Appeals court says banning gun sales to adults under 21 is unconstitutional
The ruling, handed down by a panel of three judges on the conservative U.S. 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, comes amid major shifts in the national firearm legal landscape following a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that expanded gun rights in 2022.
The court found that people aged 18-to-20 should not be prohibited from buying guns.
'Ultimately, the text of the Second Amendment includes eighteen-to-twenty-year-old individuals among 'the people' whose right to keep and bear arms is protected,' the court wrote in their ruling. The ruling sends the case back to a lower court judge.
In the past, the appeals court has upheld the age restriction. However, since the Supreme Court's ruling that said firearm restrictions must be rooted in the nation's historical traditions, judges in states like Minnesota, Virginia and Texas have struck down similar laws.
The Biden administration had fought those rulings. It is uncertain exactly how the Trump administration might proceed, but he told an NRA audience during last year's campaign that 'no one will lay a finger on your firearms.'
The Supreme Court, meanwhile, decided to keep a federal gun law on the books last year. The high court overturned a different ruling from the 5th Circuit and upheld a law intended to protect victims of domestic violence.
Those challenging the ban included the Firearms Policy Coalition, the Second Amendment Foundation and the Louisiana Shooting Association. 'If we can trust young adults to defend our country, we can certainly trust them to own any and all legal firearms,' said Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation
Federal law requires a person to be 21 to purchase a handgun from a licensed firearm dealer and 18 to buy a long gun from a dealer, according to Everytown for Gun Safety. There is an 18-year-old minimum for handgun purchases from unlicensed sellers and no minimum age for long guns, according to the group's research.
The Giffords Law Center called the decision reckless and said age restrictions help prevent violence. 'We hope the current law will be ultimately upheld,' legal director David Pucino said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
36 minutes ago
- The National
JK Rowling compares Nicola Sturgeon to Twilight's Bella Swan
She accused Ms Sturgeon of being 'flat out Trumpian in her shameless denial of reality and hard facts' on issues relating to trans and women's rights. She was reviewing the former first minister's memoir. The Harry Potter author is a long-time critic of the former SNP leader and her views on gender self-ID. READ MORE: Inside the row between Scottish press and Nicola Sturgeon's team at book launch The near-3000-word review, published on her website, accuses Sturgeon, who passed gender reform legislation at Holyrood, of holding 'luxury beliefs' that have caused 'real, lasting harm' to women. The Twilight of Nicola Sturgeon My review of Franklyhttps:// — J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) August 14, 2025 Rowling published her review on X alongside what appears to be an AI-generated image of Sturgeon in the woods in front of a wolf and a vampire. She said of the politician's memoir, Frankly: 'She remains stubbornly wedded to her belief that it is possible to let some men into women's spaces on the men's say so, without letting any man who fancies it come inside. 'She denies there are any risks to a policy of gender self-identification. 'She can't imagine any male predator capitalising on such policies, in spite of the fact that it has, demonstrably, happened many times. 'She is flat-out Trumpian in her shameless denial of reality and facts' Rowling, who lives in Edinburgh, said the Glasgow Southside MSP had not been 'remotely humbled' by the Supreme Court ruling that sex in the UK Equality Act referred to biological sex. The Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Act, which was passed by MSPs, was ultimately scrapped by Westminster, with the then-Tory government saying it contravened equalities law. READ MORE: I went to the 'first legal wedding' at the Edinburgh Fringe – here's what it was like In her book, Sturgeon said she had never received as much abuse as when Rowling posted a picture of herself on social media with a T-shirt saying 'Nicola Sturgeon, destroyer of women's rights'. The former first minister said the post made her feel 'more at risk of possible physical harm'. Rowling defended the decision, writing in her review that she intended to encourage journalists to question Sturgeon on the impacts her gender reforms may have. She compares the MSP to Twilight character Bella Swan, saying both were 'monomaniacs', with Sturgeon being 'consumed' by independence.
