If you're over the age of 18, you're considered an adult in the eyes of the law. You can vote, you can sign legally-binding contracts, you can enlist in the military, you can decide what you want to do and your parents really have no legal authority to prevent it. They might have other means, but they can't physically stop you from doing something lawfully.
But in Colorado, a federal court revived a ban on those over 18 and under 21 buying guns.
The ruling was sort of lost in and amongst the discussion of the election, which is understandable, but this is actually a significant development from the Tenth Circuit.
Colorado can move ahead with enforcing its law banning gun sales to people younger than 21, the Tenth Circuit ruled Tuesday.
There are “real harms” that could occur from not enforcing the law, especially given that guns are the leading cause of death in Colorado among people under the age of 21, said Judge Richard Federico of the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Those harms outweigh any potential injury that could occur from someone under 21 not being able to buy a gun, Federico wrote, adding that the “public interest strongly favors Colorado’s enforcement” of the law.
The Tenth Circuit’s order reverses a district court’s enjoinment of the law from last August, on the same day the law was supposed to take effect
...
Colorado’s law is “outside the scope” of the Second Amendment’s protections because it “imposes conditions or qualifications” on the commercial sale or purchase of arms, not on the right to keep or bear arms, Federico wrote.
That is the most idiotic argument I've ever seen, though I've seen it a few times.
In theory, it's accurate. Adults under 21 can still own firearms in a technical sense, but only if someone over 21 buys it and gives it to them. So no, it's not a prohibition on them exercising their Second Amendment rights based on that. However, if you're counting on someone else to do something first, you don't have a right to do that thing.
If, for example, we were required to wear tape over our mouths and could only speak if someone took the tape off, would I have the right to speak freely? Or would it be a privilege? Sure, anyone might bestow that privilege, but it's still not a right.
Likewise, Frederico's argument is absolute bollocks to anyone who looks at things in totality.
But he didn't want to. He wanted to see this law go into effect so he mangled the law and the Rahimi decision in order to justify doing what he wanted to do all along.
This is wrong, and I sincerely hope that the Supreme Court sits down with this one and rules that it's wrong.
As it stands, a lot of the threats the Court has gotten from anti-gunners over the last couple of years were rendered moot with last night's election, where pro-gun Republicans look to potentially hold both chambers of Congress and definitely have the White House. Coupled with the Supreme Court, it's entirely possible that the justices will hear a challenge to either this or a similar law and strike it down for what it is, a case of unequal protection under the law.
God knows someone needs to.
I get the arguments for these things. The whole "the brain doesn't fully develop until 25 and until then, younger adults are impulsive." However, I'd find that more moving if we were talking about raising the age of majority rather than simply removing one right. Remember that Democrats have floated the idea of lowering the voting age, but raising the age to buy a gun.
That makes no sense, but here we are.
Here's hoping that the days of this are shortlived.
