A federal judge in Texas on Thursday struck down a state law barring adults under 21 from carrying handguns, ruling that the age limit violated the Second Amendment. U.S. District Judge Mark T. Pittman said the Constitution didn’t put an age restriction on the right to bear arms, meaning adults 18 to 20 shouldn’t be prevented from carrying handguns outside the home.
Even the lunatics who run Texas didn't want teens carrying handguns around, but a Texas court told them that this was too damn sensible. There was just no good reason not to let teenagers pack all the heat they want.
So even Texas now has to live with the crackpottery of the courts they've created. I guess that's fully deserved, but still. Who will rid us of these turbulent jurists?
As terrible as the latest shooting in Texas was, it's stories like this which temper my reaction. I don't know anyone affected so it doesn't really register as tragedy or worthy of much comment either way. I find the reaction to police hesitation to be hypocritical. I mean... everyone has a gun. Why would they sacrifice themselves for people so foolish as to allow this level of gun play?
Anyway... ridding ourselves of turbulent jurists, Texans, Trump, and republicans would require violence, which I abhor. I guess I'll just watch as they do it to each other and stay out of their way.
I can't even be bothered to offer trivial thoughts and meaningless prayers to non-existent gods. Uvalde is a shithole city in a shithole state... among many other things. Karma.
You've got this wrong, Kevin. Some commie-loving/freedom-hating judge just ruled that constitution does not protect the rights of zero-to-seventeen-year-olds. If the Supreme Court can read out the words "well regulated" and "militia" from the 2nd Amendment, how dare some federal judge read into the word "people" whose rights to bear arms shall not be infringed the term "adults"?
Indeed, a *true* Texan judge would rule that 2nd Amendment rights extend to the unborn (and presumably also the deceased?)--how else are fetuses supposed to defend themselves from tyrannical government/nefarious choosey women?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theonion.com/nation-shocked-by-pre-natal-shooting-1819565542/amp
Bingo
Forced birth toddlers packing heat - that is the ideal Texas is aiming for.
What about the rights of people 0-17?!? I mean, why shouldn't they be able to buy guns?
That's a good question, and I'm not sure there's an intellectually consistent justification for a state law barring kids from firearm ownership.We wouldn't allow a state government to restrict the religious liberties of children, or prevent them from criticizing the government.
“We wouldn't allow a state government to restrict the religious liberties of children, or prevent them from criticizing the government.”
Um.
Lots of states prohibit free speech of kids in schools, especially if they are criticizing the school board or state government (see the spat of LGBT kids being punished for expressing views like “being gay is ok”). They also prohibit kids from practicing religious ceremonies in schools, or they’re starting to force a single religion on kids (see efforts to put Christian prayer back in schools and school functions like football games).
+2 Bong hits 4 Jesus
I didn’t say mention schools. I specifically cited “criticizing the government.”
In any event, the custodial nature of the relationship between public schools and children absolutely requires a degree of authority on the part of the former to exercise selectivity with respect to books, teaching materials etc. I think schools sometimes get it wrong or go too far, mind you. But this is a very different thing from a general law broadly abrogating the first amendment.
I vehemently disagree with current Second Amendment jurisprudence. But because the right wing judiciary has forced the country to operate under an erroneous interpretation of said amendment, outcomes like the one Kevin has written about are inevitable. Which was my point.
Prolly would say same reason a 9th grader can't go to the cornershop & buy a Hustler.
"What about the rights of people 0-17?!?"
You missed an entire group, from minus 9 months to 0, especially in Texas.
On another side, does this mean that those who can now purchase guns, must be in a militia (well-regulated)?
My idea is that if a kid "must own" a weapon, then enlist.
"So even Texas now has to live with the crackpottery of the courts they've created."
Well, to be fair, they are federal courts (created by Congress) with this judge in particular appointed by Trump. Further, even though nearly all of Texas's EV votes went to Trump, had Texas swung blue, it still wouldn't have put Clinton over the top. So this is not really a ruling of Texan making (although I'm sure that Texans everywhere are overjoyed that high school seniors are now allowed to carry handguns).
