Second Amendment

Barely Legal Teens Can Legally Buy Guns, Appeals Court Says

Fourth Circuit overturns laws barring licensed gun dealers from selling handguns to 18–20-year-olds.

|

The constitutional right to bear arms enshrined in the Second Amendment should apply to those between the ages of 18–20, declared the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit today in Hirschfeld v. Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Tanner Hirschfeld and Natalia Marshall challenged the constitutionality of federal laws that ban federally licensed firearm dealers from selling handguns and handgun ammunition to 18–20 year olds. Those federal restrictions have been on the books since 1968.

Hirschfeld is now over 21 but Marshall is not. She felt she had convincing reasons to be able to legally buy a gun from a licensed dealer, including an active protective order against an abusive ex who had himself been arrested for unlawful possession of a gun. Her job as a horse trainer also has her often in faraway rural areas dealing with strangers. She wants, and thinks she should be able to easily and legally get from a licensed dealer, a handgun for her protection.

The three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit, in a 2-1 decision written by Judge Julius N. Richardson, saw no particular reason why that age group of adults should lack the same Second Amendment rights possessed by those aged 21 and over. "Our nation's most cherished constitutional rights vest no later than 18," the ruling said. "And the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms is no different." Individuals over the age of 18 "enjoy almost every other constitutional right, and they were required at the time of the Founding to serve in the militia and furnish their own weapons."

The lower court that first heard the case did not think the laws should fall under the Second Amendment, leading to this appeal. As the 4th Circuit explained, the lower court

held that the laws were facially valid because they "are among the 'longstanding prohibitions' and 'conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms,' which the Supreme Court in Heller did not 'cast doubt' on." ….

The court also found that the laws fell outside the scope of the Second Amendment because similar regulations were historically common among the states….In the alternative, the court relied on the legislative record and some of the amici's evidence to find that the laws passed intermediate scrutiny.

The 4th Circuit disagreed, holding that the burden of being unable to buy from a licensed dealer struck at the core of Marshall's Second Amendment rights. "Other options are not always readily available to many individuals," the 4th Circuit observed. "Not all young adults have friends or family members who are able or willing to gift them a gun. And secondary markets are not always available to everyone or easy to navigate safely." Meanwhile, "licensed dealers come with assurances of quality, safety, legality, and more. These laws push young law-abiding adults to a less safe, less regulated market to defend themselves."

District of Columbia v. Heller, the 2008 Supreme Court decision that established modern Second Amendment jurisprudence, did mention certain "longstanding" gun laws that should not be presumed to be overturned by that case's narrow decision about the right to armed self-defense in the home with commonly owned weapons. Richardson's decision for the 4th Circuit argued that such language in Heller should not be read to create "a freestanding category of laws exempt from Second Amendment scrutiny based solely on how long similar laws have existed."

According to Richardson, the text of the Constitution itself shows "the Founders considered age and knew how to set age requirements but placed no such restrictions on rights, including those protected by the Second Amendment." Furthermore, "Every militia law near the time of ratification required 18-year-olds to be part of the militia and bring their own arms."

"At the time of ratification, there were no laws restricting minors' possession or purchase of firearms," Richardson's ruling continued. "Most laws affecting minors post-date the Civil War, and the only two states to pass such laws before the Civil War did so immediately before the war." In short, the Second Amendment applies to those 18 and up.

The federal government defended the gun control measures in part by citing the supposed increased dangers of gun violence from those in the impacted age groups. But Richardson did not find those arguments persuasive. "A showing of disproportionate bad conduct by a group cannot justify categorical restrictions on rights when the percentage of the group engaged in the unwanted conduct is minuscule," the judge wrote. And "the evidence does not sufficiently link purchases from licensed dealers to crimes committed by youth."

"Around 0.3% and definitely less than 1%, of the 13 million young adults in this group" are known to commit violent crimes, the decision noted. What is more, the notion that most 18–20-year-old criminals bought their guns from licensed dealers is simply unproven.

Notably, the 4th Circuit today reached the opposite conclusion reached by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which did not recognize Second Amendment rights for 18-20 year olds in National Rifle Association v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (2012).

Judge James A. Wynn was the one dissenting vote in today's 4th Circuit ruling. He argued that the Second Amendment is decidedly different from other constitutional rights because "it is singularly capable of causing harm. As other courts have recognized, while there are dangers inherent in other constitutionally protected rights—like the rights to speak and assemble—the Second Amendment alone protects a direct and lethal right to endanger oneself and others."

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit is in the process of considering a case, Jones v. Bonta, on the same issue as applied to California law. Similar Minnesota laws affecting the gun rights of 18–20 year olds are also currently under legal challenge.

The federal government will likely ask a full panel of 4th Circuit judges to rehear today's case. If that does not happen, or if the full 4th Circuit hears the case and also rules against the federal gun laws, then the "circuit split" between the 4th and 5th Circuits on this issue may catch the attention of the Supreme Court, which recently agreed to hear another Second Amendment case, about the right to carry guns in public, after avoiding gun rights cases for years.

NEXT: A Federal Judge Considering Sanctions Against Pro-Trump Lawyers Says They Made 'Fantastical' Election Fraud Claims Without Even 'Minimal Vetting'

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. No. I didn’t RFA yet, but WTF is this “Barely legal” shit?

    1. Titillating

      1. Fantastic work-from-home opportunity for everyone… Work for three to eight a day and start getting paid inds the range of 17,000-19,000 dollars a month… Weekly payments Learn More details Good luck…

        See……….FAST CASH1 COM

      2. I thought it was a humorous twist of phrase, myself. And actually makes a fairly relevant point about how these are people we consider adult enough to have sex on film for money, and vote, but not purchase the tools to defend their lives. Or drink or even smoke, anymore.

        1. The legal notion of “child” is rather contingent; drinking, having sex with someone two years older, and of course anything to do with a gun, CHILD! But voting, serving in the military, and changing your gender, ADULT!

          Depends on what the narrative is.

          1. Thank “Bubba” and his: “It all depends on what the meaning of “Is” is”.

          2. And don’t forget that some of the same clowns that think that “children” younger than 21 shouldn’t be allowed to buy guns want to lower the voting age to 16.

    2. The coalescence of teen porn with second amendment rights. I’m thinking Molly Bennett with a Glock.

      1. How about “Nuns with Guns”?

        1. Fantastic work-from-home opportunity for everyone… Work for three to eight a day and start getting paid in the range of 7,000-14,000 dollars a month… Weekly payments Learn More details Good luck…

          See….. Visit Here

        2. Best music poster ever. Thank you rage.

          1. Start making money this time… Spend more time with your family & relatives by doing jobs that only require you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $65000 to $70000 a month. I’ve started this job and earn a handsome income and now I am exchanging it with you, so you can do it too.
            You can check it out here…—–> READ MORE

        3. In today’s gender milieu, even “Nun Chucks” may be appropriate.

      2. Barely legal? You mean an actual legal adult? Is “barely legal gun owner” what constitutes as porn for hack journalists or something?

        1. Is “barely legal gun owner” what constitutes as porn for hack journalists or something?

          Is this your first day on the internet?

          1. LOL! Maybe that girl he met on the corner said that was her status.

    3. Shit is correct. The sniggering headline creates a mocking implication that a certain class of adults (ones old enough to marry, vote and serve in military) are a bunch of easily exploited teenagers who shouldn’t be considered mature enough to exercise a constitutional rights.

      1. Hey, if you worked with Reason staff you’d probably think that way too.

      2. Shit is correct. The sniggering headline creates a mocking implication…

        The article gets much worse than that:

        “She felt she had convincing reasons to be able to legally buy a gun from a licensed dealer, including an active protective order against an abusive ex who had himself been arrested for unlawful possession of a gun. Her job as a horse trainer also has her often in faraway rural areas dealing with strangers.”

        Guess what? No one needs “convincing reasons” to own a handgun, although that’s certainly a requirement that this article somewhat implies. And a lot of Democrat controlled shitholes (NYC, Chicago, etc) do more than somewhat imply it. They make it a requirement, that few who are not politically connected can meet.

        When will it sink in that, now more than ever, the 2A must be strongly defended, especially in a Libertarian publication? What the fuck is the source of confusion?

        1. Par for the course for Reason. Always ceding the ground then quibbling over the details.

        2. ‘Because I want to’ is sufficient justification for legally owning a firearm.

        3. Keerist. From the article:
          Tanner Hirschfeld and Natalia Marshall challenged the constitutionality of federal laws that ban federally licensed firearm dealers from selling handguns and handgun ammunition to 18–20 year olds. Those federal restrictions have been on the books since 1968.

          That’s 50 fucking years and counting. NRA, GOA, etc didn’t file an amicus brief in this case. They have never said shit re this issue as far as I can recall. But hey – even if they don’t really give a shit about gun rights beyond old white R’s, they can sure GOTV (and sell guns via panic). Fucking DeRpty DeRpty DeRp.

          1. But hey – even if they don’t really give a shit about gun rights beyond old white R’s

            You should look up “Otis McDonald”, the plaintiff in McDonald v. City of Chicago, for which amicus briefs were filed by the GOA et al.

        4. There are lots of good reasons to criticize Reason these days, but they are consistently quite good on guns. The things you are complaining about are not their opinions, but a description of the arguments actually made in the case. If “because the second amendment, fuck you!” worked in court, we wouldn’t be talking about this now.

          1. Some people just love to complain I find. Lot of bitter losers in the comments section.

      3. Unless the deliberate purpose here was to suck Slate and MoJones readers into reading an article that presents facts they would otherwise shun like holy water, somebody at Reason needs to get shot by a barely-legal teen.

