The Fourth Circuit just overturned a law passed in 1968 which has prevented firearm dealers from selling handguns to anyone under the age of 21, that is until now.
Here’s more from the NY Post:
A 53-year-old law preventing federally licensed firearms dealers from selling handguns or handgun ammunition to adults under the age of 21 is unconstitutional, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.
A divided panel on the Richmond, Va.-based Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a Virginia federal judge’s ruling upholding the federal Gun Control Act of 1968.
“When do constitutional rights vest? At 18 or 21? 16 or 25? Why not 13 or 33?” asked US Circuit Judge Julius Richardson in his ruling. “In the law, a line must sometimes be drawn. But there must be a reason why constitutional rights cannot be enjoyed until a certain age. Our nation’s most cherished constitutional rights vest no later than 18. And the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms is no different.”
The two judges who ruled that it’s constitutional for 18-year-olds to buy handguns are Trump and Bush 43 appointees. The dissenter was an Obama appointee.
Richardson, who was appointed to the bench by former President Donald Trump, went on to note that 18-to-20-year-olds “enjoy almost every other constitutional right, and they were required at the time of the Founding to serve in the militia and furnish their own weapons … Despite the weighty interest in reducing crime and violence, we refuse to relegate either the Second Amendment or 18- to 20-year-olds to a second-class status.”
The ruling stemmed from a lawsuit brought by 19-year-old Natalia Marshall, a University of Virginia student who said she wanted a handgun as protection from an abusive ex-boyfriend.
However, Richardson noted in his ruling that Marshall wanted a handgun from a licensed dealer due to the weapon’s “ease of carrying, training and use,” as well as because such dealers “tend to have a wider supply, a good reputation, and a guarantee that the guns have not been used, stolen, or tampered with.”
Richardson was joined in his ruling by Judge Steven Agee, a George W. Bush appointee. Judge James Wynn, an Obama appointee, dissented, accusing his colleagues of breaking “new ground by invalidating a modest and long-established effort to control gun violence.”
What happens next?
It was not clear what effect the ruling would have. The New Orleans-based Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in an opposite manner on the same issue several years ago.
Also, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives (ATF), which is named as the main defendant in the case, could request the Fourth Circuit hear the case en banc. Eight of the 15 judges on the Fourth Circuit were appointed by Democratic presidents.
My guess is that Biden’s ATF will go the en banc route because, as it stands, the activists outweigh the non-activists. In other words, by my count, Clinton and Obama appointees fill the majority of seats on the Fourth Circuit, as the Post suggests. This is assuming the court decides to hear the case en banc. But if they do and they overturn this ruling, the next step would be to appeal the case to the Supreme Court. Justice John Roberts presides over the Fourth Circuit, by the way.