The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Eleventh Circuit Upholds Restriction on Gun Purchases by 18-to-20-Year-Olds
The opinion, just handed down today, is Jones v. Bonti, written by Judge Robin Rosenbaum, and joined by District Judge Anne Conway (M.D. Fla.); Judge Charles Wilson concurred in the judgment, because he would have preferred to wait until the Florida Legislature finishes considering a bill that would lower the minimum age for gun purchases to 18, which may end up mooting the case.
I'm on the run right now, but I hope to post some excerpts later today or tomorrow. For now, the quick summary:
- The majority concludes that the Florida law is comparable to various bans on handgun purchases—and, in some states, on handgun possession—by under-21-year-olds in the late half of the 19th century.
- And the majority concludes that this history, from around the time the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted, is more significant than Framing-era history, because it is the Fourteenth Amendment that applies the Second Amendment to the states.
By way of perspective, until about 1970, the age of majority in the U.S. was generally 21, which helps explain why such restrictions coexisted with a general recognition of the right of adults (at the time, those 21 or over) to buy guns.
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. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
So 18-20 year olds can't buy a gun but can decide to have their "gun" removed.
what are you? an age-ist?? Kids can have their sclongs cut off as soon as they can sign the consent form. Saw a Marine Corpse Veteran, "transitioned" as soon as she, I mean "he" finished his, I mean her MOS school, took nearly her, I mean his entire enlistment to recover from her Mastectomy/Hysterectomy/Oophorectomy/Add-a-dick-to-me, and to get her, I mean His, various Whore-moans calibrated.
And in the end she looks like a more sissified version of Pete Booty-Judge if that's possible,
Oh and he/she's getting Veteran's benefits because surprise, getting your tits whacked off (love whacking off, just not tits) hurts,
and yes, the Surgery was done at an Army Hospital, ironically, not far from where Dr. Jeffy McDonald inflicted some "Surgery" on his family in 1970
Frank
“And the majority concludes that this history, from around the time the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted, is more significant than Framing-era history, because it is the Fourteenth Amendment that applies the Second Amendment to the states.”
And it’s merely an accident that they’re focused on exactly the time that Southern states started imposing gun control laws as part of Jim Crow.
The statement of Justice Buford (The real one, not the fictional judge from Smokie and the Bandit) concerning Florida gun laws enacted in that exact time frame:
“I know something of the history of this legislation. The original Act of 1893 was passed when there was a great influx of negro laborers in this State drawn here for the purpose of working in turpentine and lumber camps. The same condition existed when the Act was amended in 1901 and the Act was passed for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers and to thereby reduce the unlawful homicides that were prevalent in turpentine and saw-mill camps and to give the white citizens in sparsely settled areas a better feeling of security. The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied.”
So the liberal judges are citing a Jim Crow law to back up their ruling. How ironic.
But wait: Is there any reason to think that these particular laws were targeted at 18-to-20-year-old blacks and meant to not be applied to 18-to-20-year-old whites?
Does it matter? The fact is, these laws at the the time evidenced the legislatures' intent that the general agent of majority should be 21. Most states have changed that to 18, and the Constitution was in fact amended to clarify that for voting, it could not be above 18.
The test shouldn't be whether 18-20 year olds were allowed to buy guns in the 1800s, but whether people who were considered to be adults in all other respects were allowed to buy guns then.
And the answer to that is an obvious yes.
Sure, like literacy laws evidenced the legislature’s desire for a literate electorate. The point of these laws was just to create an opportunity for racially selective enforcement.
Anyway, didn’t the Supreme Court already identify the relevant era? And I don’t think it was Jim Crow.
But "adults in all other respects" is not, and never has been, uniform. The militia age, for example, has been 18 since 1792, which is why it was the draft age.
There has always been, both in this country since the Founding and in the common law before the Founding, an acknowledgement that youths are eligible for increasing rights and responsibilities before reaching the age of 21, though exactly which rights and which responsibilities at which ages have been the subject of the current judgments of legislators.
The only things even approximating clear and consistent benchmarks are that someone aged 21 has generally been treated as having full adult rights and responsibilities, while those under 7 have not. (And even then, there are occasional exceptions, like the Constitutional ages to be a Representative, Senator, or President.)
But the case for that "full adult rights and responsibilities" age remaining 21 after the franchise was extended to 18 year olds is remarkably weak. Gaining the franchise was traditionally the door into full adulthood, the last right gained.
And, no, I don't think the age requirements for public office are counter-examples: Public office isn't a right.
There's an argument your way, sure. I don't think the counter is "remarkably weak", though. If it was actually intended for the 26th Amendment to make 18 the uniform age of majority, it could have said so. Not only did it not, but several states still set their age of majority higher (19 in Alabama, Colorado, Maryland, and Nebraska; 21 in Indiana, Mississippi, and New York). Further, Congress notably did not reduce the legal age of majority in DC, which was and remains 21.