    4. One would think there was an editor involved somewhere in the process of choosing a headline, one with just a modicum of cultural savoir faire when it came to the use of teen and barely legal.

      1. The quest for clicks enters a desperate phase…

      2. Given how their articles are written, I think its cute that you think they have editors.

        1. Everybody working for Reason seems to be an editor, so, they have that going for them. Yes, I admit, I did assume that there might be a person serving in that position, reviewing articles and ledes. It would also not surprise me if this was not the case, web model publishing and such.

      3. ENB?

    5. I just bought a brand new BMW after having made $6375 this past one month and just over 12k last 4 week. This is the best and most financially rewarding job I’ve ever had. I actually started this few Weeks ago and almost immediately started to bring home minimum 74BUCKS p/h… Read More

      1. GTC better have been 21…..

    6. Isn’t it sad that reasons best work comes from its contract/contributor writers, while it’s editors write terrible shit like this.

      And do you think they’ve yet realized the comments are more popular than the articles?

    7. They may be barely legal, but they are legal. That’s the point.

  2. Children this age should be allowed to own guns!

    16 year olds should be allowed to vote!

    /Prog.

    1. Children this age SHOULDN’T be allowed to own guns!

      Sheesh.

      1. But it’s okay to let them drive a tank? Either they are adults or they are not. There is nothing in the Constitution referencing ‘almost adults’ or ‘adults, second class.’ If we can draft them, make them pay taxes, and let them vote then they are adults and entitled to all the rights any other adult has.

      2. 18 year old ‘Children’
        No ‘sheesh; to it effhead
        You reveal that you will define a word favorably to your narrative.
        That’s horseshit and not just you. but everyone else here knows it.

    2. It’s all very simple…

      Children should not be allowed to use drugs, alcohol, or tobacco until they’re 21.

      Young adults should have a say in the direction of our government with the right to vote at 16.

      Misguided, naive teens should not buy firearms until 21.

      Small grown-ups should be able to make the choice to undergo hormone therapy for permanent physiological changes when they’re in grade school.

      Infantile youths should not be expected to have to provide their own health insurance until they’re 27.

      Got all that?

      1. Reminds me of the hokey-pokey.

        1. Sssshhhhh!!!! Ixnay on the okeyhay ohkeypa!

      2. I think we should just pass a law linking all of that.

        If you want your 16 year olds to be allowed to vote (as a state) they have to be allowed to do *everything* else that adults can and are required to do. Get credit cards. Buy alcohol and cigarettes. Register for the draft. Act in porn. Be subject to laws as an adult.

        Adults or not. Pick one.

        1. Narrative dependent; guns bad, uniformed and emotionally charged voters [+D], good. Trans good at any age, but the younger the better.

        2. Ha ha ha! That’s exactly what my generation thought we had achieved when we got the 26th Amendment passed! But as always, our achievement was interpreted into meaninglessness by blackrobes and federal pork bribery.

          Constitutions are worthless. They are written on water.
          Guns are steel. That’s why politicians fear them more.

  3. Now do the part where you cannot use drugs and buy a gun legally. Or otherwise Hunter Biden might be in real trouble with the law.

  4. I was 18 when I was shooting a Barretta in the Army. Why couldn’t I as a civilian?

    1. And by the Militia Act of 1792, each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside

      And the current Selective Service Registration

      That part of the opinion is really a no-brainer. The interesting part imo is eliminating the legal restriction based on statistics (higher involvement of da yoots in crime) rather than individual.

      1. As for da yutes and crime, “Around 0.3% and definitely less than 1%, of the 13 million young adults in this group” are known to commit violent crimes, the decision noted.”

    2. Because you were expected to be a mindless drone who does as he’s told, in the military, under direct supervision.

      Same reason that on base stateside, only MPs are armed.

      I’m not saying it’s not without flaws, but that’s the reasoning. After all, 1/3 of wartime firearm casualties have historically been from “friendly fire”, i.e. teenagers with guns who shot the wrong person.

      1. Can you point me to the study showing a third of casualties are “friendly fire”? That sounds awfully high.

        1. Here’s one source. These are mostly air/artillery attacks – not soldier.

        2. That’s what I expected. Riflemen should identify a target and take aim before firing so hitting your own side should be quite rare, but artillery and bombs are area weapons and cannot be as precise. They are often used to attack enemies that the persons operating the weapons can’t even see, e.g. indirect artillery fire, which makes aiming at the wrong coordinates much more likely. Besides that, there are at least two common situations where a unit that won’t work so close to a bombardment as to risk friendly fire casualties will suffer many more casualties from enemy fire:

          On the offense, it’s been common for over a century to use bombardment to force the enemy to stay down in foxholes, trenches, or dugouts, so they cannot see or fire upon your approaching troops. Otherwise, they can shoot from cover and mow down your men, who have to be moving rather than staying in cover. Your troops need to work as close as possible to the edge of the bombardment before it is lifted or moved back. Any short fall will hit your own men, but that will kill less of them than giving the enemy extra time to stick their heads up and start shooting.

