California files brief with 9th Circ. in defense of ban on those 18-20 from purchasing firearms

1
Jones v. Bonta

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/f ... _Brief.pdf
As demonstrated in Defendants-Appellees’ Supplemental Brief,
California Penal Code section 27510’s limited age-based restrictions on the
sale or transfer of firearms through federally licensed firearms dealers to
individuals under the age of 21 are consistent with the text of the Second
Amendment, as it was originally understood at the time of ratification.
Founding-era sources confirm that such individuals were considered infants
without the full panoply of rights at the time, and consistent with that reality,
jurisdictions have long restricted firearms access for individuals under the
age of 21.
Further, Plaintiffs’ argument still confuses duties with rights. See
Defs.’ Supp. Br. at 9-10. The fact that the first Militia Act included persons
below the age of 21 in the organized militia—and imposed an actual duty to
keep and bear arms in militia service—does not dictate that those individuals
had a corresponding right to keep and bear arms, much less to purchase them
rather than procuring them through their parents or guardians. See Young v.
Hawaii, 992 F.3d 765, 819 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc) (noting that a “right to
carry . . . firearms” and a “duty to carry” are “quite different”). It follows
that potential service of members of the “unorganized” militia in the
“organized” militia—and any corresponding militia-related duties—does not
translate into a freestanding right of those under 21, who were generally
understood to live under the authority of their parents, to keep and bear
arms.
Nothing in Heller, then, supports the conclusion that the phrase “the
people” in the Second Amendment was originally understood to include “all
Americans” under 21. See United States v. Huitron-Guizar, 678 F.3d 1164,
1168 (10th Cir. 2012) (collecting cases and declining to decide whether noncitizens are categorically excluded from the Second Amendment right
“because the question in Heller was the amendment’s raison d’être—does it
protect an individual or collective right?”—not who exactly was among “the
people”); Note, The Meaning(s) of “The People” in the Constitution, 126
Harv. L. Rev. 1078, 1079, 1086-87 (2013). But the historical record
demonstrates that the founding generation would have regarded those under
21 as infants who did not have an individual right to keep and bear arms.
Response:
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/f ... _Brief.pdf


Jones, et al. v. California Att'y General Xavier Becerra, et al. (18-20 age-based ban)
All adults not otherwise prohibited from having firearms have the same rights as others. Age-based discrimination in this context is unconstitutional and morally wrong. These adults could be called to fight and die for their country, but the State of California had prevented them from accessing the full scope of constitutional rights entitled to them under natural law and the Constitution.

Individuals 18 years and older are considered adults for almost all purposes. For example, at 18 years old, U.S. citizens can (i) vote, (ii) fully exercise their freedom of speech, (iii) receive the full protections under the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments, (iv) enter into contracts, and (v) serve in the United States military. Indeed, male citizens over 18 years of age are designated members of the militia pursuant to federal statute, 10 U.S.C. § 246(a), and may be selected and inducted for training and service into the United States armed forces, 50 U.S.C. § 3803(a). As such, they are eligible to serve in the military, and to die for their country.

In addition, the “militia of the State” consists of both the organized and unorganized militia. Specifically, the State’s organized militia encompasses the National Guard, State Military Reserve and the Naval Militia. (Cal. Military and Veterans Code Section 120.)

Re: California files brief with 9th Circ. in defense of ban on those 18-20 from purchasing firearms

3
Yup, part of that convoluted thinking about 18 year old's. Legally they are an adult at 18, they can sign contracts, they can vote, they can serve on juries, they can serve in the military and be drafted, they are tried as an adult if they commit a crime...but they can't drink or purchase a firearm until they are 21. They are lesser adults, not full adults until they hit 21. A bit like how the 2nd Amendment is considered a lesser amendment by the anti-gun crowd.

Rob Bonta the new CA AG could be even more anti-gun than Xavier Becerra.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: California files brief with 9th Circ. in defense of ban on those 18-20 from purchasing firearms

4
In sentiment, the state may be correct (having been an 18-21 year old myself at one point). However, rights can't just be willynilly denied based on sentiment (looking at you, may issue!). The entirety of the law says 18 year olds are adults and there is no constitutional right to drink that I'm aware of (21st repealed the 18th, but didn't codify a right to drinkin', just selling and transporting wasn't illegal, again). So, if the state thinks adulthood has historically started at 21, they have a whole shit load of laws they need to be changing first.

Edited to add, 26th Amendment: "The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age." Seems California would need to start with repealing the 26h to go this course.

Re: California files brief with 9th Circ. in defense of ban on those 18-20 from purchasing firearms

6
18 and up seems to be pretty much enshrined into the constitution. Reference the militia clause with 18 year olds. It might just be that recognizing some adults will misbehave would be simpler. Set the logical age for all, logically the age of 18. Accepting that there will be those who abuse a right, the people should simply enforce the laws when a crime is committed. The majority of younger adults will be mindful some will not. Punishing the majority for the ill judgment of a few doesn’t seem practical. It just leads to a cycle of prohibition laws that do not address the reasons. I don’t like inconsistency. If we choose that the constitution framers were wrong, fix it, fix it all consistently. If not fix all to conform with the premise 18 year olds are adults.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: California files brief with 9th Circ. in defense of ban on those 18-20 from purchasing firearms

9
highdesert wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 10:19 am The common drinking age in Europe is 18 years old. I don't think European 18 year olds are any different than American 18 year olds, it's just our puritanical attitudes towards alcohol.
https://www.tripsavvy.com/legal-drinkin ... es-3149735
It’s the “if it only saves one life (child)” mentality. It excuses making exemptions.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests