U.S. federal appeals court backs Florida gun age law
The 8-4 ruling by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals came after seven years of legal wrangling in the National Rifle Association's challenge to a 2018 law passed after a mass shooting at Parkland's Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School that killed 17 students and faculty members.
Nikolas Cruz, who was 19 at the time, used a semiautomatic rifle to gun down the victims at his former school. The NRA filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the gun-age restriction shortly after the law passed.
Friday's ruling by the full Atlanta-based appeals court upheld a three-judge panel's decision and outlined the history of the nation's gun laws, from its founding to recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions setting guidelines for determining how to apply the Second Amendment. While the law barred people under 21 from buying rifles and long guns, they still can receive them, for example, as gifts from family members.
'From this history emerges a straightforward conclusion: the Florida law is consistent with our regulatory tradition in why and how it burdens the right of minors to keep and bear arms,' Chief Judge William Pryor wrote. 'Because minors have yet to reach the age of reason, the Florida law prohibits them from purchasing firearms, yet it allows them to receive firearms from their parents or another responsible adult.'
Judges Adalberto Jordan, Robin Rosenbaum, Jill Pryor, Kevin Newsom, Britt Grant, Nancy Abudu and Charles Wilson joined the majority opinion. Judge Andrew Brasher wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Judges Elizabeth Branch, Barbara Lagoa and Robert Luck.
The majority ruling relied heavily on U.S. Supreme Court standards, established in recent cases, saying that Second Amendment restrictions must be rooted in the 'prevailing understanding' of gun rights from the nation's founding era.
'The founders' generation shared the view that minors lacked the reason and judgment necessary to be trusted with legal rights,' William Pryor wrote.
The chief judge noted that, at the time of the founding, minors generally could not purchase guns because they were deemed to lack the judgment and discretion to enter contracts and that minors were subject to the power of their parents.
The opinion noted that the Florida law also is consistent with the country's regulatory tradition because it allows minors to possess rifles and long guns although they are prohibited from purchasing them.
The 2018 law 'burdens the right no more than … historical restrictions because it prohibits purchase but preserves access to firearms with parental consent,' William Pryor wrote.
'From the founding to the late-19th century, our law limited the purchase of firearms by minors in different ways. The Florida law also limits the purchase of firearms by minors. And it does so for the same reason: to stop immature and impulsive individuals, like Nikolas Cruz, from harming themselves and others with deadly weapons. Those similarities are sufficient to confirm the constitutionality of the Florida law,' the majority ruling said.
But Brasher, in a dissent, disputed the historical roots of the age restriction.
'There were no age-based limitations' on the 'right to keep and bear arms either before, during, or immediately after the adoption of the Bill of Rights,' Brasher wrote. 'This is where the majority opinion loses its bearings. Simply put, there is nothing in our nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation that resembles Florida's complete prohibition on an adult's ability to purchase a firearm based only on that adult's age. Nothing in the founding-era legal landscape is analogous to the challenged law. To the extent the history says anything about age and firearms, it says that the states and federal government expected all men over the age of 18 to be armed.'
But William Pryor called the dissent's characterization of people between the ages of 18 and 21 as adults as 'unavailing,' arguing that it 'discounts the key fact that, at the founding and until the late 20th century, the age of majority was 21.'
The majority opinion also questioned whether the dissenting judges would support any age restriction for firearm sales as constitutional.
'If they do not, their position would require enjoining the enforcement of numerous federal and state laws, including a federal law that prohibits licensed sellers from selling 'any firearm or ammunition' to an individual under the age of 18,' the majority opinion said.
The full appeals court decided to take up the issue after the three-judge panel's ruling. Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker also upheld the law.
But Friday's decision likely will not end debate about the law, which could go to the U.S. Supreme Court.
After the ruling, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier, who took office last month, said he would not defend the law. Gov. Ron DeSantis tapped Uthmeier to replace former Attorney General Ashley Moody after DeSantis appointed her to the U.S. Senate.
