In 2022, Justice Clarence Thomas introduced a new test to assess the constitutionality of laws meant to address gun violence. Such laws must be struck down, he wrote, unless they are “consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

Last month, Chief Judge Albert Diaz of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., writing for six judges, said that approach had created “a labyrinth for lower courts, including our own, with only the one-dimensional history-and-tradition test as a compass.”

--snrps--

“Several major Second Amendment issues have been fracturing lower courts that may soon elicit Supreme Court review,” he said. Among them: laws barring felons, drug users and young people from having firearms; measures establishing gun-free zones; and bans of high-powered rifles.

--snrps--

“The deep historical analysis required by the Supreme Court provides the missing link,” she added, “but the lack of an apparent logical connection among the sensitive places is hard to explain in ordinary terms.”

--snrps--

“The Supreme Court has only just begun to articulate rules and principles to implement the right to keep and bear arms, and just like with other rights, that’s going to take time,” said Joseph Blocher, a law professor at Duke. “It’s clear that the lower courts are struggling to apply this new historical-analogical test. Some judges are explicitly begging for guidance, and the justices are either going to have to provide that itself or give the lower courts room to do it themselves.”

“The Second Amendment’s plain text does not have an age limit,” Judge William Benton wrote, noting that the 26th Amendment, adopted in 1971, gave 18-year-olds the right to vote and “unambiguously places 18- to 20-year-olds within the national political community.”

highdesert wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2024 1:03 pm If an 18 year old isn't mature enough to own a gun or buy alcohol, then they shouldn't be able to vote, serve in the military, enter into binding contracts, marry without parental permission...

Eris wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2024 1:46 pm

highdesert wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2024 1:03 pm If an 18 year old isn't mature enough to own a gun or buy alcohol, then they shouldn't be able to vote, serve in the military, enter into binding contracts, marry without parental permission...

I disagree with the idea that rights are an all or nothing idea. Being old enough to serve in the military where you are under the supervision of more mature people does not imply that you are mature enough to own all kind of weapons.

But this is an old argument, so that's all I'll say on it.

highdesert wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2024 2:42 pm

Eris wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2024 1:46 pm

highdesert wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2024 1:03 pm If an 18 year old isn't mature enough to own a gun or buy alcohol, then they shouldn't be able to vote, serve in the military, enter into binding contracts, marry without parental permission...

I disagree with the idea that rights are an all or nothing idea. Being old enough to serve in the military where you are under the supervision of more mature people does not imply that you are mature enough to own all kind of weapons.

But this is an old argument, so that's all I'll say on it.

I'm fine with 21 for voting, marriage, guns, contracts, alcohol...just be consistent. Anyone serving in the military has much higher odds of dying than the average American, because of the job they do. That's all I'll say.

highdesert wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2024 2:42 pm

Eris wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2024 1:46 pm

highdesert wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2024 1:03 pm If an 18 year old isn't mature enough to own a gun or buy alcohol, then they shouldn't be able to vote, serve in the military, enter into binding contracts, marry without parental permission...

I disagree with the idea that rights are an all or nothing idea. Being old enough to serve in the military where you are under the supervision of more mature people does not imply that you are mature enough to own all kind of weapons.

But this is an old argument, so that's all I'll say on it.

I'm fine with 21 for voting, marriage, guns, contracts, alcohol...just be consistent. Anyone serving in the military has much higher odds of dying than the average American, because of the job they do. That's all I'll say.

CDFingers wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2024 2:51 pm

highdesert wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2024 2:42 pm

Eris wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2024 1:46 pm

highdesert wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2024 1:03 pm If an 18 year old isn't mature enough to own a gun or buy alcohol, then they shouldn't be able to vote, serve in the military, enter into binding contracts, marry without parental permission...

I disagree with the idea that rights are an all or nothing idea. Being old enough to serve in the military where you are under the supervision of more mature people does not imply that you are mature enough to own all kind of weapons.

But this is an old argument, so that's all I'll say on it.

I'm fine with 21 for voting, marriage, guns, contracts, alcohol...just be consistent. Anyone serving in the military has much higher odds of dying than the average American, because of the job they do. That's all I'll say.

This exchange is a good example of the chaos that is sewn when we devolve basic rights to the states. I agree that these rights should be consistent throughout the country. "States' rights" people will be upset, but then, the very idea of slavery upsets me, and I'm glad for the 13th Amendment.

CDF

highdesert wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2024 1:03 pm Liptak is the legal correspondent for the NY Times. I think the problem is that the Bruen decision conflicts with a lot of judges personal beliefs on firearms, they complain about Bruen being unclear because they don't want to apply it. Federal courts have law clerks who can do research and judges can have the lawyers who are representing both sides brief on topics. And they have the Bruen and Rahimi decisions.

“The Second Amendment’s plain text does not have an age limit,” Judge William Benton wrote, noting that the 26th Amendment, adopted in 1971, gave 18-year-olds the right to vote and “unambiguously places 18- to 20-year-olds within the national political community.”

If an 18 year old isn't mature enough to own a gun or buy alcohol, then they shouldn't be able to vote, serve in the military, enter into binding contracts, marry without parental permission...