I do think it is most reasonable to conclude that a) a state's age of majority may not be set older than 21, and b) a state may not restrict the rights or activities of persons who have reached the state's age of majority on account of age. But it's not, IMO, a slam dunk.
Forgive me, but "but wait" sounds like one of those late night infomercials trying to induce you to buy the product by offering even more junk.
There is the last sentence of what Brett quoted.
"But wait: Is there any reason to think that these particular laws were targeted at 18-to-20-year-old blacks and meant to not be applied to 18-to-20-year-old whites?"
You mean, aside from the fact that it was enacted as part of Jim Crow in a particularly racist state?
Maybe you should demonstrate that it actually WAS enforced against whites?
Aren't you a textualist?
Historical functional upshots aren't really relevant to the legal analysis of current law - at least so you say usually.
From a purely textualist perspective, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. We're discussing the exception to textualism Bruen endorsed for types of laws that were historically common. Where the existence of a law is considered (not really conclusive!) evidence for the proposition that it wasn't considered to violate the 2nd amendment.
I personally think they were too casual in granting that exception, since we're discussing historical state laws, and the states were legally free to violate the 2nd amendment prior to the 14th being ratified.
But, be that as it may, if this law was only meant to be applied to people whose rights the state actively intended to infringe, regardless of how it may be worded, then it can't be evidence for the extent of the right being infringed.
I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that Wilson is a black appointed by
Clinton, and Rosenbaum is a leftist "Jew" appointed Obama.
Why did you put "Jew" in quotation marks?
So by extension, we CAN ban tiktok for those under 21?
Given their connection to the CCP they should be banned from the country.
the Chinese? who's going to wash my shirts? fry my General Tso's Chicken? Spread new "lab leak" Viruses??
Wake up Frank. Not the Chinks, only TikTok.
Probably got confused with TiKTok Chao...
I'm sorry but I think the majority is flatly wrong. If you are an adult, you are an adult. This 'half-adult for some purposes but not others' is stupid and irresponsible.
So which way should we go? Back to 21 or down to 18 for all adult rights?
Given the way young people think that abortion, LGBTQKJVCN rights, and student loan "relief" are the most important issues, I'm starting to think that the age limit should be as high as 30.
Shouldn't be an age thing; how about three consecutive years of gainful employment or three consecutive years of running a profitable business?
If you were writing a constitution from scratch for a new country, that would be an excellent idea.
I don't care. Just pick one and be consistent.
Agreed. Just pick one. Guns, alcohol, drugs, sex, voting...
Maybe it’s a good policy idea to have a cliff where we binary-switch from minor status to adult status. But it’s not something that US law and precedent establishes, and thus not something judges should be imposing. In 1792 there were at least nine threshold ages in US law.
7, the youngest age at which someone could be held responsible (whether criminally or for torts) in the common law.
10, the age of consent in many states.
12, the age of consent in other states.
14, the age at which people became presumptively-but-rebuttably responsible in the common law.
18, the age of militia membership in the Militia Act of 1792;
21, the age at which people became definitively responsible in the common law.
25, the age of eligibility to be a Representative.
30, the age of eligibility to become a Senator.
35, the age of eligibility to be President.
The last three, I think, are not relevant, as holding public office isn't a right.
Oh, yeah? Tell that to the democrats.
The majority said there's no constitutional impediment to the enactment of this law. It is not their place to comment on the law's merits. (And I happen to agree with your argument on the merits of this law.)
The issue now in this case is whether Justice Thomas will be able to get three Justices to agree to grant certiorari.
Yes
The 'late half' of the 19th century is fully 100 years beyond the founding era.... And the first federal law wrt buying firearms was in 1934. So, federal judges ignore the words and spirit of a supreme court decision and make stuff up to suit their own personal agendas.
Ironic, since in Bruen the Supreme Court justices were making stuff up to suit their own personal agendas.
Put not your faith in judges.
source: https://reason.com/volokh/2020/09/11/podcast-on-a-man-for-all-seasons/
Footnote 9 of this decision is blatantly wrong. See Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S.Ct. 1390 (2020). That this court made such an obvious error leaves me no faith in the remainder of its analysis, which, from the tone of the first few pages, is results driven.
Ramos v. Louisiana only overruled that exception as to "serious" crimes. (You can convict someone if 10 out of 12 jurors agree the alleged crime was a pretty good gag?)
Between relying on Jim Crow gun laws and Jim Crow jury clauses in state constitutions, this court must be aiming to institute Jim Eagle. If Jim Eagle is still a thing, at least.
Guns were the reason for lowering the "voting age" (age of majority) to 18 -- we were drafting young men and giving them guns to fight an unpopular war in Viet Nam, so, damn it! let them vote! (And let the girls vote, too, because . . . .)
If it were up to me, the voting age would be no lower than 30, and no higher than 80, for the obvious reasons. But even in my ideal polity, every adult would have all civil rights, including the right of armed self-defense. Is an 18-year-old an "adult" ?
“(And let the girls vote, too, because . . . .)”