Times
an hour ago
- Times
What Putin said — and what he meant, with a flash of sharp teeth
Unlike his American counterpart, President Putin chooses his words carefully. His closing remarks after his meeting with President Trump on Friday speak volumes both for what he did and did not say. • Trump-Putin meeting: follow the latest updates Putin pitched this meeting as an opportunity to bring US-Russian relations back on track — and in effect, to relegate the Ukraine issue to the sidelines. His well-known obsession with history, even if a deeply slanted version that suits his political needs, was soon in evidence. After praising the way the talks had been 'held in a constructive atmosphere of mutual respect', he quickly moved on to stressing not just that the meeting in Alaska highlighted the degree to which Russia and the United States, 'though separated by the oceans, are close neighbours' — just 2.4 miles apart at the closest point — but also that there was much shared history. (Of course, Alaska had been Russian until it was sold to America in 1867.) In the closed-door talks, Trump was apparently spared the kind of 30-minute lecture with which Putin began his interview with the US journalist Tucker Carlson. Instead, in both those talks and his public statement, Putin tried to mobilise history to develop his fundamental point: that Russia and America ought to be allies rather than adversaries. On his way to Anchorage, Putin had stopped over in Magadan in the Russian far east, where he made a point of laying flowers at the 'Heroes of Alsib' memorial commemorating pilots killed on the Alaska-Siberia route in the Second World War, when the US was helping to supply the Soviets. Noting that Soviet pilots had also been buried at a cemetery close to the airbase where the meeting with Trump was held, Putin offered a little light flattery to 'the citizens and the government of the US for carefully taking care of their memory. I think that's very worthy and noble'. He continued to make the point: 'We'll always remember other historical examples when our countries defeated common enemies together in the spirit of battle camaraderie and allyship that supported each other and facilitated each other.' In other words, when Moscow and Washington co-operate, no one can stand in their way. Putin here presented the war as something of a distraction which has unnecessarily interrupted co-operation between two great nations. 'This time has been very hard for bilateral relations, and let's be frank, they've fallen to the lowest point since the Cold War,' he said. 'I think that's not benefiting our countries and the world as a whole. It is apparent that sooner or later, we have to amend the situation to move on from the confrontation to dialogue.' This was Putin sounding conciliatory, yet wanting to have his cake and eat it: to restate his fundamental position, while posing as a peacemaker. The tell comes a few moments later. • Four key moments from Trump-Putin press conference This is Putin's usual code for demands that Kyiv must surrender territory, be barred from Nato membership and shrink its military to a level that leaves it perpetually vulnerable. He emphasised that from his perspective 'to make the settlement lasting and long-term, we need to eliminate all the primary roots, the primary causes of that conflict.' He is of course not talking about the unprovoked Russian invasion that started the war (which he ordered) but rather the supposedly 'legitimate concerns of Russia' and the need 'to reinstate a just balance of security in Europe and in the world' which would be more advantageous to Moscow. Meanwhile, he invoked what sounded like kinship with the Ukrainians, adding even that 'naturally, the security of Ukraine should be ensured as well'. This might have surprised those Ukrainian civilians hiding in their air raid shelters at the time. However, his claim that Russians have 'always considered the Ukrainian nation … a brotherly nation' as 'we have the same roots' was really just a sugar-coated rendition of his usual claim that Ukraine is not really a genuine country, more an annexe of a greater Russia. It is not yet clear what Putin meant by this arch suggestion. The official translation of his word ponimanie is 'agreements' but really the looser 'understandings' is more accurate. We therefore don't know if there is any framework for an agreement — although there are recurring suggestions of a halt to mutual air attacks on Russia and Ukraine's cities and infrastructure — or just a sense of progress being made. In any case, Putin was astute enough not to dwell on this too much and instead to refocus on the Russian and American relationship. First he dangled the benefit to the United States of improved dialogue with Russia. 'It is clear that the US and Russian investment and business co-operation has tremendous potential,' he said. 'Russia and the US can offer each other so much in trade, digital, high tech and in space exploration. We see that Arctic co-operation is also very possible.' Then he spoke warmly of his own bond with his American counterpart. Trump may be the leader of the most powerful nation in the world, but he still manifests an insecurity that Putin is happy to exploit. Speaking of the outbreak of war in Ukraine in 2022 the Russian said: 'President Trump is saying that if he was the president back then, there would be no war, and I'm quite sure that it would indeed be so' (as if the invasion had been some natural disaster, rather than something he initiated). As for Trump's peacemaking efforts, it was the Europeans and Ukrainians who were frustrating him, Putin suggested. He expressed the pious hope that they 'will not make any attempts to use some backroom dealings to conduct provocations to torpedo the nascent progress.' It was, of course, naked flattery, but it was also different from the kind of fawning obeisances some European leaders have adopted. Rather it was calibrated to convey a sense that the two men were equals and it came with the hint