NRA Takes Florida Gun Law to Supreme Court
Friday's move was the latest in seven years of legal wrangling over the law passed after a February 2018 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.
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which hears cases from Florida, Alabama and Georgia, in March upheld the law, saying in an 8-4 ruling that the age restriction is 'consistent with our historical tradition of firearm regulation.' The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a similar ruling last year in a Colorado case.
But in what is known as a 'petition for writ of certiorari' filed Friday in the Florida case, lawyers for the NRA pointed to a January ruling by a panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that found a federal restriction prohibiting gun sales to people ages 18 to 20 was unconstitutional. The 5th circuit includes Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana.
The conflicting appellate-court decisions warrant Supreme Court review of the Florida law, the petition said.
'This split between the circuits over so fundamental a question is intolerable, and it urgently calls for this (Supreme) Court's resolution,' the document said.
The March ruling by the full 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a three-judge panel's decision. The ruling 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.'
But the NRA argued Friday that the Atlanta-based court's historical analysis was faulty, in part, because 18-to-20-year-olds in Florida are adults, not minors.
'The founding-era rule, even by the en banc (full court) majority's lights, only limited the right to keep and bear arms of legal minors — persons who were not treated as adults for most other purposes and who remained within the care, custody and protection of their parents. But Florida's law strips the right to acquire firearms from legal adults — 18-to-20-year-olds who enjoy the practical and legal benefits of adulthood, who are not within the custody or protection of their parents, and who often have families of their own,' the gun-rights group's lawyers wrote.
Partially quoting from a Supreme Court precedent, the petition also said, 'A fundamental incident of adulthood in America is the enjoyment of constitutional rights, including the right to defend yourself, your family, and your home with common firearms. Stripping away an 18-year-old adult's Second Amendment rights is thus fundamentally irreconcilable 'with the principles that underpin the nation's regulatory tradition,' … and the court should grant the writ and reverse.'
The decision in the Florida case also erred because of 'strong historical evidence that law-abiding 18-to-20-year-old citizens were understood at the founding to enjoy the Second Amendment's protections,' the NRA's petition said.
Florida and its experts 'have not identified, and we are not aware of, any evidence whatsoever of colonial or founding-era laws restricting the keeping, carrying, or acquisition of firearms by individuals aged 18 or over because of their age,' NRA's lawyers wrote.
Federal law has long barred people under 21 from buying handguns. The 2018 Florida law restricting long-gun sales to people under 21 says it was intended to 'address the crisis of violence, including but not limited to, gun violence on school campuses.'
The NRA's petition said the 'meagre evidence' the 11th Circuit relied on to uphold the law 'falls far short of establishing' that the tradition of firearm regulation 'restricted 18-to-20-year-olds' access to firearms at all.'
'In states across the country, 18-to-20-year-olds are considered legal adults for virtually all purposes: they may make contracts, vote, serve on juries, petition the government, freely express their views, and serve in (or be conscripted into) the armed services,' the petition said.
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
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
On Sanctuary Cities, It's Trump vs. the 10th Amendment
Over the past three months, the Trump administration has filed lawsuits against Los Angeles, Illinois, Colorado, New York state, New York City, and other places for the express purpose of forcing them to abolish their "sanctuary city" policies and start aiding the feds in rounding up undocumented immigrants and enforcing federal immigration laws. But unless the U.S. Supreme Court rapidly overturns several of its own precedents, including a recent one from 2018, all of these cases will be constitutional losers for President Donald Trump. Why? Here is how the late conservative legal hero and long-serving Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia once spelled it out. "The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems," Scalia wrote for the Court's majority in Printz v. United States (1997), "nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program." At issue in Printz was the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, which, among other things, required state and local police to help the feds enforce federal gun control laws. However, Scalia held, such "federal commandeering of state governments" violated the constitutional principles of federalism secured by the 10th Amendment. Scalia's ruling in Printz was recently reaffirmed and expanded by the Supreme Court in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (2018), which struck down a federal law that prohibited states from legalizing sports gambling. At the time it was decided, Printz was widely criticized by liberals, who objected to the idea of state and local officials stymying a federal gun control scheme. Now, the same anticommandeering doctrine that led to a "conservative" result in Printz is standing in the way