Under Pittman's logic, can four your olds also carry?
Why not? Also note that amendment 2 says nothing about "people", just "rights." So not only toddlers, but also dogs and other species could potentially get into the act! Maybe we could get PETA involved: The right to arm bears!
It does say "people".
Does a pregnant person count as two "people"? For car-pool lane purposes?
How is that case going?
The Men's Rights Activist movement cheered the overturn of Roe v. Wade, as it subjugated women, but if it leads to child support starting from conception, I have a feeling Brett Kavanaugh's Biggest Fans will be replacing the Woke Mob outside Carmine's Steakhouse the next time the Supreme Drunkard goes out to eat.
This ruling is something the Texas legislature could easily change, if it wanted to. And if the voters want that done, they know which circle to fill in on their ballots, the next time members of the Lege are up for election. Of course, that will be years and years from now, and we can expect additional mass shootings from aggrieved incel teeny boppers. Freedumb.
Apropos of nothing, I see the photo up at the top of your page is the museum honoring your cat, Hilbert! Has he ever visited it?
This ruling is something the Texas legislature could easily change,
Haven't looked into this case, but on the face of it I'm not seeing how the state legislature could obviate this federal judicial ruling. It's based on standard, post Heller 2nd amendment jurisprudence, isn't it?
I have considerable sympathy for this judge. Once we go down the primrose path of erroneous 2nd amendment jurisprudence (mainly, holding that arms bearing is an individual and not group right), there's not much justification for telling young adults they can't fully exercise this constitutional liberty. District judges can't overrule the Supreme Court.
"I have considerable sympathy for this judge."
You shouldn't. SCOTUS rulings that the 2nd Amendment confers an individual right don't mean that a judge is compelled to determine that teenagers can carry handguns--a moderately clever judge who valued judicial restraint and/or the ability of a democratically-elected legislature to set state law might have noted that states are free to determine the age of majority/age of license for their residents, and that by enacting a law limiting handgun carry to those 21-and-older, Texas was simply acting within its valid prerogative.
A less-than-moderately clever judge could also have asked his or her clerks for help in crafting a decision that upheld the law; even a truly dim judge could have just read the briefs from the government.
So sympathy isn't warranted. This judge wanted this result.
The case for allowing age of majority considerations to curtail rights subject to strict scrutiny is highly questionable.
With respect, I think you all have missed the plot. The problem isn’t this judge. The problem is we’ve been force-fed an erroneous interpretation of the Second Amendment. Things like this are going to continue to happen, until such time as we get a better court that overturns the relevant precedents.
"With respect, I think you all have missed the plot. The problem isn’t this judge. The problem is we’ve been force-fed an erroneous interpretation of the Second Amendment. "
With respect, I haven't missed any plot, thank you very much. I am well-aware of and disagree strongly with Heller and its progeny of cases, and fully agree that Heller&such is the big problem.
That said, nothing about those cases COMPELLED Judge Pittman to issue this particular order*--again, a moderately clever judge who didn't think children should have guns and/or that an appointed federal judge should maybe be reserved when reviewing democratically-derived state law could easily have come up with an opinion upholding the statute. Pittman didn't. He wanted certain results, and wrote an opinion to deliver them.
I really to urge you to read it**--it's shockingly dim reasoning, presuming immediately that the core question is whether or not 18-20 year olds are "people." Concluding that they are, the judge determines that they are within the ambit of the 2nd A, and then handwaves some stuff about how 18 year olds were probably historically eligible for militia service, so blah blah blah kids can carry handguns.
___________
*FWIW, Pittman nowhere applies "strict scrutiny"--he just engages in a very, very lazy Bruen analysis. Which is how he avoids the ridiculousness of concluding that since all humans are "people" that the 2nd A must give handgun carry rights to not just 18-20 year-olds, but 17-, 15-, 5-, and 2-year olds, which I guess was a bridge too far for Pittman. Again, he could have just as easily said "The 2nd A says 'people,' yet plainly the Framers didn't mean that infants may bear arms; accordingly, this court will not disturb the legislature's sound judgment as to the proper age of handgun carry licensure," yet he did not.
