When you turn 18 in the United States, you supposedly have full access to your constitutional rights, and no one really gets a say in how you exercise them anymore. Not so long as you stay within the accepted limits, anyway.
But there's an exception. You can't buy a handgun.
Under federal law, you can't buy a handgun until you turn 21, not from a licensed dealer, anyway. While you can still own one, you're dependent on someone giving you a pistol as a gift. It's not a right if it depends on someone else doing something first, which is a big problem.
Now, the Supreme Court is considering whether to accept a case challenging the ban on handgun sales to adults under 21, and the Second Amendment Foundation offered a brief as to why the Court should accept it.
From a press release:
The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed a reply brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in Brown v. ATF, SAF’s challenge to the federal ban that prevents adults under 21 years old from purchasing handguns from licensed dealers. The brief was filed in response to the government’s request to delay Brown until two other Second Amendment cases recently granted certiorari are heard by the High Court.
The two cases granted cert are Wolford v. Lopez and United States v. Hemani. The Wolford lawsuit challenges Hawaii’s so called “vampire rule,” which switches the presumption of lawful carry in private places open to the public. In Hemani, the case contests federal law that bans firearm possession by users of illegal drugs, including marijuana, which is still illegal federally despite being decriminalized in multiple states. SAF has filed an amicus brief in support of Wolford and has a case challenging the ban of medical marijuana users from purchasing firearms in Greene v. Bondi.
“It’s notable that the government isn’t asking for the Supreme Court to accept or deny the case, only to hold it over until two other recently accepted cases can be heard,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “The problem with that is those two cases have absolutely nothing to do with the basis for our challenge whatsoever. We are asking the Court to once and for all determine that adults under the age of 21 are part of ‘the People,’ just like the Fifth Circuit has already ruled. The outcome of the other two cases granted cert recently will have no bearing on Brown v. ATF, and there should be no delay in the High Court deciding if it will hear our case.”
SAF is representing the plaintiffs in the case, and the brief urges the Court to grant certiorari in Brown, citing a circuit split on the issue which has created a disjointed application of the law depending on geographic region. The Fifth Circuit struck down the law earlier this year in SAF’s Reese v. ATF case, while the Fourth Circuit upheld it in Brown v. ATF. Joining SAF in the case are the West Virginia Citizens Defense League and a private citizen, Alec La Neve.
“This is merely a delay tactic by the government so they can continue to disenfranchise 18-20-year-olds from exercising their full Second Amendment rights,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We hope the High Court sees through this thinly veiled gun-control tactic and will allow the case to move forward.”
Now, the Department of Justice is far more pro-gun than at any point in my lifetime, but this is clear evidence that they're not as pro-gun as they need to be. Asking the Court to hold off until it decides on two other cases that have nothing to do with the question at hand is beyond ridiculous. Are they worried that too many gun-related cases might tax the justices unduly or something?
Even then, it's ridiculous.
In truth, the government simply doesn't want to have to deal with the outcome of this case going against the law as written. It's easy to be pro-gun when you don't have to do pro-gun things, and while Attorney General Pam Bondi has generally been better on Second Amendment issues than I expected her to be, especially considering her track record in Florida, she's not really interested in seeing this one overturned.
After all, she vehemently defended Florida's ban on adults under 18 buying long guns. The similarities here are too close to be dismissed, again due to Bondi's track record.
The problem is that this is the only ask she has right now, so she's trying to play that card.
Hopefully, the Court will see through this inane request and hear this case.
