Minnesota's 21-year age minimum for handgun carry permits struck down
Source: Reuters
(Reuters) - A federal judge on Friday struck down a Minnesota law requiring a person to be at least 21 before obtaining a permit to carry a handgun in public, finding it violated the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The order by U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez in St. Paul is the latest in a series of legal defeats for state gun control measures following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year expanding gun rights nationwide.
The state's 21-year age minimum, enacted as part of a 2003 gun control law, had been challenged in a 2021 lawsuit by three gun rights groups - Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, Firearms Policy Coalition and Second Amendment Foundation - and three individuals.
"This is a resounding victory for 18- to 20-year-old adults who wish to exercise their Constitutional right to bear arms," Bryan Strawser, chair of Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, said in a statement.
Read more: https://www.yahoo.com/news/minnesotas-21-age-minimum-handgun-181746384.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
bahboo
(16,953 posts)
Skittles
(164,049 posts)yup
msongs
(71,210 posts)
no_hypocrisy
(51,481 posts)
Celerity
(49,773 posts)
cstanleytech
(27,583 posts)down as well?
MichMan
(15,084 posts)cstanleytech
(27,583 posts)said otherwise.
MichMan
(15,084 posts)cstanleytech
(27,583 posts)f_townsend
(260 posts)Central to the requirement that the well-regulated state militias be regulated was the requirement that each militiaman be trained in the use of weapons. And central to having the Constitutional "right to keep arms" was the requirement a militia-aged man be a member of a well-regulated state militia.
Not participating in one's well-regulated state militia = no Constitutional right to own/keep arms. This was said as such by the First Congress during the Bill of Rights debates.
MichMan
(15,084 posts)In the Bill of Rights, which was the post I replied to.
lostnfound
(16,948 posts)Oooh bill of riiiiiights
BigmanPigman
(52,978 posts)Fuck you, gun loving asshole!!!
Another state I will make sure to never enter or support.
DetroitLegalBeagle
(2,353 posts)And she has to follow SCOTUS precedent.
Skittles
(164,049 posts)
DetroitLegalBeagle
(2,353 posts)Or would you prefer segregation and bans on interracial marriages to still be constitutional? SCOTUS makes bad decisions sometimes, obviously, so occasionally they will fix the mistakes of previous Courts.
On the other hand, lower courts need to be bound by SCOTUS in order to ensure some uniformity within our legal system, particularly Constitutional issues. It would be chaos if every court were allowed it's own interpretation. This is why Circuit Court splits on something is one of the surest ways to get SCOTUS to decide something.
Skittles
(164,049 posts)unless you want your sentence to read "....if every court were allowed it is own interpretation"
and apparently, only women's rights are allowed to be rescinded
progree
(11,877 posts)The article indicated that horrible Minnesota is (was) the only state with a higher-than-18 minimum age.
Actually we don't think of our state as being all that horrible politically, right now we have a blue trifecta. Weather-wise, that's another story.
We also don't have a say either as voters, nor our governor or legislature, on who our federal district judges are.
We're not Iowa.
Straw Man
(6,867 posts)I didn't see that in the article. If it's there, it's wrong.
I'm not sure I see how Bruen is relevant. The Bruen case was about a subjective "show need" requirement in the NY permitting process. Prior to Bruen, if you couldn't convince a judge that you needed a permit, you didn't get one. The practical application of this requirement varied widely from county to county and from judge to judge.
DetroitLegalBeagle
(2,353 posts)Means end testing and all lower levels of scrutiny can no longer be used. Courts can no longer consider the government interest or "good" effects of the challenged law.
sarisataka
(21,666 posts)Do you avoid or not support, but let's go with a shorter list. Which one will you visit or support?
(Also, why so upset at a state for having a law struck down by a Federal judge?)
The Jungle 1
(4,552 posts)After all there are children to be shot and mutilated. The right loves dead kids.
The vast majority of the nation wants stricter gun laws. Our Democracy is not working.
The repukes are saying out loud that dead kids are just the way it is going to be. They can't do anything about it.
