Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Virginia Judge Defends Handgun Purchases For 18-20 Year-Olds In New Ruling

—

by

Robin Beres
in , , ,

by The Republican Standard staff

In a groundbreaking decision, a federal judge in Virginia has ruled that a ban on handgun sales to individuals between the ages of 18 and 20 is unconstitutional, citing last year’s Supreme Court Bruen decision.

Fox News reports:

In a 71-page ruling issued Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge Robert Payne said that since adults under 21 have the right to vote, join the military and serve on a federal jury, there is no reason why federal law should restrict them from buying a firearm. “If the Court were to exclude 18-to-20-year-olds from the Second Amendment’s protection, it would impose limitations on the Second Amendment that do not exist with other constitutional guarantees,” Payne wrote. “Because the statutes and regulations in question are not consistent with our Nation’s history and tradition, they, therefore, cannot stand,” he wrote. … This class action lawsuit was brought by John Corey Fraser, 20, and other plaintiffs who said the Gun Control Act of 1968 and subsequent regulations from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) were unconstitutional because they excluded all adults under 21 from “exercising the right to keep and bear arms.” Fraser, 20, had attempted to purchase a Glock 19x handgun from a licensed dealer but was turned away, according to the lawsuit.

The ruling was derided by a number of gun control advocacy groups, including Everytown for Gun Safety which believes that “the federal law prohibiting federally licensed firearms dealers from selling handguns to individuals under the age of 21 is not just an essential tool for preventing gun violence, it is also entirely constitutional.”

It remains to be seen whether the Biden Administration will challenge the ruling.

This article is republished from The Republican Standard with permission.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

77 responses to “Virginia Judge Defends Handgun Purchases For 18-20 Year-Olds In New Ruling”

  1. VaNavVet Avatar
    VaNavVet

    This is a very different time then when the nation was founded and 18 to 20 year olds are not as mature as in those days. This ruling will most likely be challenged and overturned.

    1. M. Purdy Avatar
      M. Purdy

      Agree. I think the SCOTUS might take this up and rule in the admin’s favor. Enough with the gun lunacy in our country.

      1. Lefty665 Avatar
        Lefty665

        Wake up, anti gunners taking cases to the Supreme Court have resulted in affirming individual rights to gun ownership. That starts with Heller and extends through the New York case (Bruen) last year.

        The court’s rulings have been clear, and it has not been shy about reaffirming them and their scope. So go ahead, indulge your fantasy, take more cases to the Supreme Court. It will continue to hold that the Bill of Rights is indeed the law of the land, and it will strike down unreasonable abridgements of those rights.

        Just as free speech is not just for speech I agree with, the right to bear arms is not just for those I would prefer to have them. Rights are rights for all of us.

        1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
          Dick Hall-Sizemore

          It is not a case of who I or anyone prefers to have guns. It is what kind of guns anybody is allowed to have. Just as the First Amendment is not absolute, so should the Second Amendment not be absolute. But, you are right, this Court seems to think that it is and they are likely to strike down restriction.

          1. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            “you are right, this Court seems to think that it is and they are likely to strike down restriction.”

            That is not what I said.

            No rights are absolute. The court has explicitly stated that about the 2nd Amendment.

            What the court has done is to recognize: 1)the individual right to own firearms
            2) that there can be reasonable limits to that right 3) to strike down unreasonable restrictions on that right”

            You and I may disagree on what constitutes “reasonable”, but the court has been clear. It promises to continue to make itself clear when government places unconstitutional restrictions on our rights.

          2. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            “you are right, this Court seems to think that it is and they are likely to strike down restriction.”

            That is not what I said.

            No rights are absolute. The court has explicitly stated that about the 2nd Amendment.

            What the court has done is to recognize: 1)the individual right to own firearms
            2) that there can be reasonable limits to that right 3) to strike down unreasonable restrictions on that right”

            You and I may disagree on what constitutes “reasonable”, but the court has been clear. It promises to continue to make itself clear when government places unconstitutional restrictions on our rights.