          On the defense, you call in bombardments to decimate the attacking enemy troops. This can be quite effective while they are all far away, but when they get close they cannot be targeted unless you bring the aim point in so close that small variations in the weapon trajectories can hit your own men. OTOH, there have been desperate situations where American commanders called in a bombardment on their own position, hoping that their foxholes would protect most of their men, while the exposed enemy would be destroyed – that’s accepting losses to friendly fire to prevent annihilation of your entire force.

      2. 1/3rd? Please cite the statistics that support this claim! I was in the military for over two decades, fought in a few wars, and have been on the wrong end of friendly fire but, this is the first that I have heard about this.

      3. After all, 1/3 of wartime firearm casualties have historically been from “friendly fire”, i.e. teenagers with guns who shot the wrong person.

        I’m going to have to call bullshit on that one. Even if we accept the figures from JFree’s link, those would…as pointed out…largely be casualties from mistargeted air strikes and artillery barrages, not firearms. Also, note that the average in %s are greatly skewed by the Persian Gulf and Iraq wars, which are a result not of an unusually high number of friendly fire incidents, but of the fact that the enemy was so utterly incapable of inflicting any significant number of casualties on U.S. (and other coalition) forces.

        1. Was about to write the same thing re: Iraq wars. The incompetence of our enemies should not reflect negatively on our armed forces.

      4. Under direct supervision????

        By a 19 year old non-com who is 100 yards away in another foxhole? At night. I don’t think you have a very reasonable understanding of combat conditions.

        Plus the data on friendly fire does not really mean what you think (see other posts in response)

    3. I think you could. You just couldn’t buy one. Which is pretty stupid and arbitrary as well.

  5. Besides, “Barely legal” is tried as an adult; should get the same privilege’s as an adult.

  6. If you can be drafted into the army at 18, but that’s not old enough to own a gun, that’s especially absurd.

    Meanwhile, the Democrats are fighting to take away your right to say things online if they conflict with the CDC or other government agencies, in violation of the First Amendment. And they don’t care whether you’re 16, 18, 35, or 73–they don’t want you to be able to say what you want on social media.

    1. “Further, Big Tech and government agencies are actively coordinating to remove content from the platforms according to the guidance of agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Big Tech and traditional media entities formed the Trusted News Initiative, which essentially takes instructions from the CDC about what information they need to “combat.” The tech companies are doing the government’s bidding, colluding to censor unapproved ideas.

      This coercion and coordination is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has held that Congress can’t use private actors to achieve what the Constitution prohibits it from doing itself. In effect, Big Tech has been illegally deputized as the censorship arm of the U.S. government. This should alarm you no matter your political persuasion. It is unacceptable, unlawful and un-American.”

      —-Donald Trump, July 8, 2021

      “Why I’m Suing Big Tech”

      https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-j-trump-why-im-suing-big-tech-11625761897?

      In your heart, you know Trump is right.

      1. As usual.

      2. “Further, Big Tech and government agencies are actively coordinating to remove content from the platforms according to the guidance of agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”

        This may be one of the most anti-libertarian, anti-first amendment things to happen in our lifetimes (so far), but look at Reason pretend that it isn’t happening.

        “For what does it profit a magazine if they gain brown envelopes but lose their own soul.”

        1. They’re defending it in terms of the platform owner’s property rights and freedom of speech. That will break down at some point. They’re not wrong about property rights and freedom of speech being important. They’re just wrong about those being the issues here.

          1. Property rights are vastly important, but they’re deliberately and purposefully ignoring the government agencies role in this.
            This is a first amendment violation of the greatest magnitude and Reason is wilfully ignoring the fact that the government agencies are donning Big Tech skin suits to perpetrate it.

            1. Property rights are important, but Trump’s feelings are more so, obviously.

              1. If you can’t understand what Trump is saying because he’s the one saying it, then the problem is with the way you think.

                1. First, it’s cute you think Trump wrote this piece himself. Secondly, when someone says as many dumb and incorrect things as Trump does then yes, the normal human response is to assume he’s full of shit until proven otherwise.

                  His argument in the excerpt is certainly not impressive. It’s hardly remarkable that many tech companies defer to the main national government public health agency on what is considered public health disinformation. It’s hardly evidence of ‘collusion’ much less that the CDC is giving any orders. So without the government making these decision you’re left with property owners and business persons associating with who they want or don’t to. That’s liberty.

                  1. “The Supreme Court held in Norwood v. Harrison (1973) that the government “may not induce, encourage, or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.” As Jed Rubenfeld and I argued in these pages in January, that’s what Congress did by passing Section 230(c)(2) of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which permits tech companies to censor constitutionally protected speech and immunizes them from state liability if they do so.”
                    https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-can-win-his-case-against-tech-giants-11626025357?mod=mhp
                    “So without the government making these decision you’re left with property owners and business persons associating with who they want or don’t to. That’s liberty.”
                    The problem with your argument is that when property owners associate with government and censor dissenting points of view they are acting as agents of the state and ” accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.” by government. Whatever that is is sure isn’t liberty.