of Trump's immigration crackdown. According to Trump's Justice Department, sanctuary city policies, such as when local police are generally forbidden from notifying the feds about a noncitizen's custody status or release date from custody, "reflect an intentional effort to obstruct federal law enforcement." But federal agents still retain their own independent authority to enforce federal immigration law inside of sanctuary states and cities, just as federal authorities retain the independent authority to enforce other federal laws in states and cities. The key point under Printz is that it is unconstitutional for the feds to compel local officials to lend them a helping hand in carrying out the enforcement of federal law. Because these sanctuary cases all feature the federal government in direct and open conflict with a state or city, one or more of them will probably end up before the Supreme Court in due time. Perhaps it will be United States v. Illinois. Last week, Judge Lindsay Jenkins of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division ruled that the Prairie State's various sanctuary laws were safeguarded from the Trump administration's lawsuit by the anticommandeering principle embraced in Printz, Murphy, and related precedents. "The Sanctuary Policies reflect [Illinois'] decision to not participate in enforcing civil immigration law—a decision protected by the Tenth Amendment and not preempted by" the Immigration and Nationality Act, the judge wrote. I expect a majority of the Supreme Court to adopt the same position if or when the opportunity arises. If it is unconstitutional for the feds to mandate local cooperation in enforcing federal gun control, it is unconstitutional for the feds to mandate local cooperation in enforcing federal immigration control. The national policies under dispute may be different, but the underlying constitutional issue is the same. As long as Printz remains good law, Trump's efforts to override the actions of sanctuary states and cities will be thwarted by Scalia's judgment. The post On Sanctuary Cities, It's Trump vs. the 10th Amendment appeared first on Solve the daily Crossword
New York Post
2 hours ago
- New York Post
Air Canada cancels upcoming flights ahead of cabin crew strike
Air Canada ( is cancelling flights from Thursday, as the country's largest carrier winds down service ahead of a looming Saturday strike by its more than 10,000 flight attendants. Montreal-based Air Canada said on Wednesday it plans to cease flying on Saturday after its flight attendants' union served a 72-hour strike notice due to stalled contract talks over pay. The standoff is disrupting service by Air Canada and Air Canada Rouge, which together carry about 130,000 customers a day. It's also creating a fresh test for the country's Liberal government under Prime Minister Mark Carney which was asked by Air Canada to impose binding arbitration on the two sides. Binding arbitration would stop any strike. 3 Montreal-based Air Canada said it plans to cease flying after its flight attendants' union served a 72-hour strike notice due to stalled contract talks over pay. AP Canada's Minister of Jobs and Families on Tuesday encouraged both parties to remain at the table until a deal is reached. The dispute hinges over the way airlines compensate flight attendants. Most airlines have traditionally paid cabin crew members only when planes are in motion. But flight attendants in North America have sought compensation for hours worked, including for tasks like boarding passengers and waiting around the airport. 3 Flight attendants in North America have sought compensation for hours worked, and tasks like boarding passengers and waiting around the airport. AP 3 Earlier this month, 99.7% of flight attendants represented by the Canadian Union of Public Employees voted for a strike. REUTERS The strike is set to begin at about 1 a.m. ET on Saturday. Earlier this month, 99.7% of flight attendants represented by the Canadian Union of Public Employees voted for a strike. Air Canada has said customers would be fully refunded for cancellations, which could hit lucrative routes between Canada, the United States, Europe and Asia. The airline also issued a lockdown notice beginning 32 minutes after the strike. It had declared a deadlock in negotiations on Tuesday, after the union rejected its proposal for binding arbitration. The carrier had offered a 38% increase in total compensation for flight attendants over four years, with a 25% raise in the first year. However, the union said the offer would raise actual wages by 17.2% over four years and was below inflation. Air Canada had offered to compensate flight attendants for some unpaid work but only at 50% of their hourly rate. Every morning, the NY POSTcast offers a deep dive into the headlines with the Post's signature mix of politics, business, pop culture, true crime and everything in between. Subscribe here! Flight attendants have negotiated with more confidence, encouraged by improved airline earnings in 2024 and bumper pay deals for pilots since the pandemic. Such concessions would raise labor costs for Air Canada, which reported a drop in second-quarter profit, weighed by weak passenger traffic to its key U.S. market.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump's unconventional chip gambit might leave Nvidia and AMD with more questions than answers