**https://static.texastribune.org/media/files/1b5478d53ca94273f608f46c40f581fe/Firearms-Policy-Coalition-v.-McCraw.pdf?_ga=2.199874862.1271890848.1661613286-1362567523.1661613286
Since Republicans want teachers to be armed they should be all in on “responsible” 18 year old high school students being armed in the classroom also. I’m sure that during my high school days I would have felt safer with a bunch of kids carrying assault rifles into class.
If this shit keeps up I going to be just as cynical as Justin.
I expect that when the Red Flag laws are challenged by some right wing / nut job gun group (aka the mainstream GOP), the current Supreme Court of Gilead (with its very own resident Handmaid) will shit can all those laws. Afterall, if the "originalists" on the court can't find any "Founding Era" laws supporting Red Flag regulations, then it is clearly not constitutional. Of course the Founding Era gun laws had the fire power of those muskets to consider, with a whapping 3 rounds per minute rate of fire in the hands of a well trained militia (remember the militia, those folks who the SCOTUS textualists forgot about in 2008).
It would be Karma if those people responsible for the current state of guns in the US suffered a personal tragedy from guns used by someone who would not have one but for their activism.
I say we let Texans all gather in a circle and shoot the person standing in front. All at once, fire!
A Mexican firing squad!
After they've exhausted their ammunition, return the remnant population & land in Texas to Mexico.
I say we let Texans all gather in a circle and shoot the person standing to their right. All at once, fire!
A similar law in California was recently struck down on the same grounds.
So it's elementary logic that kids in 21st century LA should be able to own AR-15s.
Once Trump Republicans get their fetal personhood bills passed, their judges will rule that even the unborn can own guns.
N.W.A. got into a heap of trouble for saying this thirty-four years ago, though.
... "a gang is with whomever I'm steppin'.... got the motherfuckin' weapon, it's kept in... a safe spot from the so-called law"...
This is how you know even many democrats are completely useless on gun control.
"Congresswoman Norma Torres (D-Calif.) told the L.A. Times that she sleeps with a gun following threats from Bukele’s followers after she called him a “narcissistic dictator” on Twitter."
She agrees that the best way for her to be safe is to sleep with a gun. Might as well make an ad for the NRA.
I assume you might have been one of the (non) Salvadorans making said threats, since Congresswoman Torres's attacks on Bukele are attacks on Crypto.
Silly. This foolish congress idiot told everyone they need a gun for personal protection. That is all. The crypto angle is irrelevant.
Against hybrid Salvadoran paramilitaries/MS13 affiliated expats?
She prolly does.
She agrees that the best way for her to be safe is to sleep with a gun. Might as well make an ad for the NRA.
There is nothing at all incompatible between a belief that A) individuals should possess a robust right to possess firearms for personal protection and B) US practice is currently ludicrously lax with respect to firearms.
The problem the gun lobby has isn't that liberals want to ban private firearms ownership. No mainstream political leader or faction takes such a position in 2022.
No, the gun lobby's problem is that liberals want a coherent, effective system of gun regulations. Full stop. (The gun lobby doesn't want anything resembling a "system"—they favor anarchy).
I've long wondered about the restriction of alcohol to people 21 and older. It's clear enough that the concept of "equality under the law" doesn't, and can't, apply to children. However, the Constitution says anyone over 18 years of age is an adult, and adults should expect to be equal under the law whether they're 18 or 88.
The same reasoning applies equally well to firearms.
No. Firearms possession is explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights. The right wing interpretation is a ludicrously erroneous one, mind you, but that's the governing precept for now.
Alcohol consumption enjoys no such special, highlighted constitutional protection, and our ancient legal traditions have long recognized rights under the law are attenuated when it comes to minors (hence, for instance, a minimum voting age).
Exactly my point. 18 to 20 year olds are NOT minors.
Pingback: Julian Reichelt verbrennt Gas im ungarischen Rechnungshof und fordert einen Marshallplan für chinesische Bildung in der ARD - Vermischtes 01.09.2022 - Deliberation Daily