We had a similar case here in Virginia. Unfortunately, since the case dragged out too long, and the plaintiff turned 21, the judge threw the case out because the plaintiff no longer had standing.
The Militia Act of 1792 names 18-45 as the age of service in the militia. There is no mention of what arms the militiamen would carry and it is quite likely that some of them were using pistols as part of their weaponry.
That just established an official definition of the malitia, it has long since been held that the second clause namely "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Is an independent clause. But even if malitia regulations did affect the 2A, the 1792 malitia act did not restrict guns in any way shape or form and therefore has no bearing under the bruen analysis.
@@rogerclark9285 under bruen it doesn't matter what is allowed, but what is NOT allowed because if it is not restricted it is defacto allowed in the US legal system
After reading everyone's comments I am surprised no one said the judge essentially wimped out and was afraid to make a decision. Whomever paid to bring this suit got robbed by the legal world. Where I come from, we have a saying lead, follow or get out of the way. This judge was not willing to do any of those. So, citizens, the ball is in your court
Remember, it was the brilliant mind of AOC that said..... "owning a gun isn't a right. If it were it would be in the constitution"..... *jaw drop* WHAT?
There has to be some threshold of reality here or the next thing will be the right to have a Tank (arms generic). And it's a hop skip to get your own Navy.
I have never understood why a judge would make a decision and then issue a stay especially when the decision makes something legal or makes something currently legal illegal. Basically anyone 18 years old is going to be denied their right until this is settled. Which most likely will not be until they are over 21 anyway…
But, say 16 year olds, would be 18 by then, for instance. I'm not disagreeing with your premise, just saying that a final ruling WILL apply to those 18-20 at that time, and those who reach that age going forward.
It is common practice for a judge to stay his own findings if there is likelihood of an appeal of the ruling. If the appeal should be successful then the law stayed in effect the whole time. If an 18 year old were to be arrested carrrying a sidearm during the appeal process thinking he was legal and the ruling is reversed then he would be guilty of a crime.
@@rogerclark9285 I semi agree with you however if, as in this case, the judge overturns the law and that is appealed, it would be legal during that time period. It is the exact opposite with the frames and receivers case in which the judge denied the stay allowing the unconstitutional laws to deny constitutional rights while the case is being appealed. The result is that good people are denied their rights for years while these things make it through the court system. I would think that these things should be biased toward individual rights but they are not...it also makes it seem to me that the judge isn't confident that he/she made the right decision.
@@jeffssaunders yes it is necessary for those who come after but... In Florida where I live the first challenge to the 18-20 year old ban was dismissed because the individual suing turned 21 and therefore lost standing. That individual had their rights denied, probably ran up 10's of thousands of dollars (which is pretty expensive for anyone not to mention an 18-20 year old) in legal bills and nothing changed... Hopefully with the Bruen Decision things will get better
So maybe let’s start by requiring anyone 18-20 to obtain a LTC, and unseal their juvenile records. Just because you go from 17 to 18 doesn’t mean the evil that may already exist in your heart just suddenly disappears.
Constitutional carry is our right. When the constitution was written, and long afterwards there was not any gun licenses anywhere in United States. There is no mention of people being confined to the State they live in order to carry a firearm, and everyone at that time brought their firearm everywhere they wanted to go including across state lines. Outside of my home is anywhere in the United States as a legal citizen. Because the Supreme Court stated text , history and tradition is to be used, any legal citizen of the United States should be allowed to carry their firearm anywhere in the United States without a license or permit. If you are new to firearms and think you need training that is a good thing. The State or government shouldn't demand you jump through hoops to get your constitutional right to carry a firearm. Constitutional carry should be the law of the land. Call or write your local politicians and the ones in Washington to let them know how you will vote if they don't represent your rights. Please pass this message on to others.
We had a similar case here in Virginia. Unfortunately, since the case dragged out too long, and the plaintiff turned 21, the judge threw the case out because the plaintiff no longer had standing.
Thanks. As always, your team provides valuable and timely information on our gun rights.
Thank you for providing the latest information on the new gun laws, implemented or not. Glad to be a member
when will this go into affect?
The Militia Act of 1792 names 18-45 as the age of service in the militia. There is no mention of what arms the militiamen would carry and it is quite likely that some of them were using pistols as part of their weaponry.
That just established an official definition of the malitia, it has long since been held that the second clause namely "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Is an independent clause.
But even if malitia regulations did affect the 2A, the 1792 malitia act did not restrict guns in any way shape or form and therefore has no bearing under the bruen analysis.
@@benruss4130 Except that it establishes that 18 year olds have full rights to own weapons.
@@rogerclark9285 under bruen it doesn't matter what is allowed, but what is NOT allowed because if it is not restricted it is defacto allowed in the US legal system
But don’t you have to be 21 to buy a handgun?
Only from a licensed dealer.
That applies to federally licensed dealers. In many states, private sales and gifts do not have that restriction.
After reading everyone's comments I am surprised no one said the judge essentially wimped out and was afraid to make a decision. Whomever paid to bring this suit got robbed by the legal world. Where I come from, we have a saying lead, follow or get out of the way. This judge was not willing to do any of those. So, citizens, the ball is in your court
So when the plaintiff turns 21, he loses standing and the case dies, right? Therefore, nothing changes.
AND if someone served in the military then they already can apply for a LTC at 18…. that excuse is moot
In fact John Quincy Adams at the age of 8 years old was fighting the red coats.
It’s now been a month what’s the update?
Guess who’s a new member?
Remember, it was the brilliant mind of AOC that said..... "owning a gun isn't a right. If it were it would be in the constitution"..... *jaw drop* WHAT?
Isn’t the age law regulated by federal law and ATF
There has to be some threshold of reality here or the next thing will be the right to have a Tank (arms generic). And it's a hop skip to get your own Navy.
Isn't it ironic how fast the FBI could get a federal search warrant for Trump's residents however it takes years to get a law passed?
Thank you sir. Very well thought out and spoken.
Stay Safe, Bee Free
I have never understood why a judge would make a decision and then issue a stay especially when the decision makes something legal or makes something currently legal illegal. Basically anyone 18 years old is going to be denied their right until this is settled. Which most likely will not be until they are over 21 anyway…
But, say 16 year olds, would be 18 by then, for instance. I'm not disagreeing with your premise, just saying that a final ruling WILL apply to those 18-20 at that time, and those who reach that age going forward.
It is common practice for a judge to stay his own findings if there is likelihood of an appeal of the ruling. If the appeal should be successful then the law stayed in effect the whole time. If an 18 year old were to be arrested carrrying a sidearm during the appeal process thinking he was legal and the ruling is reversed then he would be guilty of a crime.
@@rogerclark9285 I semi agree with you however if, as in this case, the judge overturns the law and that is appealed, it would be legal during that time period. It is the exact opposite with the frames and receivers case in which the judge denied the stay allowing the unconstitutional laws to deny constitutional rights while the case is being appealed. The result is that good people are denied their rights for years while these things make it through the court system. I would think that these things should be biased toward individual rights but they are not...it also makes it seem to me that the judge isn't confident that he/she made the right decision.
@@jeffssaunders yes it is necessary for those who come after but... In Florida where I live the first challenge to the 18-20 year old ban was dismissed because the individual suing turned 21 and therefore lost standing. That individual had their rights denied, probably ran up 10's of thousands of dollars (which is pretty expensive for anyone not to mention an 18-20 year old) in legal bills and nothing changed... Hopefully with the Bruen Decision things will get better
So maybe let’s start by requiring anyone 18-20 to obtain a LTC, and unseal their juvenile records. Just because you go from 17 to 18 doesn’t mean the evil that may already exist in your heart just suddenly disappears.
Constitutional carry is our right.
When the constitution was written, and long afterwards there was not any gun licenses anywhere in United States.
There is no mention of people being confined to the State they live in order to carry a firearm, and everyone at that time brought their firearm everywhere they wanted to go including across state lines.
Outside of my home is anywhere in the United States as a legal citizen.
Because the Supreme Court stated text , history and tradition is to be used, any legal citizen of the United States should be allowed to carry their firearm anywhere in the United States without a license or permit.
If you are new to firearms and think you need training that is a good thing.
The State or government shouldn't demand you jump through hoops to get your constitutional right to carry a firearm.
Constitutional carry should be the law of the land.
Call or write your local politicians and the ones in Washington to let them know how you will vote if they don't represent your rights.
Please pass this message on to others.
🤓🖖👌✌👍😎