'Men and women old enough to fight and die for our country should be able to purchase firearms to defend themselves and their families,' Uthmeier posted on social media.
Also, a state House panel on Wednesday approved a measure (HB 759) that would repeal the age restriction. The House passed such bills in 2023 and 2024, but the Senate refused to support the proposals.
DeSantis this month signaled that he would support revising state gun laws, including the gun-age restriction.
But state House Minority Leader Fentrice Driskell, D-Tampa, praised Friday's ruling.
'I am thrilled the 11th Circuit confirmed what we've been saying for years, that reasonable, responsible gun laws are both constitutional and appropriate to help keep us safe. We can, and should, limit someone from being able to purchase an AR 15 until they are at least 21 years old,' Driskell, D-Tampa, said in an email. 'Any question about constitutionality has now been clearly settled. The Marjory Stoneman Douglas Act is lawful and should continue to protect our communities as it has since 2018. Florida is safer for it.'
Click here to download our free news, weather and smart TV apps. And click here to stream Channel 9 Eyewitness News live.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
5 minutes ago
- UPI
More than half of U.S. thinks racism is widespread, according to Gallup
A protestor stands in the street in front of Akron City Justice Center in Akron, Ohio, in July 2022 after Akron police fatally shot Jayland Walker, 25, after a short chase amid public unrest with law enforcement. Washington-based Gallup polling results suggest 64% of Americans believe racism is widespread in the United States. File Photo by Aaron Josefczyk/UPI | License Photo Aug. 20 (UPI) -- New data released Wednesday by Gallup suggests more than half the country believes that racism against Black people is not only alive and well but widespread in the United States. Gallup's newly-released results of 64% nearly tied with its last reading in its 2021 periodic measurements as its highest recorded by the Washington-based firm since 2008, the year Barack Obama was elected to the White House as the nation's first Black president. It's suggesting that 83% of Black adults and 61% of White adults say that racism is widespread. The question was first posed by Gallup experts in 2008, in which results said at the time that only 56% of U.S. adults thought racism was a widespread issues. It saw a reported dip to 51% by the following year. By 2015, its 60% reading came at a time of several high-profile killings of Black civilians at the hands of law enforcement officers and has since remained in that range. According to Gallup, police interactions stood out as the "top" area of unfair treatment toward Black people, with a perceptions of bias in healthcare, shopping, restaurants and workplaces at or near record high returns. Gallup said that non-Hispanic Black adults continue to be "most likely" to say such racism is prevalent in the country, with 83% expressing that view. Results found that smaller majorities of Hispanic respondents at 64% and 61% of non-Hispanic White adults agreed. The findings come from Gallup's survey from June 2-26 and included an oversample to allow for better estimates. "Conversely, Americans' (29%) belief that racism against White people is widespread is the lowest of five readings since 2008," according to Gallup. It added that 68% in its poll say U.S. adults think civil rights "have improved" in their lifetime. "The overall sample was weighted so all racial/ethnic groups are represented in their proper proportions of the U.S. population," according to Gallup officials. But the survey noted how in six of its interactions that dealing with police was seen largely as racially "inequitable." Gallup's results suggests a trend of at least 57% of Americans who believe Black people are treated less fairly than White people in various situations, particularly during traffic incidents that in recent years have been known to turn deadly in multiple states.
