Fed Judge Bans Firearms Sales To Those Under 21


At the end of October, the fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Houston, Texas rejected the National Rifle Association's argument that 18-20 year olds had a right to buy guns under the Second Amendment. It also rejected the equal protection clause of the Fifth Amendment. The U.S. may ban federally licensed firearms dealers from selling guns to anyone under the age of 21.

Reuters reports,

A unanimous three-judge panel said Congress, in a law dating from 1968, adopted the sales ban to help curb violent crime. It also said that the nation's founders and 19th-century courts and commentators believed that disarming specific groups did not trample on the right to bear arms.

"Congress was focused on a particular problem: young persons under 21, who are immature and prone to violence, easily accessing handguns," mainly from licensed dealers, Judge Edward Prado wrote for the panel.

"The present ban appears consistent with a longstanding tradition of age- and safety-based restrictions on the ability to access arms," he added.

The ruling upholds the September 2011 ruling by District Judge Sam Cummings in Lubbock, Texas.

"We are disappointed," said David Thompson, who represents the NRA. "The ruling is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's opinion in Heller, and we are considering all of our appellate options."

Judge Prado, who was appointed to the Fifth Circuit by President George W. Bush, said, "The government has satisfied its burden of showing a reasonable means-ends fit between the challenged federal laws and an important government interest."

However, this law does not prevent 18-20 year olds from using handguns or carrying them, just purchasing them. Can anyone say "inconsistent?" This is ridiculous. If an 18-20 year old is allowed to carry and fire a firearm, then they should be assumed responsible enough to purchase the weapon.

In addition, I believe those that begin to teach their children early gun safety and how to effectively use them when they are young will help to mature said offspring. My children learn very early about firearms and firearms safety, but they also learn how to use them, some more effectively than others. As long as we continue to promote prolonged adolescence like this, then we can expect more of it.

Finally, the issue that the Second Amendment is considered a right is in question, at least by this judge and his court.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.


Print Friendly





Comments

comments

  • http://www.facebook.com/rocky.vnvmc Rocky Vnvmc

    I enlisted in the US Army at the tender age of 17yrs 3 mons. & 12 days of age. After training, I was patroling the streets of Frankfurt Germany wearing a loaded gov't. issued pistol as a Military Policeman. Not yet 18 yrs old ! I had responsibility and acted accordingly, as do most all of our servicemen/women.
    It has never made any sense to me, to allow a person the right to Vote at 18yrs of age as well as serve their country under arms, but then limit them from other adult activities.
    Back when I turned 18, a person could drink 3.2% beer. Today the rules have gone backwards. Not that I suggest that everyone should consume alcohol (I have since quit), merely that it seems like a trend towards allowing 18 yr olds greater responsibilities has stopped, dead in the water and reversed course. Now-a-days, 18 yr olds are in a sort of 'Limbo'... stuck in a social group, that they could be in trouble for interacting with. ie; having sexual relations with a minor girl. Yet they are forced to interact with this lesser age group, despite not being one of them any longer. I didn't want My young daughter going to functions where there were 18,19 & 20 yr olds attending !!!
    I believe that we should all preasure our Elected Representatives to make 18 yr olds adults, once and for all. If you believe the same way, write your Reps.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Rachel-Guess/100001271026565 Rachel Guess

    Capt Turbo

    I was just going to say the same thing. It is beyond hypocritical to say to an 18 year old you can't own a gun, but when you enlist we are going to give you a gun and make you use it in the line of duty.

  • Tom K.

    Let's see; have your parents sign for you and you join the U.S. Military- at 16; then you can qualify to use ANY Gun or Cannon or Tank that your Specialized Field requires - up to and including heavy artillary shooting nuclear shells. Then the " kid " goes home on leave and can't buy a varmnt rifle.