          3. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            “you are right, this Court seems to think that it is and they are likely to strike down restriction.”

            That is not what I said.

            No rights are absolute. The court has explicitly stated that about the 2nd Amendment.

            What the court has done is to recognize: 1)the individual right to own firearms
            2) that there can be reasonable limits to that right 3) to strike down unreasonable restrictions on that right”

            You and I may disagree on what constitutes “reasonable”, but the court has been clear. It promises to continue to make itself clear when government places unconstitutional restrictions on our rights.

          4. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            “so should the Second Amendment not be absolute. But, you are right, this Court seems to think that it is and they are likely to strike down restriction.”

            That is not what either I or the Supreme Court have said. Please do not put my face on your straw man.

            No rights are absolute. The court has explicitly stated that about the 2nd Amendment.

            What the court has done is to recognize: 1)the individual right to own firearms
            2) that there can be reasonable limits to that right
            3) to strike down unreasonable restrictions on that right”

            You and I may disagree on what constitutes “reasonable”. The court has been clear, and it promises to continue to make itself clear when government places unconstitutional restrictions on our rights. For that I, at least, am grateful.

          5. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            The 1st Amendment makes no restrictions on the medium used to exercise said right.

            “It is not a case of who I or anyone prefers to have guns. It is what kind of guns anybody is allowed to have.”

            Even after all this time of being corrected, you still insist on making false statements. I think it can be concluded you’re just unwilling to be corrected on the matter and should be disregarded.

          6. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            “The First Amendment is not Absolute” is repeated endlessly by those who have little to no understanding whatsoever of current laws and restrictions on firearms.

            It’s getting to the point where one almost needs a personal attorney to navigate them. Anyone who deals with firearms retailing, definitely needs help to keep up with laws and regulation compliance.

            Whatever your thoughts on changes to gun laws, the “not absolute” argument is absurd on its face.

          7. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            You are correct.

            It has never been more difficult to legally acquire a firearm in this country than it is right now.

          8. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            If the anti gun crowd knew anything about guns and current laws, they might have issues with these. No FFL required.

            https://www.gunsamerica.com/digest/12-gauge-no-ffl-pistol-full-review-diablo-american-gun-craft/

          9. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            What kind(s) of fire arms are you proposing we not “allow” anyone to have?

      2. WayneS Avatar
        WayneS

        You are 100% correct. It is sheer lunacy for the government to prevent people from being able to defend themselves by creating “target-rich environments” for wackos, and calling them “gun free zones”.

    2. Matt Adams Avatar
      Matt Adams

      “VaNavVet
      22 minutes ago
      This is a very different time then when the nation was founded and 18 to 20 year olds are not as mature as in those days. This ruling will most likely be challenged and overturned.”

      The GCA of 1968 established it and the 1994 VCCLEA doubled down on it. So you’re saying the previous 177 years were the problem it’s the last 55?

    3. killerhertz Avatar
      killerhertz

      They’re also sick in the head from being indoctrinated in government education camps.

  2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    This is the consequence of the Bruen decision in which Justice Thomas says “when a challenged regulation addresses a general societal problem that has persisted since the 18th century, the lack of a distinctly similar historical regulation addressing that problem is relevant evidence that the challenged regulation is inconsistent with the Second Amendment” and ““the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” If the colonists who lived mostly in rural areas were allowed to carry single-shot long guns and handguns, then modern Americans living in cities must be allowed to carry weapons that can fire multiple rounds in less than 30 seconds.

  3. kls Avatar
    kls

    So young folks can determine they are a different ‘gender’ than what God made them and have life altering surgery to cut off/out their organs… but can’t exercise their Constitution, self defense and have a hobby? TOO FUNNY LOGIC

    1. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
      f/k/a_tmtfairfax

      Of course! Don’t you believe in penumbras and emanations? Most editorial writers do. Just ask the Post’s.

  4. Super Brain Avatar
    Super Brain

    This ruling can be expanding to state laws on gambling and alcohol.