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Judge temporarily blocks Texas' Ten Commandments requirement in 11 school districts
A Texas federal judge on Wednesday temporarily blocked from taking full effect a new state law requiring public schools to display donated posters of the Ten Commandments in classrooms. The ruling only applies to the nearly a dozen Texas school districts named in the lawsuit, though attorneys who brought forth the case expressed hope in court that other districts would not implement a law that a federal judge has now found unconstitutional. In his decision, U.S. District Judge Fred Biery concluded that the law favors Christianity over other faiths, is not neutral with respect to religion and is likely to interfere with families' 'exercise of their sincere religious or nonreligious beliefs in substantial ways.' 'There are ways in which students could be taught any relevant history of the Ten Commandments without the state selecting an official version of scripture, approving it in state law, and then displaying it in every classroom on a permanent basis,' Biery wrote in his opinion, adding that the law 'crosses the line from exposure to coercion.' Texas is expected to appeal the ruling. Once that happens, the case will go to the same federal appeals court where a three-judge panel recently blocked Louisiana's Ten Commandments law from taking effect. Louisiana's attorney general has said she would seek further relief from the full appeals court and possibly the U.S. Supreme Court. Oral arguments in the Texas case, Rabbi Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District, concluded on Monday, several weeks after 16 parents of various religious backgrounds, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas and other religious freedom organizations, sued the state over what their lawyers called "catastrophically unconstitutional' legislation. In court, they argued with a lawyer from the state attorney general's office over the role Founding Fathers like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison played in developing the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment, which protects the freedom of religion. Both parties also debated the influence of the Ten Commandments on the country's legal and educational systems, and whether the version of the Ten Commandments required to go up in schools belongs to a particular religious group. Another group of parents filed a similar lawsuit in Dallas earlier this summer. These suits challenge one of the latest measures passed by the Republican-controlled Legislature earlier this year. Critics say the law injects religion into the state's public schools, attended by roughly 5.5 million children. The background Senate Bill 10, by Republican Sen. Phil King of Weatherford, would require the Ten Commandments be displayed on a donated poster sized at least 16 by 20 inches come September, when most new state laws go into effect. Gov. Greg Abbott signed it in late June, the day after the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found a similar law in Louisiana was 'plainly unconstitutional.' The court ruled that requiring schools to post the Ten Commandments would cause an 'irreparable deprivation' of First Amendment rights. An Arkansas judge ruled similarly in a separate case. Supporters argue that the Ten Commandments and teachings of Christianity broadly are vital to understanding U.S. history, a controversial message that has resurged in recent years as part of a broader national movement to undermine the long-held interpretation of church-state separation. Texas GOP lawmakers have passed a number of laws in recent years to further codify their conservative religious views, a trend encouraged and celebrated by Christian leaders. 'This issue is likely to get to the United States Supreme Court,' Biery, the judge, told a San Antonio courtroom prior to opening arguments in the Texas case. What are the plaintiffs saying 'Posting the Ten Commandments in public schools is un-American and un-Baptist,' Griff Martin, a pastor, parent and plaintiff in the ACLU lawsuit, said in a statement. 'S.B. 10 undermines the separation of church and state as a bedrock principle of my family's Baptist heritage. Baptists have long held that the government has no role in religion — so that our faith may remain free and authentic.' In the lawsuit brought by the North Texas parents, the plaintiffs, who identify as Christian, said the law was unconstitutional and violated their right to direct their children's upbringing. One of them, a Christian minister, said the displays will offer a message of religious intolerance, 'implying that anyone who does not believe in the state's official religious scripture is an outsider and not fully part of the community.' That message, the minister argued, conflicts with the religious, social justice and civil rights beliefs he seeks to teach his kids. Another North Texas plaintiff, a mother of two, is worried she will be 'forced' to have sensitive and perhaps premature conversations about topics like adultery with her young children — and also 'does not desire that her minor children to be instructed by their school about the biblical conception of adultery,' the suit states. The plaintiffs in the ACLU suit come from diverse religious backgrounds, including families who are nonreligious. Allison Fitzpatrick said in a statement that she fears her children will think they are violating school rules because they don't adhere to commandments like honoring the Sabbath. 