of an invitation to the club of strongman leaders: 'The president of the US has a very clear idea of what he would like to achieve. He sincerely cares about the prosperity of his nation. Still, he understands that Russia has its own national interests.' This sounded like a compliment, not condescension. Putin is not a rigid strategist but an opportunist. He likes to keep his options open. Having averted any ultimatum on a ceasefire, he made it clear that he will pursue both military and diplomatic tracks simultaneously, the very thing Kyiv has been trying to prevent. He can see if some deal that suits him emerges — or just use continuing negotiations to keep Trump paralysed and try to paint the Ukrainians and the Europeans as the obstacle. At this stage, he doesn't have to decide, and that's the way he likes it. One might think that this would be enough for him, but Putin wouldn't be Putin without a snarky parting shot. Just as Trump was wrapping up the brief press conference with a vague suggestion that the two men would 'probably' see each other again soon, Putin pounced. By inviting him, in English, to the Russian capital for their next meeting, he knew he was putting Trump very much on the spot. Obviously, this would be an even greater fillip for Putin, and pretty much guarantee that President Zelensky wasn't going to be present. It was a closing flash of the sharp teeth behind the bland smile: I am not, Putin could have been saying, just another second-tier national leader who can be pushed around. Professor Mark Galeotti's book, Forged in War: A Military History of Russia from its Beginnings to Today, is published by Osprey/Bloomsbury
South Wales Guardian
an hour ago
- South Wales Guardian
Putin ‘rewarded' for Ukraine invasion with Trump summit, experts warn
The summit, which took place at a military base in Anchorage in the US's northernmost state, was aimed at kick-starting a peace process to end the war in Ukraine. Very little appears to have been materially resolved as a result of the meeting. Mr Trump has insisted 'some great progress' was made, with 'many points' agreed and 'very few' remaining. Sir Keir Starmer, meanwhile, commended the US president's efforts to make peace, and said Mr Trump had 'brought us closer than ever before' to an end to the war in Ukraine. Leading foreign affairs and military experts have however claimed the summit's main effect has been to lend legitimacy to Mr Putin, who has been considered a pariah by many world leaders since the invasion began in 2022. Orysia Lutsevych, deputy director of the Russia and Eurasia programme and head of the Ukraine forum at the Chatham House think tank, said: 'After six bilateral Trump-Putin phone calls, five trips of Trump's envoy (Steve) Witkoff to Moscow, the Alaska summit, watched globally with so much anticipation and anxiety, failed to produce any tangible outcome to stop Russian aggression against Ukraine. 'Russia has received a reward for its invasion. 'Trump called Russia a 'great country' and said there is strong mutual understanding between the two parties. 'This represents a further fissure in the already shaky Transatlantic alliance, the rupture of which is a primary Russian aim. 'The Alaska summit represents another step towards this goal.' Keir Giles, an associate fellow of the Russia and Eurasia programme at Chatham House, meanwhile suggested there were 'two dangers' which could emerge from the summit. The first is that Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky may now be perceived by Mr Trump as a 'softer target where he is more willing to exert leverage', and that the US president could 'once again try to strongarm Zelensky into compromising the future of his country'. The second danger is that European leaders 'might once again think the immediate danger has passed' and become complacent, after their scramble to speak to Mr Trump ahead of the summit. Dr Neil Melvin, director of international security at the Royal United Services Institute (Rusi) meanwhile suggested Mr Putin would walk away considering the summit a success. Dr Melvin said: 'Vladimir Putin came to the Alaska summit with the principal goal of stalling any pressure on Russia to end the war. 'He will consider the summit outcome as mission accomplished.' He added: 'Russia's war aims have not changed since it launched its invasion of Ukraine in 2022. 'At the summit, Putin was clear that he wants to address first what he calls the root causes of the war. 'The Kremlin identifies these as Nato enlargement, the emergence of governments in Ukraine resistant to Russian integration projects, and challenges to Russian claims about territory and ethnic Russians in Ukraine. 'This is Russia's precondition and underpins Putin's demand for a 'comprehensive peace deal'. 'This agenda would lead to the subjugation of Ukraine. 'Putin made no concessions at the summit. 'Moreover, he succeeded in presenting himself as a legitimate equal to the US president. 'He will also consider it a victory that he was able to marginalise Zelensky and European leaders from the central discussion about the future of European security.' Elsewhere, party political leaders in the UK warned against lending Mr Putin legitimacy. Sir Ed Davey, the Liberal Democrat leader said: 'It's clear Putin doesn't want peace. 'Trump's attempt to sweet talk him into a deal has failed, so it's time for Trump to finally get tough. 'The UK should seize Russian assets to help Ukraine today, and press the US to do the same.' Green Party MP Ellie Chowns meanwhile said the world was 'left where we started' by the summit, adding: 'A brutal war caused by Russia's aggression and no real solution in sight. 'Any lasting peace plan without Ukraine's full participation and consent will fail. 'When you compare how Trump rolled out the red carpet for Putin to his publicly humiliating Zelensky, it's clear that the only winner from these talks is Putin. 'He was handed the credibility of a seat at the top table while his forces continue their attacks on Ukraine.'
