California violated the Second Amendment with semiautomatic rifle age restriction, court finds Read

[ripcord]

Source: The Sacramento Bee

California’s 2019 law prohibiting people under 21 from buying semiautomatic rifles violates the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Wednesday.

“America would not exist without the heroism of the young adults who fought and died in our revolutionary army. Today we reaffirm that our Constitution still protects the right that enabled their sacrifice: the right of young adults to keep and bear arms,” wrote Judge Ryan Nelson, who was named to the court by President Donald J. Trump.

The panel reversed a district court ruling, saying that it “erred in not enjoining an almost total ban on semiautomatic centerfire rifles,” according to the opinion.

The case in question, Jones v. Bonta, was brought before the court by the Firearms Policy Coalition, a gun advocacy organization, which hailed the court’s ruling in a statement.


Read more: https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article261355502.html

---

Are people adults at 18 or 21?

[Hoyt]

1. Gun-humpers aren't adults.

[FalloutShelter]

2. Here we go again with this "originalist" bullshit.

This is not the 18th century, when young people were adults with adult responsibilities at 18... they were lucky to live to 50.
Sick of this antique thinking.

[onecaliberal]

3. So we don't think they're responsible enough to drink alcohol at 18, but a deadly weapon, no problem

WHAT could possibly go wrong.

[OnlinePoker]

6. Well, they're considered to be responsible enough to join the military at 18. n/t

[onecaliberal]

10. Indeed. Such a backwards country.

[Mr.Bill]

26. The age limit law in California

did have an exception for members of the military and law enforcement.

[EX500rider]

36. Actually you can join at 17 with parental permission nt

[24601]

40. This is an interesting question. I know you can join at 17 (as were some of my West Point

Classmates); however, international law would prohibit actual deployment for fighting until age 18. Otherwise, provisions with respect to "Child Soldiers" would be in effect.

By the time a 17-year old enlistee completed basic training and their branch's Advanced Individual Training, it's highly unlikely her or she would be under 18. It's still possible but not probable.

I'm almost 68 and still believe if you can fight for your country, you should be able to drink a toast to it.

[malthaussen]

4. Funny, the 9th circuit is on the liberal side.

There is absolutely no logic in permitting semi-automatic weapons and prohibiting automatic weapons. Neither is needed for hunting or home protection (for which latter, you should have a shotgun if you must have a firearm).

-- Mal

[dpibel]

12. Much less liberal than it used to be

Trump stuffed a whole bunch of Federalists onto the 9th Circuit bench. Including the author of the fatuous quote in the OP.

So there are going to be plenty of three-judge panels including two Trumpists.

Will be interesting to see if this gets taken up en banc.

[maxsolomon]

5. What's so magic about 18? Why not at the Age of Consent?

What's so magic about semi-automatics? Why are full-automatics infringed?

Why would we need an organized Militia if everyone carries a full-automatic rifle at all times? Wolverines!

This is clearly the scenario the founding fathers envisioned. More freedom!

[malthaussen]

14. 18 *is* the Age of Consent in California. n/t

[maxsolomon]

16. Finally our laws make sense.

Maybe I should have suggested 16, when you can legally drive? Or 12, when you can stay home without adult supervision?

[24601]

42. 2nd amendment protected individual rights to own what was essentially the accepted state-or-the-art

infantryman's weapon.

In 1776, that was a flintlock musket.

For those who believe in a living/evolving Constitution, in 2022, that would be an M-4, which has a selector for full automatic mode. In reality, we don't allow that without a specific federal license and semi-automatic (one round for each trigger pull) has effectively become the private-citizen standard.

[SmittyWerben]

7. Also at that time 13 year old girls were getting married to much older men.

So...weird foundation on which to make your argument. The founders also intended that the 2nd Amendment only applied to the national government, not state or local. How about a compromise, we don't allow 13 year olds to get married, and in California, 18 year olds can own American Revolution era weapons for their hunting and defense needs, which they can upgrade to assault style (sporting) weapons at 21. Reasoning seems, er, solid.

[maxsolomon]

20. You sound like a nice person.

Schadenfreude is SHAMEFUL joy in the misery of others. It's not something you should be proud of.

[The Mouth]

23. The misery of those who would take away

what I consider my rights is sweet to me. Gun grabbers, censors, anti-abortionists, anti marriage equality homophobes, drug warriors, and all suchlike.

People who consider it any of their business what I put in or have in my body, who I have as a partner, what kind of art I create or consume, or what measures I take for personal protection can all go straight to hell as far as I am concerned.

[maxsolomon]

35. No one's taking anyone's guns in either of our lifetimes.

There has been no "gun grabbing", despite the anguished fantasies of SOME gun CONTROL advocates. All efforts, even modest ones, at CONTROLLING rampant gun violence in this nation have failed utterly, and you know it. gun laws are only being liberalized.

You should realize when your side has won. Gloating is a bad look.