'The state of Texas has no right to dictate to children how many gods to worship, which gods to worship, or whether to worship any gods at all,' sad Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, which brought the lawsuit alongside the ACLU. The attorneys called the version of the Ten Commandments in SB 10 a "state-sponsored Protestant version," which was corroborated by their witness, constitutional law professor and religious history expert Steven Green. They argued against the notion that the Ten Commandments were central to the development of the country's legal and educational systems, which Green agreed lacks historical support. The court also found Green's testimony more persuasive than the state's. Although the ACLU lawsuit only applies to 11 school districts, attorneys for the religious freedom organizations hope that a ruling in their favor will signal to districts throughout the rest of the state that they should not comply with the law before the dispute gets resolved by the courts. What the state is saying The attorney general's office argued in the August hearing that the Ten Commandments are part of the nation's history and heritage, and that previous rulings from federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court blocking the commandments from going up in classrooms did not examine that historical significance. Attorneys for the state noted that the Supreme Court recently shot down the test that courts previously relied on to determine when a government had unconstitutionally endorsed or established a religion. And, attorneys pointed out a decades-old ruling in a Nebraska case, regarding a Ten Commandments monument on city property, where an appeals court decided in favor of the monument that displayed the same version of the commandments Texas wants to show in public schools. They relied on that ruling to make the case that SB 10 does not favor a particular religious group. Their viewpoint was supported in court by Mark David Hall, a professor and author who studies religious liberty and church-state relations. Hall, the state's expert witness, recently wrote a book that considers how "Christian Nationalism Is Not an Existential Threat to America or the Church." Attorney William Farrell from the attorney general's office described SB 10's requirement as a "passive display on the wall" that does not rise to the level of coercion. The Ten Commandments posters must only go up if they are donated to the school, he further argued, and the law does not specify what would happen if districts choose not to comply. The state views that as evidence that it poses no threat or harm to families. "SB 10 doesn't restrict anything," Farrell said. "It doesn't exclude anything or specifically require any ... participation by students." What are the schools saying The latest ruling applies to the following school districts: Alamo Heights ISD, North East ISD, Lackland ISD, Northside ISD, Austin ISD, Lake Travis ISD, Dripping Springs ISD, Houston ISD, Fort Bend ISD, Cypress-Fairbanks ISD and Plano ISD. Attorneys from Austin ISD, a defendant in the ACLU lawsuit, said during the August hearing that the district has not adopted any policy in response to SB 10, that there is no evidence that the district is doing anything to infringe on families' rights and that the district should not be held responsible for a law passed by the Legislature. They are asking the court to dismiss the Austin school district from the case. Meanwhile, spokespersons for the Texas Education Agency, a defendant in the North Texas suit, did not respond to requests for comment. The TEA was not included as a defendant in the ACLU's more recent filing. A Lancaster ISD spokesperson said that the district was aware of the suit and monitoring it but did not have further comment. A Dallas ISD spokesperson said the district does not comment on pending litigation. DeSoto ISD administrators said in a statement that the school system, which teaches roughly 6,000 kids, operates in alignment with state and federal laws and also remains committed to creating an inclusive learning environment 'for all students and families, regardless of religious background or personal beliefs.' 'DeSoto ISD recognizes the diverse cultural and religious identities represented in its school community and will continue to prioritize the safety, dignity, and educational well-being of every student,' district officials said. 'The district respects the role of parents and guardians in guiding their children's personal and religious development and will strive to remain sensitive to the varying perspectives within its schools.' Big news: 20 more speakers join the TribFest lineup! New additions include Margaret Spellings, former U.S. secretary of education and CEO of the Bipartisan Policy Center; Michael Curry, former presiding bishop and primate of The Episcopal Church; Beto O'Rourke, former U.S. Representative, D-El Paso; Joe Lonsdale, entrepreneur, founder and managing partner at 8VC; and Katie Phang, journalist and trial lawyer. Get tickets. TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase. Solve the daily Crossword