                    1. It’s ludicrous to argue that in passing 203 the government ‘induced, encouraged or promoted private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden.’ And, again, the evidence supports the view that many tech companies defer to the nation’s highest public health agency on what is disinformation re public health not because the CDC is giving them orders but because, well, they’re the nation’s public health agency! That deference hardly makes them ‘agents’ of the state.

                    2. First it is 230. The other day you stated someone making an argument should be belittled for their typos. So I guess you’re full of shit.

                      Secondly the lost you responded to cited case law. In the roundup thread 2 cases are also cited around government influence including a decision from the 9th circuit.

                      What is ludicrous is arguing the companies 1a speeches are infringed by a 3rd party the willingly gave access to. Not only is the speech covered under the rights of the 3rd party, per 230, they did so in a contractual agreement that would not pass contractual law precedence in any other agency.

                      Short summary. Youre full of shit.

                  2. You may not be aware that the FTC is suing to break up Facebook on antitrust grounds because, among other things, they tolerate “misinformation”. If Facebook (and others) were censoring speech that contradicted the CDC or the NIAID out of fear that the Democratic party would follow through on their threat to break Facebook up if they didn’t, that would be a clear violation of the First Amendment–and a terrible example of Facebook exercising its property rights. After all, the Democratic party and the U.S. government are one in the same thing.

                    Incidentally, the Red Scare was an excellent example of government intimidation and First Amendment violating censorship–against a backdrop of antitrust threats–rather than an excellent example of Hollywood studios exercising their property rights, too.

                    And all of this is true or false regardless of whether it was said by Donald Trump, Joe Biden, or anyone else.

                    1. Businesses often act with an eye towards politics, that hardly makes them agents of the state and violators of any ‘rights.’ And the whole point of property rights is people can do with their property what some other people might think is a ‘horrible’ use.

                    2. “Businesses often act with an eye towards politics, that hardly makes them agents of the state and violators of any ‘rights.’”

                      If you aren’t allowed to contradict the government on Facebook–because Facebook is under threat from the government if they tolerate your speech–then that is a violation of the First Amendment.

                      And your non specific rationalizations don’t change that equation in any way.

                    3. Of course trans Tony ignores the fact of open evidence of these companies offering direct lines to the DNC and to Bidens campaign to censor messages damaging to their campaigns.

                  3. First, it’s cute you think Trump wrote this piece himself.

                    Not as cute as the fact that you not only just identified the statement as representing “Trump’s feelings”, but immediately followed up with:

                    “Secondly, when someone says as many dumb and incorrect things as Trump does then yes, the normal human response is to assume he’s full of shit until proven otherwise.”

                    So…did he say it, or didn’t he?

                    1. Either way, whoever argued against this made an ad hominem argument.

                2. “Queen Amalthea” is fucking stupid or at least emulating it perfectly. Responding to it is a waste of time and effort.

                  1. According to it’s own argument up-thread sources known to be commonly full of crap can simply be ignored. So no need to refute.

              2. “Property rights are important, but not government agencies illegally coordinating to remove content.

                Thanks White Mike. As completely expected of you.

          2. I quoted from a lawyer stating two cases where government collusion would force a limitation on presupposes company rights. In the roundup thread. The same cases Prog Volokh argues with in his round table discussion on common carrier.

      3. Should it be illegal to follow CDC guidance? It’s one thing to say private platforms should not be forced by the CDC to host or ban speech; it’s another to say they should be forbidden from voluntarily following CDC guidance in terms of what speech to allow on their own sites.

    2. Probably that goes for having a kid too, right Ken?

      1. I see all the retards are in the thread too.

        1. Except AmSoc’s “having a kid” means something totally different than when most people say that, and doesn’t necessarily involve a woman.

    1. Don’t forget Tobacco, 401k participation, car rentals… there’s surely more on the list.

    2. Alcohol isn’t explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights.

      1. It is in the amendments.

        1. Actually, the real answer is that the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment (Prohibition). But, in order to get the 21st Amendment passed and ratified, it was drafted to allow the states broader authority to regulate alcohol (intra-state). Thus, unlike the Individual Rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights, the 21st Amendment limits individual rights.

          E.g. Sec. 2 of 21st Amendment reads: “The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.”

      2. Surely there are emanations and penumbras to cover that

  7. BARELY LEGAL GUN PURCHASES!!!

    And with a swing of my hips I loaded the clip
    To tremendous applause I hitched up my drawers
    And as the last empty cartridge fell to the floor
    The police were banging on the door
    Take it away boys!

  8. Great! So who do these wannabe gun slingers want to shoot?

    1. It doesn’t matter.

    2. Any aggressor who threatens their lives, I suppose. Gotta problem with that?

    3. Nobody’s business until they fire. Do you have any idea what vanishingly small percentage of gun discharges involve breaking the law?