REPEAL the 2nd. The 2nd is the problem!
Frasier Balzov
(4,347 posts)The Jungle 1
(4,552 posts)The 2nd is not the problem the fraud the right uses to interpret the 2nd is the problem.
Which is exactly what Warren Burger said many years ago.
In the NRA lobby, in DC, most of the 2nd in on the wall. Left out are the four words "A well regulated Militia"!
All they want to do is sell guns.
jvill
(459 posts).
Karadeniz
(24,375 posts)Alexander Hamilton, this judgment would appear unconstitutional. Hamilton described the equivalent of state guards... called militia only because they were so leery of even whispering the term standing army. But they were meant to be regulated to keep them effective. So if a state places an age limit, that's its right to regulate. The feds, based upon an erroneous decision, continue to misapply the intent of the 2A.
Hermit-The-Prog
(36,631 posts)
barbtries
(30,385 posts)our country is sick.
thatdemguy
(592 posts)
David__77
(24,060 posts)…
orleans
(35,976 posts)The brain finishes developing and maturing in the mid-to-late 20s. The part of the brain behind the forehead, called the prefrontal cortex, is one of the last parts to mature. This area is responsible for skills like planning, prioritizing, and making good decisions.
snip
The emphasis on peer relationships, along with ongoing prefrontal cortex development, might lead teens to take more risks because the social benefits outweigh the possible consequences of a decision. These risks could be negative or dangerous, or they could be positive, such as talking to a new classmate or joining a new club or sport.
snip
Because the teen brain is still developing, teens may respond to stress differently than adults. This could increase teens’ chances of developing stress-related mental illnesses such as anxiety and depression.
snip
Many teens do not get enough sleep, making it harder to pay attention, control impulses, and do well at school.
snip
Ongoing changes in the brain, along with physical, emotional, and social changes, can make teens more likely to experience mental health problems. The fact that all these changes happen at one time may explain why many mental illnesses—such as schizophrenia, anxiety, depression, bipolar disorder, and eating disorders—emerge during adolescence.
more at link
https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/the-teen-brain-7-things-to-know#:~:text=The%20brain%20finishes%20developing%20and,prioritizing%2C%20and%20making%20good%20decisions.
MichMan
(15,084 posts)Why would we permit young adults, whose minds are still being developed, to drink alcohol and make important decisions like voting?
orleans
(35,976 posts)to go massacre groups of people
MichMan
(15,084 posts)If indeed, minds are still undeveloped at someone's mid 20's, as the study concluded, they should probably not be considered responsible enough to do other activities that we only permit adults to engage in, like drinking and voting.
orleans
(35,976 posts)of being in the position to have babies.
The Jungle 1
(4,552 posts)What could go wrong.
Send your first grade kid to school with a gun.
Actually the schools should buy the guns.
Snark
former9thward
(33,424 posts)We keep our rifles (and ammo) in our lockers. Nothing went wrong.
The Jungle 1
(4,552 posts)Times have changed quite a bit since then.
Now the single most frequent cause of death for children is gun violence. Many people think more guns will solve that issue.
Bloody mutilated children all over the country.
I do remember the Texas tower mass shooting. 1966 I believe. I guess my generation had enough body bags from Vietnam.
Presently a minority of the country does not care about bloody mutilated children. The rest of us want it to stop.
Strict gun laws reduce the number of bloody mutilated children. We know the laws work.
EX500rider
(11,796 posts)For actual children accidents are still the main cause of death.
SouthernDem4ever
(6,618 posts)
DetroitLegalBeagle
(2,353 posts)And his picks have been pretty goosd. Regardless, at this point her hand are tied by SCOTUS precedent. Bruen set the new standard to determine the constitutionality of gun laws that lower courts must use.
SouthernDem4ever
(6,618 posts)I stand by my statement.
JohnnyRingo
(19,913 posts)Sorry if that upsets some, but if people aren't mature intellectually and emotionally at that age, they should raise the legal age of adulthood to 21 or higher.
