In his ruling against the NRA, the federal judge chillingly recounts 19th-century teenage murders to show “historic tradition” supports the post-Parkland ban on gun sales under the age of 21

Mariana Rocha and her son Jackson Laparl, 6, attend a portrait of Rocha’s cousin Joaquin Oliver, right, part of a display of portraits of the 17 students and staff at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School who were killed during a memorial service to mark the five-anniversary of the Filming Tuesday, February 14, 2023. (AP Photo/Rebecca Blackwell)

A federal appeals court has dismissed the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) challenge to a Florida law that bans young people under 21 from buying or owning firearms in an opinion that turned the Supreme Court’s new second amendment analysis on its head.

Last June, Judge Clarence Thomas led the Supreme Court’s six-member majority to overturn the New York State gun statute in the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen case. According to Thomas, the conservative court relied heavily on the need for current gun laws to be backed by “this nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation.” Following the Bruen decision, several federal courts overturned gun control statutes — including a district court that ruled that known domestic abusers are permitted to possess guns — on the grounds that they did not have a sufficient historical counterpart.

However, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit had a very different take on the story when it ruled Thursday to uphold the public safety law at Florida’s Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. The law was passed by the Sunshine State legislature in response to the 2018 mass shooting in Parkland, Florida, which left 17 dead and 17 injured.

U.S. Judge Robin Rosenbaum, a judge appointed by Barack Obama in the 11th Circuit, wrote the Opinion for the three-judge panel, which included U.S. District Judge Anne C. Conway (one appointed by George HW Bush (in the case appointed) appointed judge and the US heard District Judge Charles Wilson, a judge appointed by Bill Clinton, wrote a six-line consent to say that he concurred with the court’s decision and reasoning, but that he would see the case until after the next legislative session in Florida would have postponed the case, which could end the case in dispute.

Rosenbaum began her opinion as if speaking directly to Judge Thomas, addressing “historical tradition” head on and offering a litany of 19th-century grisly headlines about gun violence by persons under 21:

In Ohio, a 19-year-old son shoots and kills his father “to get revenge[e] the wrong of [his] Mom.” In Philadelphia, an 18-year-old “teen” shoots a 14-year-old girl before pointing the gun at himself “because she wouldn’t love him.” In New York, a 20-year-old out of jealousy shoots and kills his “Lovers”. In Washington, DC, a 19-year-old shoots and kills his mother, spelling another death from “negligent use of firearms.” In Texas, a 19-year-old shoots a police officer dead for a “[o]ld [f]eud” between the police officer and the father of the 19-year-old. These stories are being ripped from the headlines—the headlines of the Reconstruction era, that is.

Rosenbaum next remarked that “in the 150 years since Reconstruction began, guns have only gotten deadlier”. Rosenbaum wrote that as early as the 19th century, “state governments never stood by while the carnage raged” — and that when Florida passed the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act, it did so as part of a long historical tradition.

Rosenbaum pointed out that when we’re talking about the “history and tradition” of our country’s gun laws, that’s where we need to look not Gründerzeit, but reconstruction. That is so, the judge explained, “because the Fourteenth Amendment has resulted in the Second Amendment applying to states.” Rosenbaum wrote that given the timing of the Fourteenth Amendment, any context for interpreting the right to bear arms is out of the question should be taken at the same time.

Rosenbaum also aimed at the applicability of the Bruen decision in a possible future appeal of the present case. She wrote that Brün only dealt publicly with the law carry Firearms – and that the Supreme Court has found that the historical open carry rules were essentially the same in 1791 and 1868. rose tree. however, called the interpretation of the broader right to own and bear arms “very different” during the two eras. Additionally, Florida’s young-adult restriction only excludes those under the age of 21 purchase firearms, while this age group remains free to own and use firearms of any legal type.

Rosenbaum also looked at an application of Bruen’s framework, concluding that “it is not clear whether 18-20 year olds are ‘part of the ‘people’ that the Second Amendment protects”. did not enjoy the full range of civil rights that adults did, the judge argued. The appellate judge backed up this claim with statutes written at the time (a full appendix of which is attached to the court’s decision), but also with newspapers depicting the general public discourse on the Second Amendment.

But because Florida didn’t argue that 18- to 20-year-olds had fewer Second Amendment rights, the district court conducted a Bruen-inspired search for a “historical analogue” to support Florida’s ban — and found it. Rosenbaum cited an 1855 Alabama ban on minors selling, giving, or lending knives, airguns, or pistols, along with similar laws passed by Tennessee, Arkansas, and Kentucky at the time.

Rosenbaum also noted that the gun laws coincided with the passage of laws restricting alcohol to minors on the basis that “both pose threats to the safety of minors.” That’s what Florida tried to do when it passed legislation to “enhance public safety” by restricting gun violence in schools, the judge argued.

During the case, the NRA advanced its own historic argument: that a historic requirement that young people join the militia (in which those people would presumably use firearms) supports the same people’s right to purchase firearms. Rosenbaum quickly dropped this argument: “The NRA confuses a legal obligation with a right.”

You can read the full judgment here.

In Verdict Against the NRA, the federal judge chillingly recounts 19th-century teenage murders to show “historic tradition” supports the post-Parkland ban on gun sales under 21, which first appeared on Law & Crime.

https://lawandcrime.com/second-amendment/in-ruling-against-nra-federal-judge-chillingly-recounts-19th-century-teen-murders-to-show-historical-tradition-supports-post-parkland-ban-on-under-21-gun-sales/ In his ruling against the NRA, the federal judge chillingly recounts 19th-century teenage murders to show “historic tradition” supports the post-Parkland ban on gun sales under the age of 21