19-year-olds not part of "We the People."

[George K]

https://jonathanturley.org/2023/05/12/federal-judge-strikes-down-federal-age-limit-on-gun-purchases/

---

U.S. Senior District Judge Robert Payne has delivered another blow to the Administration’s effort to limit gun rights. In a 65-page decision, Judge Payne ruled that the Second Amendment protects people 18-20 who were barred under the regulations from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Federal licensed dealers were previously told that they could not sell to buyers below the age of 21. The case is Fraser v. BATFE, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82432(Eastern District, Va. May 10, 2023).

The Biden Administration argued that 18-20 years old are not part of “the people” protected under the Second Amendment. It argued that the “age of majority” was 21 at the founding and that the Framers did not intend to protect the rights of citizens below the age of 21 for the purposes of gun purchases.

It is an argument with sweeping implications. If the Second Amendment does not protect those under 21, what about other rights like those under the First Amendment?

Moreover, when age was a key exclusion, the Framers would state so, including the right to hold office.

Historically, guns have been part of American culture with many introduced to hunting at young ages. Moreover, historical sites note that “the average age of soldiers who served in the Continental Army was 18 to 20 years old, some as young as 14.” Some child soldiers like Daniel Granger were only 13 and presumably could buy the weapons that they used against the British.

While acknowledging that the word “purchase” does not appear in the Second Amendment, Judge Payne noted:

“Commonsense and logic tell us that, unless one is a maker of guns, the right to “keep”/have a gun necessarily means that one must purchase it, steal it, be given it by another, or find one that another has lost. That, of course, includes a handgun which was the subject “arms” in Heller. 554 U.S. at 628. Thus, given its ordinary, commonsense, and logical meaning the right to “keep arms” (the right to “have”) of necessity includes the right, inter alia, to purchase arms. That then puts an end to the textual inquiry with the conclusion that the conduct at issue is protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment.”

This issue is already creating a split among the courts. While there are no direct appellate rulings on the issue, the Fifth, Seventh, and Eleventh circuits have discussed the question....District courts have split on the issue.

The Biden Administration is pushing a series of collateral limits on gun possessions and purchases into the appellate courts. The age limit cases are now becoming ripe for review by the Supreme Court, which is likely to approach the Administration’s sweeping argument on “the age of majority” for the Second Amendment with skepticism.

---

Interesting. Most states have a lower-age limit on the purchase and use of alcohol. However, that's not a constitutionally-defined right. Neither is driving a car.

[Doctor Phibes]

So five year olds should be allowed to carry guns unless the Constitution specifically disallows it?

Presumably, the Constitution doesn't mention the seriously mentally ill, either.

[George K]

@Doctor-Phibes said in 19-year-olds not part of "We the People.":

So five year olds should be allowed to carry guns vote unless the Constitution specifically disallows it?

Well?

[Jolly]

The key?

A well regulated militia...

[Doctor Phibes]

@George-K said in 19-year-olds not part of "We the People.":

@Doctor-Phibes said in 19-year-olds not part of "We the People.":

So five year olds should be allowed to carry guns vote unless the Constitution specifically disallows it?

Well?

I'm not the one saying that 18 years old's should be allowed to carry guns since they're specifically excluded by the constitution, so I'm not really the person you should be asking.

[George K]

@Doctor-Phibes said in 19-year-olds not part of "We the People.":

I'm not the one saying that 18 years old's should be allowed to carry guns

Nor am I.

However, we allow them to vote.

As you will discover, the "maturity switch" doesn't get flipped at age 21. In some cases it never does.

If I were king, neither would occur until age 25.

But the law is the law - at least make it consistent.

[Doctor Phibes]

@George-K said in 19-year-olds not part of "We the People.":

@Doctor-Phibes said in 19-year-olds not part of "We the People.":

I'm not the one saying that 18 years old's should be allowed to carry guns

Nor am I.

However, we allow them to vote.

As you will discover, the "maturity switch" doesn't get flipped at age 21. In some cases it never does.

If I were king, neither would occur until age 25.

But the law is the law - at least make it consistent.