If an 18 year old commits a crime with a gun they don't try them as a child. Not ever.
thesquanderer
(12,594 posts)Straw Man
(6,867 posts)Ethically, it's a hard sell to say you're old enough to bear arms in defense of your nation, but not in defense of yourself.
azureblue
(2,420 posts)Because the judge cited the 2nd amendment, then the other part of the 2nd, must also be enforced. The membership in a "well regulated militia" part. You aren't a member of the National Guard? Then you don't get to own a firearm.
Per the judge's ruling, now anyone who does not belong to a WRM and is carrying, loses possession of their weapon until they join one and undergo complete training..
friend of a friend
(367 posts)"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is a preamble, it is the second part "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." is what The Supreme Court says is the important part because of the comma after "a free state. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter what the Founding Fathers meant, it is only important what The Supreme Court says it means. In 1893, The Supreme Court ruled in Nix v Hedden that tomatoes were a vegetable and not a fruit because most people thought that tomatoes were a vegetable. You never know what reasons The Supreme Court will come up with.
ancianita
(40,434 posts)
angrychair
(10,592 posts)That the US is, collectively, not necessarily individually, a death cult.
We are obsessed with violence, war and killing.
We, as human beings, not individuals, are more likely to torture someone then give them aid.
Humans beings are not the evolved, benevolent beings we like to imagine ourselves to be.
We are the things that go bump in the night.
We are driven by fear, hate and anger.
We are our own demons.
sl8
(16,407 posts)[...]
The State of Minnesota requires a person to obtain a permit to lawfully carry a handgun in public, but does not issue permits to anyone under the age of twenty-one. The Plaintiffs, who are 18-to-20-year-old individuals and firearms advocacy organizations with members in that age range, argue that the minimum age requirement in Minnesota’s permit-to-carry law violates their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The Supreme Court’s recent decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022), compels the conclusion that Minnesota’s permitting age restriction is unconstitutional, and Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
[...]
Novara
(6,115 posts)Kaleva
(39,307 posts)Novara
(6,115 posts)... with 16 year old classmates carrying "legally"????
sl8
(16,407 posts)18 U.S. Code § 922 (x) (2)
YOUTH HANDGUN SAFETY ACT NOTICE (ATF pdf)
https://www.atf.gov/file/58806/download
Kaleva
(39,307 posts)Straw Man
(6,867 posts)... against Vermont law to carry a firearm on the grounds of a school.
sl8
(16,407 posts)[...]
§ 4004. Possession of dangerous or deadly weapon in a school bus or school building or on school property
(a) No person shall knowingly possess a firearm or a dangerous or deadly weapon while within a school building or on a school bus. A person who violates this section shall, for the first offense, be imprisoned for not more than one year or fined not more than $1,000.00, or both, and for a second or subsequent offense shall be imprisoned for not more than three years or fined not more than $5,000.00, or both.
(b) No person shall knowingly possess a firearm or a dangerous or deadly weapon on any school property with the intent to injure another person. A person who violates this section shall, for the first offense, be imprisoned for not more than three years or fined not more than $1,000.00, or both, and for a second or subsequent offense shall be imprisoned for not more than five years or fined not more than $5,000.00, or both.
(c) This section shall not apply to:
[exceptions list]
Vinca
(52,026 posts)killing per day in this country.
EX500rider
(11,796 posts)... they did not then require militia membership for firearm ownership so it's unlikely that's what they meant.
f_townsend
(260 posts)The Framers never claimed that militia participation was the requirement to own guns; only that it was a requirement to have a constitutionally-protected right to own a gun. That was made clear during the BoR debates in the First Congress, when it was stated that the constitutional "right to keep arms" was solely dependent on militia participation. The "explanatory" wording of the 2A -- wording that was unique among all the amendments -- made that clear enough to everyone. So local gun control ordinances which didn't disarm militiamen were passed throughout the states, and nobody ever cried out their right to bear and keep arms was being infringed in any way.
That meant, though the right of participating militiamen not to be dispossessed of their militia weapon could not be "infringed" (within reason), all other gun control legislation was and is constitutional. Any Court ruling claiming otherwise is fraudulent.