    4. People who are attempting to violate their rights to property and life. Next!

  9. “The 21st-century Jim Crow assault is real.”

    We’re facing the most significant test of our democracy since the Civil War—that’s not hyperbole”.

    “The Confederates back then never breached the Capitol, as insurrectionists did on January the 6th.”

    —-Joe Biden, July 13, 2021

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/joe-biden-jim-crow-and-texas-voting-11626215733?

    This is meant to not only oppose the bill in Texas but also justify the passage of H.R. 1.

    The President of the United States is unhinged. The reason he doesn’t submit to a cognitive test is because he’s afraid he’ll fail it.

    1. Or perhaps the test was offered during nap time.

    2. It’s dumb hyperbole, but anyone who supports Trump can’t fault another person for engaging in that. Trump practically soaked in dumb hyperbole! It’s certainly no serious evidence of significant cognitive issues (wasn’t with Trump either btw, the talk of the 25th Amendment stuff back then was just as dumb).

      1. There are plenty of reasons to see that Biden has severe cognitive problems. Go watch a video of him in the 80s and you’ll see immediately how bad he’s gotten. It’s not a secret what happened and why.

        It’s garbage hyperbole because it was written by far left wing hacks. It’s going to fail and hard. The Texas law is getting passed. The federal one is not. Democrats are shitting the bed and not caring, and that means they lose the next two elections and badly.

        1. It’s amazing how many people who hate Biden can plainly see his obvious cognitive issues while no one who doesn’t hate him can.

          What’s going to be fun is if Trump runs in 24, all the people who told us Biden must be demented because of his age last year will have to change their internet handles so Trump’s age then won’t be used to embarrass them as they stump for him.

          1. Trump gave multi hour campaign speeches where half was off the cuff. Biden freezes on 5 minute speeches and is quickly rushed off the podium when not given a teleprompter speech.

            It’s not our fault youre a retarded partisan.

        2. Honestly, he was an idiot in the 1980s as well, but now he’s doddering when not blood-doping or whatever they do to prep DNC greyhairs for public appearances.

          1. It’s probably all the Adenochrome Hitlery CLINTON is feeding him.

            1. You mean the old woman who was collapsing in public and wearing an adult diaper back in 2016?

            2. I will give you, that was funny. Though, honestly, I suspect adenochrome would simply kill Biden. Low-grade methamphetine and ketamine cocktail? Hill-dog looks like a ketamine and wine abuser.

          2. But a reasonably articulate idiot.

      2. It’s propaganda directed at minority voters.
        The “restrictions” proposed are still very generous, far more than in other states and far more than 20 years ago.

      3. I can find fault with Joe Biden trying to intimidate people (like Senator Manchin from West Virginia) with accusations of racism to support a federal takeover of election rules by way of H.R. 1.

        I can also find fault with Joe Biden for being so divisive. Didn’t Biden promise to be a unifier? Biden is about as moderate and unifying as BLM and anti-fa. What a divisive piece of shit he is!

        “I pledge to be a president who seeks not to divide, but to unify. Who doesn’t see red and blue states, but a United States. And who will work with all my heart to win the confidence of the whole people . . . .

        And to those who voted for President Trump, I understand your disappointment tonight. I’ve lost a couple of elections myself. But now, let’s give each other a chance. It’s time to put away the harsh rhetoric. To lower the temperature. To see each other again. To listen to each other again. To make progress, we must stop treating our opponents as our enemy. We are not enemies. We are Americans . . . . This is the time to heal in America.

        —-Joe Biden Victory Speech, November 7, 2020

        https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-religion-technology-race-and-ethnicity-2b961c70bc72c2516046bffd378e95de

        “The 21st-century Jim Crow assault is real.”

        “We’re facing the most significant test of our democracy since the Civil War—that’s not hyperbole”.

        “The Confederates back then never breached the Capitol, as insurrectionists did on January the 6th.”

        —-Joe Biden, July 13, 2021

        (Link above)

        In addition to being a divisive piece of shit, Joe Biden is also a lying piece of shit. Why pretend otherwise?

        1. “The Confederates back then never breached the Capitol, as insurrectionists did on January the 6th.”

          Let in by the security, armed with signs and some nylon ties they found on the way it.
          They were gonna train pigs to fly so they could poop on Pelosi’s head!
          A true danger to the Republic!

        2. Hillary Clinton’s motorcade has the same number of deaths as did “The Insurrection.” And that death was a murder by a government agent. The Civil War had a mere 700,000 deaths.
          New math: 1 =/ 1 > 700,000

        3. no Corn Pop..we are Americans..your side seems to be Bolsheviks in many many ways..enemies of liberty and freedom…”old world” types…the kind great Americans back in the 30’s warned us about.