  • GodhelptheUSA

    This is about absurd as it gets!!! OK, since younger people are too imature, until they are 21, to purchase a weapon, then it just makes sense that these same individuals are much too young to drive a 2,000 to 4,000 pound missle (cars/pickups/etc.) at the age of 16 to 18 - right? Additionally, as a military person, they are issued a weapon, or two, and are required to assume ownership of that piece until you are discharge, retire, get your self killed protecting our country, etc? Sorry if I seem a bit confused folks but I'm still trying to get my arms around this kind of logic? Then, I think, under this judge's rule, all military personnel under 21 who have been issued a weapon (assumed ownership), should lay down their arms and become support personnel behind the lines? Right? Then we have a catch 22, they could be prosecuted for assuming ownership of their weapon - or - face a court martial for refusing to take ownership of the weapon!!! Under this scenario, who wil protect this judges sorry ass when probably half of the military lay down their weapons? I'm sorry but I'm just so confused as to WTF this legal system is coming to? Can someone please help me!!! I'm so confused!!! P.S. I agree 100% with Capt. Turbo!!!.

  • Jim Willingham

    WHEN ARE WE GOING TO GET ANY EFFORT TO TRY THE JUDGES OF THOSE COURTS THAT DEFY EVEN THE 2ND AMENDMENT AND THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE 5th AMENDMENT FOR TREASON???? PERSONALLY, I AM GRIEVED AND ANGERED BY THESE TYRANTS THINKING THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH DEFYING THE VERY CONSTITUTIONS THEY ARE SWORN TO UPHOLD AND DEFEND. I LIVE JUST A 55 MINUTE DRIVE FROM WHERE ONE OF MY ANCESTORS FOUGHT IN A BATTLE OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION. I DARE SAY HE WOULD CONSIDER SUCH JUDGES AS BAD AS THE BRITISH TAX COLLECTORS.

  • jerry sweet

    the war is upon us.the shooting will not be far off.lock and load patriots.everyone who works for the feds are guilty of treason and they are afraid.Why? because we know it and they are trying to counter

  • Sivispace

    Wrong! The court did not ban 18, 19 and 20 year olds from owning firearms! All they did was reaffirm the 1968 Crime Bill on people under 21 possessing hand guns. Tim Brown needs a swift kick in the butt for suggesting otherwise. Leave the legal conclusion drawing to people qualified to draw such conclusions Tim.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Young/100001630951601 Mike Young

    So, what these Judges with all of their vast legal knowledge and experience are saying is that 18-21 year old young men and women are too young and or immature to go to combat zones and fight for our nation, they are saying that the enlistment age for solders must be changed to the minimum age at which they can legally purchase a gun( which would eliminate about 1/4 or more of our military), or the age at which guns are legally able to be purchased by adults.
    If guns can be given out to 18-21 year old people while they are serving in the military, then our military is violating the law, according to these Judges.

    Apparently, those learned Judges need to go back to school and relearn the Constitution especially the 2nd Amendment.

  • gavinwca

    Impeach the judges, repeal the gun control act of 1968, it was an exact copy of Hitlers gun control act.

  • Killer

    So, what about the young people who re under 21, immature, and prone to voting stupidly. That's okay????

  • Stevejmp

    Repeal the 18 yo vote as well... If they aren't mature enough to firearms they sure aren't mature enough to decide the future if our country, as they have already proven.

  • John Cummins

    It makes perfect sense actually. Under the "commerce" clause in the constitution the government can regulate "licensed" gun dealers. It is in the terms of their licensing agreement. This merely prohibits licensed dealers from selling to anyone under the age of 21. It really does not prohibit them from buying guns at say, a "Gun Show". They have not figured out how to regulate private sales from private citizens. Give them time... They'll figure it out.
    It is kinda like phones with GPS devices. Citizen are not required to have them, however, under the FCC regulations, licensed providers and/or carriers are only authorized to sell phones with GPS devices inside. Manufacturers are required to place them in the phones. You are free to get a phone without one... all I can say is good luck!! :)

  • Smeethow

    Has this judges thinking shown any decrease in violent crime?

  • americium

    Calm down folks. The beginning of this article is a little misleading (probably not intentionally). If you read the Reuters report the Fifth Circuit upheld the ban on HANDGUNS being sold to those between 18 and 20. It says nothing about rifles and shotguns which are still perfectly legal to sell to qualified (non-fellon, non-drug abuser, non-mentally defective) 18 year olds. I agree with one of the posters though that being able to legally own a pistol at 18 but having to be 21 to buy one seems like a crock.

  • Jude O'Connor

    Those darn criminals just refuse to obey the law. This is the mind set of the politicians.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1533046626 Robert Dungan

    Chip, Chip, Chippin' away...Anti-American, Anti-Christ, Activists Socialist Communist maggots. Do I sound bitter?