Because they, too, will soon face compulsory draft registration and, if they’re really lucky, the chance to serve their country as conscripts on the front lines.
Facing such prospects, it's only fair that they have a chance to choose between the two warmongering parties…wait, that doesn’t sound as rousing as I thought.
"And the majority concludes that this history, from around the time the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted, is more significant than Framing-era history, because it is the Fourteenth Amendment that applies the Second Amendment to the states."
Which would suggest that if there was a different age for gun ownership in 1791, the federal government could *not* set 21 as a minimum age; ergo different standards for the feds and the states, ergo the 2nd amendment is not fully incorporated.
But if we believe the idea that the privileges and immunities of American citizenship include certain rights *already recognized* in 1868, then why would 1868 be the cut-off year?
And Judge Conway - isn't she the FISA court judge that signed off on Carter Paige? Clearly her abilities of reason are gone...
Will the judges also ban conscription for anyone under 21?
The constitution did not invent the right to keep and bear arms.
It protected the people, from government infringing on the right that existed before the Nation was formed. And yes 18 year olds had guns.
Bottom line, the reason these laws showed up after the 14th amendment, is because states in the South were making an effort to thwart the 14th amendment. Far from being a guide to its application, they're a sort of anti-guide.
And I expect the judge knew that.
Yes, and the right to abortion had always existed from before the Nation was formed the minute Roe was decided, and then never ever existed the minute the ink on Dobbs dried.
Most countries in the world significantly restrict arms-bearing. And in Europe, bearing arms was a mark of nobility. Nobles had a right to keep and bear arms, peasants didn’t. Anything to ne wants can exist inside ones head. But there is no historical evidence for a claim that a right to keep and bear arms has been universally recognized throughout the workd and throughout history.
Who said anything about it being universally recognized? He just said that it pre-dated the Constitution. And it did, here in America.
And in Europe, bearing arms was a mark of nobility. Nobles had a right to keep and bear arms, peasants didn’t
You just argued my position.
NOBLES barred the peasants from having arms.
BUT. the United States was structured specifically to prevent the existence of NOBLES. Europe's govt was Royal governance, sliding slowly to parliamentarian. Still with Royals having enumerated powers RAF (ROYAL Air Force).
The constitution was structured to Protect the People from a powerful govt abusing the citizens.
One of those is Protecting the Peoples already existing right to bear arms, from this new government
Right. The point HERE was that everybody was to have the rights only the special people got to enjoy in England.
Two of the laws cited in the decision have exceptions for parents giving weapons to children. Under modern federal law a parent buying a gun and giving it to a minor could be an illegal straw purchaser. The paperwork has to name the intended recipient, not only the person handing over the money.
Wrong. Only if the minor were paying for it. Gifts are NOT, legally, straw purchases. Says so right on Form 4473.
Form 4473
"“Question 11.a. Actual Transferee/Buyer: For purposes of this form, a person is the actual transferee/buyer if he/she is purchasing the firearm for him/herself or otherwise acquiring the firearm for him/herself. (e.g., redeeming the firearm from pawn, retrieving it from consignment, firearm raffle winner). A person is also the actual transferee/buyer if he/she is legitimately purchasing the firearm as a bona fide gift for a third party. A gift is not bona fide if another person offered or gave the person completing this form money, service(s), or item(s) of value to acquire the firearm for him/her, or if the other person is prohibited by law from receiving or possessing the firearm.
Actual TRANSFEREE/buyer examples: Mr. Smith asks Mr. Jones to purchase a firearm for Mr. Smith (who may or may not be prohibited). Mr. Smith gives Mr. Jones the money for the firearm. Mr. Jones is NOT THE ACTUAL TRANSFEREE/BUYER of the firearm and must answer “NO” to question 11.a. The licensee may not transfer the firearm to Mr. Jones. However, if Mr. Brown buys the firearm with his own money to give to Mr. Black as a gift (with no service or tangible thing of value provided by Mr. Black), Mr. Brown is the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm and should answer “YES” to question 11.a. However, the transferor/seller may not transfer a firearm to any person he/she knows or has reasonable cause to believe is prohibited under 18 U.S.C. 922(g), (n) or (x). . .”"
Note that, while federal law prohibits anyone under 21 from buying a handgun, it doesn't prohibit them from owning a handgun. They can get them as gifts.
I'm in the age cohort in Massachusetts who benefited from a drop of the legal drinking age from 21 to 18, and didn't lose anything when it went back up to 21 again. The law giveth, and the law taketh away.
I became old enough to drink in Michigan twice, thanks to the feds pressuring the state to raise its drinking age.
There is no single unitary concept of adult. One can be an adult for different purposes. And states have flexibility to determine the age of majority for different purposes. The 26th Amendment set a constitutional limit for voting. But it did not do so for any other purpose. While a state does not have unlimited flexibility, it cannot set the limit at 50, age cutoffs that have been historically used are definitely fair game.
You can be drafted and forced to use a gun to kill other humans, but you can't buy a gun yourself. Got it.