        4. ‘That’s not hyperbole.’ The first rule for dealing with government officials’ absolute statements: flip them 180 degrees to find the facts. Ditto the same from activists, bureaucratic mouthpieces, union representatives, et cetera. I’m biased, but it’s a rule that generally holds up.

    3. I mean he would know all about Jim Crow seeing as how he supported segregation.

    4. I put on the new for the first time in a while just in time to hear that shit. How is no one calling out this ridiculous hyperbole? Here we are in what is probably the least racist, most integrated society ever and these assholes are acting like it’s the opposite.

    5. Not at all.

      So long as they only use NATIVE cogs, he’s confident of passing.

    6. Sleepy Joe seems unaware that, although Confederates never breached the Capitol, Puerto Rican terrorists did in 1954, and opened fire on the House of Representatives while it was in session. Fortunately, no one was killed, but several were wounded.

  10. It’s a well written opinion, the dissent is more than a bit embarrassing.

  11. Can we replace “barely legal” with “barely documented?”

  12. Barely legal = legal.

    Here’s an example of a headline that doesn’t suck:

    4th Circuit Strikes Down Law Barring Gun Sales to Adults Under 21

    1. Yeah, that’s the point.

  13. Huh. Turns out San Francisco schools are doing a pretty good job of teaching math after all.
    “Amid a crime wave sweeping San Francisco, five Target store locations are reducing operating hours, closing at 6 p.m. instead of the usual 10 p.m., as managers seek to secure merchandise and employee safety, Forbes reported. Organized gangs brazenly steal branded items even with security present, as California raised the threshold for a felony charge from $450 to $950 in stolen goods.
    San Francisco Police Chief William Scott told NBC Nightly News thieves calculate the worth of shoplifted goods to fall below the felony threshold, meaning officers cannot take action for misdemeanor theft and stores must be willing to hire security guards to make a private persons arrest.”
    https://www.foxnews.com/us/crime-sprees-retailers-close-stores-limit-hours-shoplifting

    1. Didn’t Target do enough virtue signaling when they banned sales of the pro-cis teen book?

  14. Doherty is a fucking asshole. 18 is fully legal.

  15. Of course Reason missed this part of the dissent.

    “The majority’s decision to grant the gun lobby a victory in a fight it lost on Capitol Hill more than fifty years ago is not compelled by law,” he wrote. “Nor is it consistent with the proper role of the federal judiciary in our democratic system.”

    Basically he argues legislation enacted by Congress trumps constitutional law, essentially claiming the judges should defer to congress and not the constitution.

    1. Yeah, Judge Wynn is a worthless cunt.

    2. Of course. Democrats disdain constitutional rights. Biden has griped about how it gets in their way from forcing their agenda.

    3. “Basically he argues legislation enacted by Congress trumps constitutional law”

      Isn’t that was “civil rights” law has done now for a half a century?

  16. Now do abortion.

    1. 2nd amendment vs which one? And since the age is 18… youre for restrictions on minors for abortion, yes?

    2. Now make sense, asshole commie.

      1. I think what he was getting at was that abortion results in the deaths of about 650,000 American babies. Per year. An order of magnitude higher than all gun deaths (including gang on gang violence, suicides and justified shootings).

    3. Someone should have done that with you.

    4. You should have been aborted you diseased deformed piece of human crap.

    5. I’m pretty sure the courts would strike down any law that tried to restrict any abortions on women (sorry, I meant to say “pregnant persons”) between ages 18 and 21.

  17. Pretty sure I was 14 when I got the bolt-action .22 for Christmas and went out to see if there were any squirrels dumb enough to get shot by a rank amateur.

    1. I, myself, have never seen a bolt action handgun. That would be a sight.

      1. Is this an aside? I haven’t seen one either, and am an avid bolt action enthusiast. The 22lr, though, is, and I suspect you are well aware, a common first rifle. Also a common pllnking, training, rabbit/squirrel rifle or pistol. Rimfire and toggle action for the win. Biathlon, that is.

      2. Remington XP-100.

        1. NO FAIR using fact to display the ignorance of a hoplophobe.

  18. Barely legal? Do you share laptops with Sullum?

    What an idiotic title. Adults are adults. Rights are rights. Your breakdown of why she should be able to purchase a firearm makes it quite clear you are no libertarian. Of any type. Unless your only reason for being “libertarian” is the hope that one day pedophilia will be legalized. Which is rather far from libertarianism.

    Idiotic. Barely legal is a pornography reference. Period. It’s a sub genre created for folks like you and Jacob. It’s shocking that the editors of Reason passed this garbage. I’d wager not a single one of your morons are actually libertarian. Just libertine. And you’re all terrible at your work.

    1. Jesus, dude, he’s reporting on the arguments made in court, not his personal views on the subject. Why is it so hard to make that distinction?

      1. “She felt she had convincing reasons to be able to legally buy a gun from a licensed dealer, including an active protective order against an abusive ex who had himself been arrested for unlawful possession of a gun. Her job as a horse trainer also has her often in faraway rural areas dealing with strangers. She wants, and thinks she should be able to easily and legally get from a licensed dealer, a handgun for her protection.”

