Fifth Circuit finds federal law restricting youth handgun purchases unconstitutional

adjusterjack

Super Moderator
Jurisdiction
US Federal Law

The Fifth Circuit comprises Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.

The Third Circuit comprises Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware.

Circuit Court decisions are not binding on other Circuit Courts so I imagine this issue will eventually reach the US Supreme Court.
 
Circuit Court decisions are not binding on other Circuit Courts so I imagine this issue will eventually reach the US Supreme Court.

The age of majority was foolishly changed from 21 to 18 in the USA in 1971!

You're correct, @adjusterjack , I think this issue will end up before the folks wearing the long, black robes, sitting on the Supreme Court.

At the time, alcohol abuse by teens soared, while teen voting soured!!!

Sooner or later, firearms use will soar among teens, (far more than it has) as their 18 year old ADULT contemporaries, provide their 14, 15, 16 year old pals with firearms, and very soon alcohol.

Thanks or curses can be given to Richard Milhaus Nixon and Congress serving in 1971.

The ridiculous 26th Amendment plays a very big part of the silly, little drama, too.

Amendment Twenty-six to the Constitution was ratified on July 1, 1971. It lowered the voting age for all Americans to eighteen years, having previously been twenty-one years for the longest time. The official text is written as such:

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


At the time of its enactment, Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment established protections for the right to vote, specifically for the "male inhabitants of the state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States." The earliest calls for lowering the voting age from twenty-one to eighteen emerged in the 1940s, with Congressional proposals being endorsed by First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt. Dwight D. Eisenhower publicly supported lowering the voting age in his 1954 State of the Union address, and in so doing became the first president to endorse the proposal. Later in the 1960s and early 1970s, the increasing public opposition to the Vietnam War renewed debates over lowering the right to vote. The age for the U.S. military's draft was set at eighteen years, leading to many conscripted citizens being effectively ordered to fight in a conflict that they had no political authority to vote on the country's involvement in. Many individuals and groups who were in favor of lowering the voting age argued that if a citizen was old enough to serve the country in the military, then they should be able to have the right to vote at the same age, hence the slogan "old enough to fight, old enough to vote." At the same time, the increasing number of young American men and women graduating high school, going to college, and engaging in political and social activism led to an increasing national awareness of the process of crafting laws and Constitutional amendments.

In light of the increasing calls for lowering the voting age, President Richard Nixon added a provision to do so in the 1970 extensions of the Voting Rights Act. This new act of Congress was challenged in the Supreme Court case of Oregon v. Mitchell, where it was determined that Congress has the authority to lower the voting age for federal elections, but not for state elections. A proposed amendment to have the voting age lowered for all levels of government was proposed and passed by both chambers of Congress in March 1971. After being sent out to the states for ratification, the new amendment – now recognized as the Twenty-sixth – was ratified on July 1, 1971. The Twenty-sixth Amendment has faced a few legal challenges in the decades since its ratification, with the general arguments ranging from how a college student from out-of-town is represented at the polls, if the amendment extends any other political institutions such as serving on a jury, or if voter identification laws are valid and recognized beneath it. On its own, the Twenty-sixth Amendment addressed one of the larger domestic controversies that had emerged amid the Cold War. The question of a citizen being old enough to fight and vote was asked, and it was answered.
 
Yeah, I read about that in Wikipedia when a posted the ruling on another site.

Bottom line: An 18 year old is legally an adult and should have all the rights and privileges of an adult.

And we are still giving them guns and sending them to war.
 
Yeah, I read about that in Wikipedia when a posted the ruling on another site.

Bottom line: An 18 year old is legally an adult and should have all the rights and privileges of an adult.

And we are still giving them guns and sending them to war.

None of the above is an issue, in my opinion.

The issue seems to elude many people.

The age of majority in most countries stood at 18 years for centuries.

Along comes the controversial Vietnam War, which began by most accounts, thanks to JFK and his interest is Special Forces, particularly, our Army's Green Berets.

However, as with many controversies across the centuries, special little ancilliary controversies sprouted and grew. Thus, the whining, we send 18 year olds to war, but they can't buy alcohol.

As with most things, good often begets bad. Freshly minted 18 year old adults could suddenly vote and buy liquor. One way or another, liquor purchases were disallowed to 18 year olds, with some states allowing them to buy 3.2% "near beer".

Many 18 year olds would buy "near beer" and "alcohol" for their 15, 16, 17 year old pals. Drunk driver incidents killing other drivers/pedestrians surged, eventually the age to purchase alcohol was raised across the country to 21.

I've observed over the decades, our ancesters/progenitors to possess and apply common sense far better than current contemporaries.

Will our citizens applaud or rue the latest decision by the Supremes, the jurists, not the girl singing group of the early 1960s forward?
 
Yeah, I read about that in Wikipedia when a posted the ruling on another site.

Bottom line: An 18 year old is legally an adult and should have all the rights and privileges of an adult.
That is flawed logic. The law has long recognized that certain rights can be restricted over the age of adulthood and others to those under it based on their capacity to exercise the right responsibly. We all have seen 18 year-olds who can't drink responsibly, hence the reason nearly every state's drinking age is 21. The age at which someone should be allowed to undertake an activity that may be harmful to others should be based on the age at which most people that age can handle that activity responsibly.
 
Back
Top