in​ this instance, the government did not present evidence of age-based restrictions on firearm purchase or sale before or ‌during the Founding or in subsequent relevant timeframes.

Adam Kraut, executive⁢ director of the Second Amendment Foundation, expressed⁣ his​ satisfaction with the ruling, stating that it ⁢is a significant ‍victory for Second Amendment rights, particularly for young adults. He criticized the Biden Justice Department’s argument‌ that individuals in ⁤this age group were not adults, calling it ludicrous and highlighting the government’s failure⁢ to defend the constitutionality of the‌ handgun prohibition.

The foundation’s founder and Executive Vice President, Alan M. Gottlieb, emphasized that there​ was never any historical⁣ evidence supporting ​the arbitrary ban ⁢on handgun purchase and ownership by young adults. He pointed out that‍ historically, individuals in this age group were considered mature enough to serve in the militia, the military, and⁣ take on other responsibilities.

This‌ article was originally published on ‌ The Western Journal.

What inconsistencies ‌did the court highlight regarding 18- to 20-year-olds’ responsibilities and their ability to‍ purchase handguns for self-defense?

H historical practices ‍and does not impose⁢ an undue burden on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.

In the‌ case of the federal ban on handgun sales to 18- ‌to 20-year-olds, Judge Kleeh found ⁣that these individuals have historically been recognized as⁣ adults‌ with full constitutional rights⁢ and responsibilities. As such, they⁤ should not be deprived of⁢ their ⁤Second Amendment rights ​without a⁤ compelling justification.

Furthermore, ​the court highlighted ‍the fact that 18-‌ to 20-year-olds are already ‌trusted with numerous​ other ‌adult responsibilities, including voting, ‌serving in the military, and even ⁣potentially facing the death penalty. Restricting their ability to purchase handguns, which⁤ are commonly used for self-defense purposes, seemed inconsistent with the level of ‍trust placed upon this age group‍ in other areas of society.

While the Biden administration argued that the ban was necessary to reduce gun violence and ⁤protect public safety, the court found no evidence to support these claims. In fact, Judge⁤ Kleeh pointed out that the ban would disproportionately affect law-abiding citizens and hinder their ability to protect themselves⁤ and their families in potentially dangerous situations.

This ruling has significant implications for not only the Biden administration’s⁤ gun control agenda but‌ also for the broader interpretation of the Second‌ Amendment. It reaffirms the importance of individual​ rights and challenges the notion that the government can restrict access to firearms without a compelling reason.

However, it is ‍important ⁤to note ⁣that Judge Kleeh’s ruling only applies to⁢ the specific federal ban ​on handgun sales ‌to ​18- to 20-year-olds. It does not invalidate other age restrictions or ⁣regulations on ‌firearm purchases. Each case⁣ will be evaluated on its own merits, taking into account the historical ⁤tradition‍ of firearms regulation and the⁣ impact‍ on Second Amendment rights.

Nevertheless, this ruling ⁣serves as a significant victory for Second Amendment advocates and sets⁤ a ‍precedent ⁢for future cases ⁤involving age restrictions on firearms. ​It highlights⁣ the⁣ importance of upholding ‌the ‍rights of all citizens, regardless of age, and ‌the⁢ need ‍for any government regulations to be⁣ rooted in historical tradition and‌ supported by compelling justifications.

As the⁣ legal battle over gun control continues, this ruling provides a glimmer of hope for​ those who believe in the fundamental right to bear arms and advocates for a balanced approach‍ that prioritizes both public safety and individual liberties.

It remains to​ be seen how ⁣the Biden ⁣administration ‌will ‍respond to this ruling and whether they will ⁣challenge it in ​higher courts. In the meantime, the victory‍ for Steven Robert‌ Brown ⁤and Benjamin Weekley is a testament to the importance of the judicial system in safeguarding our constitutional rights and ensuring that government actions ‌are within the bounds ​of the law.

Overall, this ruling represents a significant step⁢ forward for Second Amendment ⁣rights,​ as it recognizes ‌the⁢ rights of young adults to ⁤bear arms and challenges the constitutionality of restricting their access to handguns. ⁤It sets a precedent for future cases and reiterates the importance of historical practices and ‍compelling justifications in gun ‍control‌ regulations. The decision serves as a victory for individual liberties and reinforces the ⁤balance between public safety and personal freedom.