President Trump has had a busy week making moves across the US chip industry. And it's only Wednesday. On Monday, Trump revealed his administration will take a 15% cut of sales of Nvidia (NVDA) and AMD's (AMD) chips to Chinese companies in exchange for allowing the AI hardware to flow back into the country. He also met with Intel (INTC) CEO Lip-Bu Tan on Monday after calling for his ouster last week. At the end of the day, Trump appeared to back away from his initial demand, saying Tan's 'success and rise is an amazing story.' On their face, the developments appear to be positive for the trio of chip giants. But Trump's lightning-fast whiplash between stances raises important questions about the companies' futures, including whether Nvidia and AMD will be able to continue selling their chips in China, despite the administration's prior protestations about national security concerns, and what kind of toll the president will extract from Intel moving forward. Nvidia and AMD get a win… for now Trump's decision to restart the sale of Nvidia and AMD chips into China for a fee means both companies will be able to recoup some of the losses they took when he initially banned processor shipments there in April. Nvidia had to write off $4.5 billion due to the ban in Q1, with an additional $8 billion hit expected in Q2, while AMD reported an $800 million loss in Q2. '[The] companies can use some part of their prior written-off inventory so even with 15% penalty they get some gross profit recovery, and … China resumption maintains the original goal of engaging with an important (China) AI ecosystem and of potentially keeping competitors (Huawei) in check,' BofA Global Research analyst Vivek Arya wrote in a research note following Trump's announcement. Nvidia, in particular, could end up passing along the 15% fee to its China-based customers, thanks to the strong demand for its offerings. 'From my perspective, it is a positive for those companies,' Forrester senior analyst Alvin Nguyen told Yahoo Finance. 'As you know, it opens a market where there's still high demand. Nvidia, especially, still has a lot of cache with their name.' But Trump's latest AI chip move also introduces some thorny questions. The first of which is whether Nvidia and AMD will continue to be able to sell their AI processors into China moving forward, or if Trump will change his mind again. After all, the administration originally pulled Nvidia's H20 and AMD's MI308 on national security grounds, and as Bernstein analyst Stacy Rasgon explained to Yahoo Finance, this deal doesn't appear to address the matter. Arya similarly warns against getting too comfortable with the idea of China as a reliable source of revenue for either company. 'It isn't clear if [the US government] will continue to provide approvals next year,' he wrote in a research note. 'Restarting supply chains to produce more AI chips could take 8-9 months … [and the] rapidly evolving AI landscape could reduce demand from certain China customers.' There's another problem lurking for Nvidia, though. According to The Information, Chinese officials are urging companies like ByteDance, Alibaba Group (BABA), and Tencent Holdings (TCEHY) to suspend the purchase of Nvidia chips over potential security concerns. Nvidia says its chips don't pose any kind of security threat. 'As both governments recognize, the H20 is not a military product or for government infrastructure. China has ample supply of domestic chips to meet its needs,' an Nvidia spokesperson wrote in an email to Yahoo Finance. 'It won't and never has relied on American chips for government operations, just like the U.S. government would not rely on chips from China. Banning the sale of H20 in China would only harm US economic and technology leadership with zero national security benefit.' All of this comes amid the backdrop of the US and China's ongoing trade negotiations, leaving Nvidia and AMD uniquely vulnerable to further political intrigue. Intel's Trump meeting Intel is also contending with its own Trump-related issues. Last week, the president said in a Truth Social post that Tan was 'highly conflicted and must resign,' adding that there was 'no other solution to this problem.' Trump's statement came after Republican Sen. Tom Cotton sent a letter to Intel questioning Tan's investments in Chinese companies. It didn't help that the Justice Department announced in July that Cadence Design Systems, where Tan previously served as CEO, would pay a $140 million settlement related to charges about shipping chip design products to a Chinese military university. Tan also has a number of investments in Chinese companies. Intel responded in a statement saying Tan, the company, and its board are aligned with Trump's 'America First agenda.' After Tan's meeting with the president on Monday, the company released an additional statement saying, 'We appreciate the president's strong leadership to advance these critical priorities and look forward to working closely with him and his administration as we restore this great American company.' Trump, for his part, said in a Truth Social post that the meeting was interesting and that his members will meet with Tan to give him suggestions over the next week. It's unclear what the suggestions would be for. In a research note, Rasgon wrote that Intel could petition for 'further support, both monetary and, conceivably, through customer 'encouragement' either for volume … or more direct investment.' The biggest question then is what Trump will seek from Intel in return for his help. 'We do know [Trump] tends to be transactional, and loves making deals where he (and, hopefully, the US too?) come out ahead,' Rasgon wrote. 'Would a successful Intel be enough all by itself to satiate that desire? We aren't sure, but given recent behavior (just yesterday extracting dollars from [Nvidia] and AMD to sell AI chips into China) we feel that his largesse, if obtained, likely won't come free.' Email Daniel Howley at dhowley@ Follow him on X/Twitter at @DanielHowley. Sign in to access your portfolio