    1. Lefty665 Avatar
      Lefty665

      There is already a Constitutional amendment on alcohol, two actually. I’m not familiar with one on gambling. Is there an expressed right to keep cards and bear dice?

      1. Keydet Avatar
        Keydet

        There is certainly no right to load dice.

        1. Lefty665 Avatar
          Lefty665

          Exactly, dice are not protected as a right in the Constitution. Thanks for affirming my point.

        2. Lefty665 Avatar
          Lefty665

          Exactly, dice are not protected as a right in the Constitution. Thanks for affirming my point.

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            But the Constitution doesn’t stipulate age either.

          2. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            It does not. The judge held that the age for someone to be able to enlist in service of our country and to be armed by the government is the reasonable age to be able to buy and be armed as an individual too.

            You or I might disagree about what that age should be, but that it should be the same is very logical. Seems also like a good threshold age to be able to make other major life decisions, but that’s another topic.

          3. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            They also supply them with antitank weapons, grenades, and well, nuclear weapons. Does that mean…

          4. kls Avatar
            kls

            Ahhhh… read the Constitution: Article I, Section 8, Clause 8….. seems to permit citizens to own ‘weapons of war’.

          5. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            Clause 16 & 17, perhaps?

          6. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            Not currently. But if the anti gun nuts, like New York and California, push the Supreme Court hard enough by continuing to pass unconstitutional laws we may get explicit decisions on just exactly what the Constitutional limits are.

            They could be broader than currently defined. Decide when you’ve had enough fun folks.

          7. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            You just said, “constitution” and “limits” in the same sentence. There’s hope.

          8. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            The Constitution contains lots of limits. Most of them are on what government is empowered to do. As in “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” and “Congress shall make no law…”. There is indeed hope, it springs eternal,

          9. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            You forgot “well-regulated militia”

            Regulating the militia also includes defining it, like with, oh say, age limits..

          10. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            Exactly, and the court has done just that. The limit is 18, not 21.

          11. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Except… the Presser and Cruikshank opinions give militia control entirely to the States. Is this a federal judge?

            Scalia in his majority opinion in Heller is that individuals have a right of ownership for self-defense, sport, and other legal purposes. This is compatible with the right of the State to control guns (types and who) for militia purposes so long as those laws are not a defacto disarming of the people.

          12. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            It was a Federal age restriction, thus a Federal judge.

            Your parsing of the law is not consistent with the Supreme Court’s rulings in Heller and Bruen, but it ain’t up to you and me.

          13. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            Sure it does. The minimum age for voting in federal elections is set at 18.

          14. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            Sure it does. The minimum age for voting in federal elections is set at 18.

  5. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    This is the consequence of the Bruen decision in which Justice Thomas says “when a challenged regulation addresses a general societal problem that has persisted since the 18th century, the lack of a distinctly similar historical regulation addressing that problem is relevant evidence that the challenged regulation is inconsistent with the Second Amendment” and ““the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” If the colonists who lived mostly in rural areas were allowed to carry single-shot long guns and handguns, then modern Americans living in cities must be allowed to carry weapons that can fire multiple rounds in less than 30 seconds.

  6. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    This is the consequence of the Bruen decision in which Justice Thomas says “when a challenged regulation addresses a general societal problem that has persisted since the 18th century, the lack of a distinctly similar historical regulation addressing that problem is relevant evidence that the challenged regulation is inconsistent with the Second Amendment” and ““the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” If the colonists who lived mostly in rural areas were allowed to carry single-shot long guns and handguns, then modern Americans living in cities must be allowed to carry weapons that can fire multiple rounds in less than 30 seconds.

    1. Matt Adams Avatar
      Matt Adams

      It took 30 seconds to reload a musket in the colonial era. It was also a 3/4″ projectile that did considerably more damage and maiming to those struck by it.

      It has less to do with that and more to do with the fact that the firearms are in common use.

      1. kls Avatar
        kls

        30 seconds? That’s funny. Man you must be so slow…..

        1. Matt Adams Avatar
          Matt Adams

          To reload a brown Bess musket?

