A federal judge struck down the Biden administration’s attempt to ban adults aged 18 to 20 from buying handguns, ruling in favor of two individuals who were affected by the ban.
The judge’s decision emphasized the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command” and the need for gun control laws to align with historical traditions of firearm regulation.
The judge rejected the government’s argument and emphasized that the burden falls on the government to justify any challenged regulation. (Trending: Olympic Gold Medalist Sentenced For Jan 6)
“To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest,” Judge Thomas Kleeh stated.
“The government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historic tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s ‘unqualified command.’”
“Defendants generally miss the point and Plaintiffs’ injury is clear.”
“Plaintiffs do not dispute that 18-to-20-year-olds who are law-abiding adults and not otherwise banned from firearm possession are not prohibited from possessing handguns.”
“Brown and Weekley’s injury prompting the filing of this suit is that they cannot purchase handguns and handgun ammunition from FFLs as a result of the age-based ban,” the judge wrote.
“Defendants’ specific arguments are likewise unavailing. First, the suggestion Plaintiffs suffer no injury because a parent or guardian can simply purchase the gun and give it to an 18- to 20-year-old overly minimizes Plaintiffs’ plight,” he added.
“Deprivation of a constitutional right is a deprivation and, necessarily, an injury in fact, no matter if an ‘easy’ and lawful work-around exists. Moreover, the Supreme Court of the United States previously rejected the Government’s reasoning in a different context.”
“If the normal and ordinary meaning of the Second Amendment’s text protects the individual’s proposed course of conduct, which the Court finds to be the case here, then the Amendment ‘presumptively guarantees’ the individual’s right related to firearms, and the burden falls on the Government to justify the challenged regulation. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2135.”
“The Government bears the burden to show that the law is ‘consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,’” he wrote.
“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,” Kleeh wrote.
“This is a huge victory for Second Amendment rights, especially for young adults,” said Adam Kraut, executive director of the Second Amendment Foundation.
“The Biden Justice Department argued that people in this age group were not adults, which was patently ludicrous. The government simply could not defend the constitutionality of the handgun prohibition, and Judge Kleeh’s ruling makes that clear,” he added.
This ruling was seen as a significant victory for Second Amendment rights, particularly for young adults, with the judge’s decision being praised by Second Amendment advocates.
Most Popular:
Walmart Joins ‘Woke’ Companies and Angers Conservatives
WWE Legend Sentenced To 17 Years In Prison
Biden Impeachment Vote Coming To House Floor