[Samrob]

9. Why can't semi-automatic and other high assault weapons be banned. That bars no one from owning

another type of gun. If not this, then there should be laws to ban or limit ammunitions, clips, types of bullets etc.

[bucolic_frolic]

11. America will experience a boomlet in psychiatrists

[jaxexpat]

13. "Are people adults at 18 or 21?". That's a good, but not great, question.

The great question is, what is the constitutionally guaranteed proper age for people to arm themselves to wage war "for their country"?
Another good question: Are homicides more or less lethal when the shooter is underage?

[Hieronymus Phact]

15. so now what about all those other laws?

Many states have age differentials on how old you need to be to buy a pistol vs. a long gun, 21 vs 18 mostly. Is that all unconstitutional now? And it seems from above they didn't ban semiautomatic rim-fire rifles in the first place, so how effective was that supposed to be? This is why as a gun owner, I hate where this has all gone from both angles.

[rolypolychloe]

17. A well regulated militia!!

The second amendment "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" On its face this means that if the state's militia is not well regulated, as in mass shootings by said militia, then the federal government would be within its rights to infringe on the right to bear arms.

The state should be able to do whatever it feels is necessary to ensure that its militia is "Well regulated"

[maxsolomon]

19. Yeah, that ship has sailed.

"Well-Regulated" is an anachronistic phrase that means "well-equipped" and "functional". It doesn't mean the Unorganized Militia can be regulated.

America = fucked up.

[marie999]

32. According to the Supreme Court there are two parts to the 2nd Amendment.

Because of the where the commas are in the wording the first part is about a well regulated militia and the second part is about the right of the people. Commas are very important in understanding what a sentence means.

[rolypolychloe]

37. A tortured interpretation

yes, it was a 5-4 opinion in 2008. Prior to that, there was no federal right to individual gun ownership, only the right for a state to maintain its own militia. 5-4 is not exactly slam dunk, not black and white. Since the SC is now comfortable revisiting prior descisions, maybe this one will be overturned also

[marie999]

38. Not with the Supreme Court we have now.

[cstanleytech]

45. Dred Scott was 7-2 which proves a super majority court is not always right either.

[llashram]

18. guns, guns, guns

in the hands of the unprepared, unqualified and in extreme cases stupid and mentally unfit. Rittenhouse comes to mind. Racist clowns under the authority of badge and uniform. Sad indeed. Goes to SC, I feel I know where this one will end...

[secondwind]

21. AND WHERE ARE OUR RIGHTS... TO BE FREE FROM GUNSHOTS, ETC?

This makes me sick to my stomach...

[jmowreader]

22. I sometimes wonder...

If a lawmaker in one of our Blue States were to write a law that states:

1. The militia and non-infringement clauses of the Second Amendment were inseparable, therefore
2. Anyone wishing to own a gun in their state must join an official militia that effectively operated as a state-owned gun club with mandatory quarterly meetings for firearms training

...how quickly would that law be rendered unconstitutional by the courts?

[cstanleytech]

25. Firearms training and the requirement to securely store all firearms away when not on your person.

[marie999]

33. The Supreme Court would find the law unconstitutional. See my post 32.

[cstanleytech]

24. Modify the law to hold a driver's license with a provision

that to hold said license is contingent on not buying or owning such a gun until the age of 21. After all being granted a drivers license is not a Constitutional right is it?

[Mr.Bill]

27. California law very clearly

defines driving a car as a privilege and not a right.

[cstanleytech]

29. Plus the stae can argue that to declare such a law unconstitutional

would mean that laws that have a minimum age for anything such as to drink liquor should be thrown out.

[Happy Hoosier]

28. So... does this mean a 21 drinking age is Unconstitutional? NT

[cstanleytech]

30. Not to mention the age of consent to have sex laws.

[madville]

43. Age of consent is 16-17 in most of the US

[url=https://ibb.co/K7mtJcH][img][/img][/url]

[cstanleytech]

44. Yup but it could be argued that any such age limitations imposed upon a person

unless specified by the Constitution are in effect an over reach by the government and therefore unconstitutional.

[former9thward]

39. Drinking is not a Constitutional right.

In fact we did away with it (legally) for a while.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

47. Well, it sorta is, cause prohibition was done by constitutional amendment ...

And then of course UNdone by a subsequent one.

Ergo ... drinking is a constitutional right

[former9thward]

48. No, the selling of alcohol was prohibited.

Drinking was never banned federally.

[samsingh]

31. stupid repug judges. they may also bring us back to a time when children under 10 could be married

[melm00se]

34. the age of majority should be set nationwide for all rights

and for voting that has already been done with the 26th amendment (which is also the fastest ratification of a constitutional amendment).

[Grins]

41. They went to court because not enough minors had semi-automatic weapons?

Dafuc???????

[Dial H For Hero]

46. A 20 year old is not a minor.

[J_William_Ryan]

49. Clearly this is a prelude to overturning state AWBs and magazine capacity restrictions.