News @lemmy.world gAlienLifeform @lemmy.world 8mo ago

Minnesota ban on 18- to 20-year-olds obtaining handgun permits is unconstitutional, federal appeals court says

www.cnn.com Minnesota ban on 18- to 20-year-olds obtaining handgun permits is unconstitutional, federal appeals court says | CNN Politics

Minnesota’s ban on 18- to 20-year-olds obtaining a permit to publicly carry a handgun violates the US Constitution, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.

Archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20240718112943/https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/16/politics/minnesota-handgun-ban-unconstitutional/index.html

147

147 comments

No booze or cigarettes, but guns are totally cool.
- Tobacco use isn't in the Constitution. Any state can have a drinking age of 18, perfectly legal. They just get their federal highway funds yanked.
  
  So it's tough to tell someone, "Yeah, it's a right for other adults, just not you."
  
  If I had my druthers, I'd raise the national age to 21 when brains are a good bit more developed.
2A even has the term "well regulated" in it.
- They only care about the second half.
  
  unless black people are owning guns then they'll be all for gun control.. like when the black panthers armed themselves.
- SCOTUS pretty much shit canned the first half on the 2A a long time ago. Can’t remember the case, but they basically said a “well regulated militia” could be anyone.
  
  ETA: as someone else pointed out, the case was DC v Heller.
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
  
  Heller, 2008.
- Let me guess, you would "well regulate" all militias to be wealthy white people?
- A well regulated watch is a watch in proper working order. 'Well regulated' does not mean 'to pass regulations' in this context.
  
  Example sentences from online:
  
  "regulate one's habits"
  
  "regulate the pressure of a tire"
  
  Now do militia.
  
  Any way you cut it, the point was to have an armed citizenry capable of defending the country, and the 2nd was plainly defined in that context, so it makes perfect sense that the minimum requirement for bearing arms is being able to do so effectively: so where's the training? Where's the free gun after you prove yourself capable enough to be part of the national defense?
  
  As it turns out, we have all that, it's called the U.S. Military, an all volunteer force for the defence of the nation. (They don't let you keep your gun anymore).
  
  Want to do it part time, on an on-call basis? National Guard.
  
  Id love it if we moved to the swiss model of mandatory training for everyone when they're old enough, issuing them a firearm, and telling them to stay trained just in case, that would be awesome. Instead we have "buy it at Walmart, figure it out", and zero part of that is run well.
  
  Then maybe we should make sure it's in proper working order. Because selling an 18 year old a handgun at Walmart with no training ain't that.
  
  a militia in the constitution was similar to firefighters - you were expected to come help people and the failure to do so could result in losing your 2nd amendment rights.
  
  The idea that a militia = a consumer is a modern rewrite.
  
  Good thing we aren't watches and there's a definition that fits better.
- Well Regulated meaning in working order and properly armed.
  
  Militias don't exist anymore, accept as a term for a cosplaying gun club.
  
  Remember, when this was written people thought a permanent military would be used against the citizens, so they thought it better to not have one.
  
  That includes rules. You guys want to ignore an entire part of the definition of the word.
I think sometimes about if cars were a thing when the bill of rights was written, they might've had an amendment like "travel, being important to a free state, the right to drive an automobile shall not be infringed "

And then we'd have all sorts of problems where like six year olds would be driving , blind people would be driving, you wouldn't have any safety standards or environmental standards, etc etc etc. And people would be jerking themselves raw about how it's great , that freedom is great, they love when their car explodes.
- And then we'd have all sorts of problems where like six year olds would be driving , blind people would be driving, you wouldn't have any safety standards or environmental standards, etc etc etc. And people would be jerking themselves raw about how it's great , that freedom is great, they love when their car explodes.
  
  I have no agenda here. I just thought your comment was comical and then I saw all of these:
  
  6 year olds… 😬
  
  Blind… 😬
  
  Safety standards… 😬
  
  Car explodes… 😬
18 for everything. "various levels of adulthood" need to go away. Either you're an adult or not.

Don't like it? Prove you actually believe what you say you do and work to raise the draft age to 21.
- 18 is to young to be considered an adult. I think 21 is more fitting but we don't mentally mature until late 20s.
  
  https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/the-teen-brain-7-things-to-know
  
  At the same time we're capable of adult level actions earlier than 18. We regularly have children, kill people, drive, have jobs, have bank accounts, make life altering decisions about sports and school credits... etc.
  
  The argument for lowering the age of majority is far stronger than the argument for raising it.
Well tbh if we send them to war to die why are we limiting their constitutional rights?

If 21 is the new age of adulthood, then society should start acting like it instead of doing this selective circle jerk. Otherwise, such regulations have no legal leg to stand on.
- I agree with you. But, that's not how things work.
  