    2. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
      f/k/a_tmtfairfax

      So why the focus on weapons technology of the late 1700s? Clearly, weapons technology had advanced from the late 1600s when the English Bill of Rights that discussed the personal right to bear arms. And there were even more changes in technology from 1181 and the Assize of Arms. Why not freeze technology at pikes, spears and swords? Or even stone axes?

      Of course, the principle of English and now American constitutional law regarding what constitute arms that can be borne as a right protected by law is much broader. Just as free speech and freedom of the press extend to telephone, radio, TV, Internet communications, so too does the right to bear arms extend to developments in weapons technology. Muskets gave way to rifled muskets that gave way to breech loading rifles to repeating rifles to semi-automatic rifles.

      Why the difference in interpretation of the law?

      If society doesn’t like the current Constitution, change it. That was the recommendation from retired Justice John Paul Stevens.

      And the Union Army expected an experienced infantryman to load and fire his musket three times per minute.

      1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        Yep, the second needs to be repealed. I agree with that sentiment.

        1. WayneS Avatar
          WayneS

          Give it a shot!

          By the way, repealing one of the Bill of Rights does make the related right go away.

          1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Perhaps the “right to bear arms” would still exist but it could now be infringed which is what we need.

          2. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            Why does it need further infringement?

            It has never been more difficult to legally obtain a firearm in this country than it is right now.

          3. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Compared to other developed countries (all with lower gun death rates), it is very easy to obtain a gun in the US.

          4. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            If I wanted to live under the laws of another country I would move there.

          5. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Gun “enthusiasts” want that, of course, to chase me out of my own country. The other option, as I indicated, is to change the laws of this country. Looks like those are the only two options available to keep oneself and one’s family safe in the US these days… all thanks to that old 2A…

          6. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            I did not mention chasing anyone out of this country – certainly not you.

          7. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            I took your earlier comment as a suggestion rather than a statement.

          8. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            Disarmed people are compliant people. We are an independent nation instead of a colony thanks to guns. “Infringed” is not what we “need”.

          9. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            You think no other colonies in the 1700s had guns? Canada is an independent nation – not because of their guns. We did not win our independence because we were better armed – we weren’t.
            Infringement is exactly what we need.

          10. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            You think no other colonies in the 1700s had guns? Canada is an independent nation – not because of their guns. We did not win our independence because we were better armed – we weren’t.
            Infringement is exactly what we need.

          11. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            If you don’t want to own a gun, then don’t own one. But leave the rest of us alone, please.

          12. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            If it only were that easy. The 2A has turned this country into a shooting gallery. It is really us who just want to be left alone (or at least not turned into hamburger in the course of living our daily lives).

          13. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            That is simply not true. Violent crime rates are far below what they were in the 1960s through 80s.

          14. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Gun death rates in the 60s were about 5 per 100,000 population. In 2020 it was nearly 14 per 100,000.

          15. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            Revolution comes out of the barrel of a gun. C. Mao & G. Washington.

            Just keep repeating “infringement” that’ll carry the day for sure. Good luck with a Constitutional amendment to make it so.

      2. James McCarthy Avatar
        James McCarthy

        “Why the difference in the interpretation of the law” with respect to firearms technology and freedom of speech? While some critique penumbra as judicial interpretation of individual rights (Griswold v Conn.), the penumbra of technological development in firearms is presumed to include automatic weapons. Free speech advances due to technology rarely, if ever, result in the deaths of neighbors. Thus, the current jurisprudence advancing the purchase and possession of firearms nor a population of 330 million did not exist at the time of the writing of the 2A. Judge Frank Easterbrook cautioned Justice Scalia on the changes in society versus that at the time of the Constitution. In Heller, Scalia acknowledged that government could exercise authority in the control of firearms, but not the DC statute.

        1. Lefty665 Avatar
          Lefty665

          “the penumbra of technological development in firearms is presumed to include automatic weapons.”

