SAF Files Amicus Brief in SCOTUS Challenge of Florida’s Age Restrictions

It’s one thing to say a minor cannot buy a firearm. There’s a certain amount of limiting we do with regard to the rights of those under the age of majority. They can’t say whatever they want, whenever they want, for example, as their parents can tell them not to take part in a protest or stop saying certain things. We limit their ability to travel all the time. No one lets their 12-year-old kid just hop a bus to Las Vegas on a whim, for example. We accept this as a justifiable infringement on the rights of young people who may not be able to assess the risks of various actions.

But when someone turns 18, that generally changes. They can do all of those things.

Yet they’re still limited in exercising their Second Amendment rights. The federal authorities prevent them from owning handguns, which has been generally viewed as tolerable because long guns are still available.

Except, it’s not in Florida, as we’ve talked about a great deal.

That’s a problem for me, and it’s a problem for the Second Amendment Foundation, which filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court case challenging the law, as noted in a press release the organization sent out on Monday.

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court urging it to hear NRA v. Glass, a lawsuit challenging Florida’s ban on firearm purchases by adults under 21. 

In upholding the statute, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals exacerbated the circuit split that has emerged on the issue of gun restrictions which target adults under 21, a key issue in SAF’s legal strategic agenda. The case is now up on a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court asking the high court to hear the case and resolve the circuit split on the issue of age-based firearms restrictions. 

“The discrimination of adults under 21 based purely on their age is a particularly pernicious form of gun control,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “Reinstating the Second Amendment rights of an entire population of peaceable Americans would be a huge win, and the law is on our side. These adults are members of ‘the People’ whose constitutional rights include the ability to purchase, possess and carry arms for all lawful purposes. Those rights cannot be extinguished by state legislators, as they have been in Florida.” 

As noted in the brief, “…the age ban violates the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms as set forth in Heller, McDonald v. City of Chicago, and Bruen.”

“Florida’s ban on the purchase of firearms by those under 21 is a clear violation of their Second Amendment freedoms,” said SAF founder and Executive Director Alan M. Gottlieb. “Adults in this nation are afforded all rights under the Constitution, and the Second Amendment should be no different. Just because there are idealogues who think keeping and bearing arms should be a second-class right does not afford them the ability to unilaterally determine who can purchase firearms.” 

For more information visit SAF.org.

My take on this is very simple. If you’re going to tell me that people under 21 aren’t responsible enough to own guns, then why aren’t you also talking about raising the voting age, the age for signing contracts for themselves, or for literally anything else that could be considered a potentially life-altering decision?

They’re either old enough or they’re not.

I’m willing to entertain the idea that they’re not, especially because of front lobe development in the human brain generally is finished until around the age of 25, but not if we’re not discussing everything else.

Since that’s not going to happen–in fact, many anti-gunners have talked about lowering the voting age–then I don’t see any reason to bother entertaining any such notion.

The Supreme Court needs to overturn this law, and I’d prefer they do it in a way that also overturns the federal age restriction on handguns. I’m sick of seeing the Second Amendment treated as a second-class right, and this is a prime example of how it’s treated as one.

The question is whether enough justices have the cajones to actually agree or not.