  We've neglected public education and mental health for roughly forty years. The establishment wants a complete monopoly on violence. And, laws are only enforced when convenient for the ruling class. The state has caused an issue - stupid unstable people with guns - and will now use it as an excuse to further monopolize use of violence as a means.
  
  that's not how things work.
  
  I am not following this tbh
- We aren't sending them to war to die, there hasn't been a draft in half a century
  
  You can argue morally but legally there's nothing in the constitution defining what an adult is except for the 26th amendment and that specifically talks about the right to vote. In the case of voting Oregon v Mitchell decided that it was unconstitutional to force states to lower there voting age to 18 for state and local elections without an amendment, which eventually was added. Barring another amendment passing why can't states choose to decide what they define as adults for gun ownership?
  
  Oh we're not? Did we not just get out of 20 years of a war?
  
  You'll hand an 18 year old a belt fed machinegun and a mortar system that will damage their brain every time they fire it.
  
  But god help us all if they have a pistol, beer, or cigarette?
  
  Clearly because federal appeals court said so?
  
  States can do as they please my point was more about how clown these rules look
- There is zero logic in your comment. I don't even know what "selective circle jerk" is supposed to be.
  
  I think the implication is the disparity in the ages that people are allowed to do things.
  
  Children can get married, you can drive at 16, go to war at 18, but can't drink until 21. So at what point are you considered an adult?
  
  So there is logic in sending young adults armed to fight wars but at the same time limit their access to fire arms domestically based on ???
This is good. Now do the same with alcohol. You can be forced to die in a war at 18 but can't drink and enjoy the full rights of an adult citizen.
- Well, pretty sure we've got an amendment for that so that'll take a bit more effort.
  
  Nope, no amendment. Just a mafia style deal you can't refuse. If a state lowers it's drinking age they lose federal highway funding.
  
  Come to think of it, I'm surprised one of these radical republican governors hasn't done it yet.
- I immediately thought the same thing, but unfortunately there’s no constitutionally guaranteed right to alcohol.
  
  Yet.
  
  Funnily enough, we do have an amendment allowing it, though it does not prohibit state governments from regulating it. All it would take is a simple bill of congress to end the requirement that states set a 21+ law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-first_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
  
  Edit: oops this was meant to be a reply to the other comment
  
  Something something the right to beer arms
- Isn't there a legitimate medical reason that's not a thing?
  
  No. Supposedly they raised the age to 21 because of drunk driving teens, though I'm not sure what effect it had. In my opinion, the better option regardless is to introduce teens to how to use alcohol responsibly and safely, rather than prohibit until it's too late.
But what about StATeS RiGhTs???!!
Only Americans can be so removed to find something like unconstitutional. What a dumb country.
- Damn, guess I should've chosen to be born somewhere else. Rookie mistake
  
  You probably went and chose the wrong time period to be born in too !
Meanwhile, the gun rights group Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, which was among the organizations that challenged the law, cheered the decision.

“This is a resounding victory for 18-20-year-old adults who wish to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms,” Bryan Strawser, the group’s chairman, said in a statement.

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.
- Shouldn't conservatives be outraged that they stopped at age 18? The text in the 2nd amendment doesn't have an age limit. Aren't toddlers "people"? Logically the fucked up conservative courts should be ruling that babies can buy any gun they want. Because in their stupid world, the "well regulated" words have no meaning.
  
  Hey, what are you doing!?!?! Those aren't your goal posts!
From now on, whether or not you are allowed to buy a gun will depend on which groups you check as possible victims for your killing spree.
Don't you just love how it's all about states' rights when it comes to things like abortion, but as soon as it's gun control, the states' rights don't matter.
- To be fair, gun rights are an actual constitutional right. I don't think the democrats ever tried to make an amendment to include abortion rights. For them, the threat of losing it was a good campaign issue.
  
  The idea that control over your own body and medical decisions can't be sourced in the Constitution is ridiculous. If we don't have the right to that then we don't have the right to anything.
- The right of the people to keep and bear arms is explicitly in the Constitution. The Constitution supersedes state law.
  
  You forgot half the amendment. These 18 year olds are more than welcome to sign up for military service.
  
  Only when Republicans decide it does.
because conservatives get sexually aroused over school shootings and kids dying.
The founding writers of the constitution never imagined people would fit hand cannons in their pants.
- They absolutely imagined that.
- The founding writers of the constitution never imagined people would fit hand cannons in their pants.
  
  Hand cannons had been in use for hundreds of years (citation 1, citation 2) before the Constitution was written. Where do you get this idea they were not aware of their existence?
- You sound dumb. No, they 100% imagined it, because they existed and were in mass production while they were alive.
  
  Try walking around with an 18 inch pistol concealed in your pants. https://www.flintlocks.com/pistols.htm#:~:text=Overall Length%3A 18 5%2F8" Max. width of butt%3A,octagon barrel Breech%3A 7%2F8" Small%3A 3%2F4" Muzzle%3A 13%2F16"

147 comments