        That is, at best, a paraphrase of information from within the court case. Because I seriously doubt her attorney(s) made any statements or representation about her “feelings”.

        Since it is not a dry recitation of facts, but instead is a characterization, it does indicate the author’s own mindset on the matter.

      2. No, as already provided, his personal views were made known. And expressed through idiotic statements.

        And he references the founders and militia laws but fumbles that. The US code for the militia starts at 17. When Pennsylvania finally made a mandatory militia (just prior to the war) they used 16. That changed to 18 a year or so later. Likely due to motherly influence behind the scenes. Virginia and Massachusetts were 16. Virginia went to 18 after rejoining the Union. So an effort to resist 18 year olds purchasing guns is sufficiently destroyed by US history. 16 should be the disputed age.

        He also ignores current events and changes when bringing up the militia. It was all male. Today women serve in combat arms. Today young women do not simply remain at home until married. They no longer have to. That’s a stronger foundation for killing this idiotic restriction. Over half of the 18-20 year old population are female and can not only serve in the infantry and artillery, etc, they leave home and live unable to purchase the means to protect themselves. Feeling the need or having the want has nothing to do with the right.

        He also stops discussing the case specifics with the weak dissent. And does not attack that easy target. He leaves the case with that opinion as the final word. Unless you are in agreement with that judge, this is questionable journalism for a libertarian. You can’t defend yourself because you’re a murderer or intent on causing others harm?

        But let’s make a pedo porn reference…

  19. Horrible, horrible, click-bait(?) headline!
    Just disgusting.

  20. I believe someone mistakenly used the phrase “barely legal teens” when they meant “all adults”.

  21. This is kinda sorta the best headline ever.

  22. Thanks for sharing this information. If any viewer is from India and want to read Latest Punjabi News then visit our website.

  23. Barely legal? You are of legal are or not. Those teen that are legal can serve in the military, use military arms, and die in foreign countries. The same rights should be given to them at home. The courts decided correctly.

    1. Yes, I’m pretty sure that’s the point of the headline. It’s pretty silly, but I like it.

    2. I’ll drink to that, even if 18-20 year-olds can’t buy any booze.

  24. Barely legal? You are of legal age or you are not.
    Those teen that are of legal age can serve in the military, use military arms, and die in foreign countries. The same rights should be given to them at home. The court decided correctly.

    1. I was an E-5 in the Navy, responsible for six helicopters and the ten men who worked in the shop that I supervised. I was qualified with several weapons and was on a nuclear weapons load team, before I was 21. Yet with all of that I wasn’t considered responsible enough to drink a beer or buy a handgun.

      There used to be a purpose to all of this. It was the Juvenile Justice system, however we are now charging 12 and 13 year olds as adults. I think the time for this is passed.

      1. Yeah, restrictions on what minors can do seem more reasonable when there are restrictions on what the state can do to minors. Seems to me that if someone can be held criminally responsible as an adult, then they should have all the rights and privileges of an adult as well. It’s kind of hilarious to see “charged as an adult with possession of tobacco” in a police log.

  25. Wow, I thought the headline was funny, but from reading the comments humorous references apparently aren’t allowed anymore around here.

    1. Maybe the author could have made his intent clear in the body of the text.

      IMO his presentation of the case as a matter of the plaintiff’s feelings did not help either.

    2. You know it’s libertarian when barely legal teens are involved.

  26. When the dissent in a 2A case begins by citing Giffords propaganda as support for 3 of its assertions that’s a big-ol’ clue that it’s not to be taken seriously.

  27. Well, you are either legal or not.

    Just being legal to buy a gun is no different that being legal to purchase at 55 years of age

  28. Old enough to sit on a jury and decide if someone is guilty and might spend the rest of their life in prison, or even decide on the death penalty.

  29. Check who is <a href="https://www.megastarsbio.com/who-is-nick-ochs/"Nick Ochs? The founder of Proud boy who is accused of White house violation

  30. “Barely Legal Teens…”

    Here I thought this would be a lead-in to a porn site…

  31. The “Interesting” point in this whole discussion is how “Exercised” most commenters seem to be over the concept of “18 Year Olds” being treated differently than those of age 21 and above. Now there’s a movement gaining some steam to allow [don’t you just love it when people decide which of your God given, unalienable rights they’ll “Allow” you to have control over?] sixteen year olds the right to vote – slipping it in incrementally with 17 year olds in local elections first and then … . I have a suggestion, If you’re old enough to vote, then you’re old enough to unrestrictedly join the military, smoke and drink, have sex with whomever you wish, sign legal contracts, have permanent, life altering surgery [some schools do this not only for pregnancy, but “Gender” matters, purchase firearms and ammunition, and et cetera. [Don’t forget, in certain jurisdictions, some of these things are already allowed – Without Any Parents Permission Whatsoever!]

Please to post comments