Judge Rules in Favor of Hawaii’s Ban on Guns for Adults Under 21

Hawaii took it on the chin when Wolford went against them and the so-called vampire rule was overturned. This was a key piece of gun control for the state, and one that accomplished nothing except making gun thefts far more likely. But the problem with Hawaii is that it was never just one bit of gun control. It was a bunch.

And, unfortunately, a big one just got upheld by a federal court.

In particular, summary judgment was granted on the ban on guns for adults under 21.

Hawaii can keep 18-year-olds from buying guns, a federal judge ruled, siding with the state in a Second Amendment challenge to its law that requires gunowners to be 21.

U.S. District Judge Jill Otake found Hawaii’s restrictions fit within the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, denying the plaintiffs’ motion to declare the law unconstitutional and granting the state’s counter-motion for summary judgment on Monday.

Juda Roache, a Honolulu resident over 18 but under 21, filed the lawsuit along with two licensed Hawaii gun dealers barred from selling to customers his age.

Roache wanted to buy a firearm and accept one as a gift from his mother. Hawaii law requires a police permit to acquire a firearm, and the state only issues those permits to people 21 and older, with narrow exceptions for hunting, target shooting and short-term rifle loans.

Otake, a Donald Trump appointee, didn’t dispute that 18- to 20-year-olds count as part of “the people” the Second Amendment protects. But she found the decisive issue was whether Hawaii’s age restriction is consistent with the nation’s history of firearm regulation under the Supreme Court’s decision in New YorkState Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen.

“The court finds solid evidence in founding era common law that society restricted the practical ability of people under 21 from acquiring goods, including firearms, because of concerns about their judgment and maturity,” Otake wrote.

Otake is wrong here. I’m sorry, but she’s just plain wrong.

The truth is that while there may have been laws on “acquiring” guns, they were generally about purchasing a gun. Young people throughout the colonial period and early years of our nation often had guns and carried them openly in many places. If a parent is trying to give the gun to the recipient, one has to assume they understand their offspring better than the state.

It’s especially concerning since so many states will let a child make irreversible “medical” decisions on their own, having even gone so far as to pass laws allowing the state to take such kids from their parents if the parent didn’t go along with it, even though it’s not medically necessary in the slightest, but a legal adult under 21 can’t exercise their basic constitutional rights.

It’s insane.

And unlike laws that bar FFL holders from selling guns to those under 21, Hawaii’s is an outright ban, because you can’t lawfully own a gun without a permit at all.

The odds of this one being appealed are about as good as me making it to my birthday, which is today. Yes, shower me with gifts or something. 

Just kidding about the gifts.

My point is that this will get appealed, and it should, because this is male bovine excrement.

Editor’s Note: The radical Left will stop at nothing to enact their extreme gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.

Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun-grabbing schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.