          Another Jim McCarthy silly walk, Congrats or something,

        2. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
          f/k/a_tmtfairfax

          I responded to Jim’s comment but the post was removed. Why? How do we continue to have thoughtful discussions when the participants cannot respond to each other?

          1. CJBova Avatar
            CJBova

            Please post again. There are no comments from you in the deleted file. No moderator removed it .It wasn’t flagged, and it was not in the spam file that’s automated from disqus. Occasionally in the past, I’ve posted a comment that didn’t go through to disqus through some internet glitch and disappeared.

        3. Tom B Avatar
          Tom B

          Disarming the law abiding does result in the deaths of neighbors. Yet you persist in demanding that we disarm.

    3. WayneS Avatar
      WayneS

      And in Heller, the decision held that the Second Amendment protects “arms ‘in common use at the time’ for lawful purposes like self-defense”, as well as arms that are “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.”

      Furthermore, such arms are “chosen by American society”, not the government.

  7. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    A judge with the inability to comprehend mitigation?

    Why would anyone believe that the “age of majority” cannot be a broad range of activities and ages. Try renting a car at 18.

  8. Tom B Avatar
    Tom B

    Even a cursory read of the FBI stats shows that persons under 21 currently have no problem getting a firearm when they want to commit a murder. I doubt that this ruling will have any measurable effect on those numbers. In fact, the numbers are so bad that one has to wonder why anyone who is serious about solving the problem would cling to such an obviously failed policy. Unless there is another goal. VA, MD and DC are an interesting study in gun control’s failure. VA has the least restrictive access to guns, MD next, and DC most restrictive. According to the gun control theory, VA should have the highest homicide rate, but it has the lowest. MD is 60% higher and DC is 300% of the VA rate. Rationally, one would call the policy a failure and change course. Again, the left doubles down on the failed policy. Why?
    What I do find consistent is the left’s adherence to the methods of Jim Crow; intefere with the rights of the law abiding. There are enough laws to punish the lawless. Now the left is passing laws to punish the law abiding by intefering with their exercise of their rights. It’s done subtly by shifting the focus from the actor to the tool. If you blame the actor, an illegal action has to be committed. It you blame the tool, only the potential for action is needed, and there is no defense. If you’re black, you’re guilty becomes if you have a gun, you’re guilty.

    It’s time to quit talking about the tool and start talking about the culture that glorifies the crime and excuses the criminal. In the 60’s, the most popular shows on tv were the westerns with nightly mayhem a staple for young audiences. There were virtually no restrictions on gun purchases. There were no mass killings and no school shootings. It’s not the guns, it’s the culture.
    The left doesn’t appear ready to have a discussion of anything but their narcissistic desires. That’s sad for America.

  9. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.

    15 years, 8 months. If you can drive a car, you can mass murder.

    I suppose we should have this judge revisit our laws on sex and the ages involved.

  10. Nathan Avatar
    Nathan

    The answer is to raise the voting age to 21.

  11. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    This judge ignores Illinois v. Presser. Pretty dumb for a federal judge.

    1. WayneS Avatar
      WayneS

      Not dumb, just [correctly] recognizing that the 14th amendment makes the entire Bill of Rights applies to the states, not just the parts you like.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Presser came AFTER the 14th. Surely, you’re not suggesting the SCOTUS was unaware?

        1. WayneS Avatar
          WayneS

          Presser did not come after the 14th was interpreted by the courts as applying the Bill of Rights to the states.

          When it was first passed, that interpretation of the 14th had not yet been invented.

          1. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            Consistency is not a strongpoint of the left.

  12. Nathan Avatar
    Nathan

    What’s the point of ANY gun laws if they aren’t enforced?

    Hunter Biden lied on the background check form, and then documented his perjury by talking about his drug abuse in his own book.

    Rep. Tiffany asks why Hunter Biden hasn’t been prosecuted for alleged gun crime at ATF hearing

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rep-tiffany-asks-why-hunter-biden-hasnt-been-prosecuted-alleged-gun-crime-atf-hearing

Leave a Reply

Read More