Right, we allow them to drive (and breed) at 16, die for their country at 18, but they can't buy a beer until they're 21. Maybe that's a reflection of what we think is important

[Renauda]

@Doctor-Phibes

Apparently all states in the US adhere to the federal drinking age standard set at 21. Seems to me it should be decided by each state individually and the feds should just butt out of setting any drinking age standard. If a person is old enough to vote, wear a military uniform or face the music in a court of law as an adult, they are damn well old enough to legally by a flat of beer or have a shot or two of whiskey in a bar.

Seems to me this is one of those areas in the American federalist model where subsidiarity comes up short.

[George K]

@Renauda said in 19-year-olds not part of "We the People.":

Seems to me it should be decided by each state individually and the feds should just butt out of setting any drinking age standard. If a person is old enough to vote, wear a military uniform or face the music in a court of law as an adult, they are damn well old enough to legally by a flat of beer or have a shot or two of whiskey in a bar.

Agreed. At age 17, when I spent 6 weeks in Austria, I was told that "If you're old enough to put your money on the bar, you're old enough to have a beer."

It wasn't that long ago that individual states did have differing drinking ages. It used to be common for kids in the Chicago area to hike the 50 miles to the Wisconsin border for an evening of drinking. I may be wrong, but I think when our uncle in DC decided to mandate the 21 year age limit, he tied it to federal funding of highways - "Nice interstate you got there, it would be a shame...."

But, to your larger point, you're right. If you're old enough to...

ETA: Also, it wasn't all that long ago (10 years?) that a minor (<21) could consume alcohol in a restaurant if in the company of their parent. D2 had more than one glass of wine while with me up north of the Cheddar Curtain.

[Renauda]

@George-K

I may be wrong, but I think when our uncle in DC decided to mandate the 21 year age limit, he tied it to federal funding of highways - "Nice interstate you got there, it would be a shame...."

If that’s the case, I should think the time has come for a revisit. I am sure an policy has had little to no effect on curtailing drinking and driving on interstate highways.

No pun intended but I suspect too the policy is the result of a lingering hangover from the days of prohibition.

[George K]

@Renauda

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._history_of_alcohol_minimum_purchase_age_by_state

---

From 1976 to 1983, several states voluntarily raised their purchase ages to 19 (or, less commonly, 20 or 21), in part to combat drunk driving fatalities.[citation needed] In 1984, Congress passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, which required states to raise their ages for purchase and public possession to 21 by October 1986 or lose 10% of their federal highway funds. By mid-1988, all 50 states and the District of Columbia had raised their purchase ages to 21

[Doctor Phibes]

It doesn't appear that the legal drinking age makes much difference, it's probably more the culture and what is socially acceptable.

My own completely unscientific research based on talking to people is that driving after a few drinks is more commonplace in Canada and the US than it is in the UK. Possibly because of indoctrination, but also possibly because it's typically a lot easier to walk home or catch a bus from the pub in Britain.

[Renauda]

@Doctor-Phibes

Regardless of the stiff federal Criminal Code penalties and additional Provincial penalties which in some provinces, can include impoundment and seizure of motor vehicles and of driving license for life, impaired driving seems to have become a national sport in this country.

[Jolly]

@Doctor-Phibes said in 19-year-olds not part of "We the People.":

It doesn't appear that the legal drinking age makes much difference, it's probably more the culture and what is socially acceptable.

My own completely unscientific research based on talking to people is that driving after a few drinks is more commonplace in Canada and the US than it is in the UK. Possibly because of indoctrination, but also possibly because it's typically a lot easier to walk home or catch a bus from the pub in Britain.

Take Louisiana out of that and you could drop the U.S. average by 10%.

[Doctor Phibes]

@Jolly said in 19-year-olds not part of "We the People.":

Take Louisiana out of that and you could drop the U.S. average by 10%.

I can't speak for our French-American brethren down there, but I'd honestly never met so many people who didn't give a shit about driving drunk before I came to Mass. They genuinely don't seem to believe that 4-5 beers has any adverse effects on their driving. And let's be brutally honest, here, the average Massachusetts motorist isn't exactly starting in a very good place even when sober.

[Jolly]

Coonasses don't measure beer by cans, they measure by how many cases they drank.