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
After Trump-backed peace deal, survivors recount rebel massacre in Congo
The Washington Post interviewed three witnesses to the initial massacre, as well as six residents of the nearest town, and reviewed photographs and videos from the aftermath. Locals described farmers being gunned down indiscriminately by M23 fighters as they worked the fields and survivors hiding for days among the dead. They spoke on the condition of anonymity, communicating by voice notes on borrowed phones, out of fear for their safety. Advertisement Rwanda has always denied backing M23 — despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary from UN experts — and the rebels were not signatories to the US-backed peace deal. M23 representatives and the government of Congo signed an agreement on July 19 pledging to establish a ceasefire as part of a separate peace process mediated by Qatar, though M23 told the BBC on Monday it was pulling out of the Doha-based talks, saying Kinshasa had reneged on the deal. Advertisement It was not immediately clear how the killings would affect the US-backed peace deal. Earlier this month, the US Treasury Department announced new sanctions on an armed group opposed to M23, as well as Chinese and Congolese mining companies, which it said were fueling the region's illicit mineral trade. The announcement noted that the 'Rwanda-backed' M23 group 'has rapidly expanded its territorial control in eastern DRC and is responsible for human rights abuses.' US officials, however, have made no public comment about the recent killings, and the president claimed again on Monday to have 'settled six wars in six months,' a count that includes the conflict in Congo. 'It's well past time that President Trump was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said last month. Massad Boulos, Trump's Senior Africa Advisor, said in a statement to The Post that 'we will continue to work through any challenges to ensure that 30 years of war come to an end, and people can live in peace.' The White House press office said Trump had secured a 'historic agreement' between Rwanda and Congo and that his administration would ensure that all sides 'honor their commitments.' In an Aug. 7 post on X, Congo's ministry of information said M23 had killed more than 300 civilians in the North Kivu region; M23 swiftly denied any role in the killings and dismissed what it called 'false accusations.' Advertisement In an interview with The Post, Congolese Information Minister Patrick Muyaya called for an international investigation: 'Any kind of violence must be condemned by the US,' he said, urging American officials to 'continue to put pressure so we can fully implement the Washington accord and get Rwandan troops out of DRC.' Rwanda's government spokeswoman, Yolande Makolo, said the country's forces had 'absolutely nothing to do' with the latest violence, adding that M23 is not 'Rwandan-controlled.' Lawrence Kanyuka, the M23 spokesman targeted with sanctions by the US government in February, did not respond to a request for comment. Kigali accuses Congo of supporting the remnants of ethnic Hutu militias responsible for the 1994 Rwandan genocide; Congo accuses Rwanda of using proxy forces, including M23, to terrorize Hutu communities and loot the country's vast but underdeveloped mineral reserves. In January, M23 fighters seized control of the regional capital of Goma in a lightning offensive and have taken more Congolese territory in recent months, including the area where the July killings took place. Support from the Rwandan Defense Forces 'played a critical role in the territorial expansion of [M23] and its occupation of new territories,' a report by a UN panel of experts found last month. The latest massacres happened near Binza, about 65 miles north of Goma, in mid-July, but information has been slow to trickle out because phone networks are unreliable and locals fear further reprisals from M23. Residents and survivors told The Post that the violence originated with clashes between M23, which controls the town, and the Wazalendo, a loose array of local militias often supported by the Congolese government. After losing a skirmish, M23 fighters turned against civilians working in the fields of Binza on July 13, three survivors said. Advertisement A man told The Post he began to run as soon as he heard the first shots, tripping on a body as he fled. Many victims came from different villages, he said, and his brother was still missing. 'I saw many dead people on the way home,' he said. He estimated that at least 50 people were killed that day. The Post could not independently verify the toll. Terrified residents told him 'the M23 were killing anyone they found,' the man said. A woman who escaped the initial massacre said she spent three days hiding among corpses with no food or water. When she finally made her way back to the town of Nyamilima, she said, she walked past at least 20 bodies. 'It was the M23,' she told The Post. 'People were massacred … and until now they have not been buried.'
