
NRA takes Florida gun law to U.S. 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.
NRA challenges historical basis of Florida's age restriction law
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," the 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 "meager 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.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Swiss see risk of tariffs increasing cost of U.S. F-35A jets
(Reuters) -Switzerland remains committed to buying Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II fighter jets from the United States despite an unclear total cost of procurement in part due to the impact of U.S. tariffs, the government said on Wednesday. The Swiss government reaffirmed its commitment to buying the jets a week after the United States imposed some of its highest tariff rates worldwide on Switzerland due to the size of the U.S. trade deficit with the European country. The price of the jets would ultimately depend on inflation in the United States, global commodity prices "and other factors such as price increases due to the tariffs imposed by the USA worldwide," the government said in a statement. Bern chose the F-35A as its next-generation fighter plane in 2021 for what it considered a fixed price of around 6 billion Swiss francs ($7.47 billion) for 36 jets. The U.S. has since said that sum was a misunderstanding. Talks with the United States to avert the total sum from potentially increasing by $650 million to $1.3 billion showed it was impossible for Switzerland to assert a fixed price, the Swiss government said. ($1 = 0.8028 Swiss francs) Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Mark Cuban Says Rich People Should Get Incentives To Help Others, But Gets Asked Why The Working Class Only Gets Discipline, Not Incentives
Billionaire Mark Cuban has been speaking out on social media, arguing that wealthy people should get targeted incentives to help others, while critics are asking why similar incentives aren't offered to the working class. Cuban's Incentives For The Rich Cuban recently argued on Bluesky that policy decisions have ripple effects, warning, "Think the 60% of Americans with stocks or retirement funds will like it when their savings crash? The layoffs when companies close and investment slows down considerably?" Cuban, who has long said he is fine with raising his own income taxes, proposed lowering corporate taxes for companies paying at least $25 per hour or giving employees stock at the same percentage as the CEO. "Bottom up incentives work. Dems never innovate. They bitch," he wrote. Don't Miss: The same firms that backed Uber, Venmo and eBay are investing in this pre-IPO company disrupting a $1.8T market — 'Scrolling To UBI' — Deloitte's #1 fastest-growing software company allows users to earn money on their phones. You can That drew sharp criticism. One person replied, "It's always been funny how the rich need to be incentivized but the working class needs to be disciplined." The comment ratioed what Cuban wrote, meaning it received more engagement than Cuban's original post. They also questioned why Cuban would make this case so soon after a large corporate tax cut was passed, calling it tone-deaf, adding that many companies work to push wages as low as possible, undermining his claims about innovation. Defending Trump's Semiconductor Tax Structure Cuban also recently posted on X about a Trump policy imposing what he called a "billionaire's tax" on semiconductor sales to China from the most valuable company in the world, Nvidia (NASDAQ:NVDA). He credited Trump for using business leverage to get companies to pay, something he said progressives have failed to do. Trending: These five entrepreneurs are worth $223 billion – "POTUS is more progressive when it comes to taxation than anyone in the progressive wing of the Dems has ever been. The Dems should be celebrating just how progressive it is. The irony," Cuban wrote. While he disagrees with Trump on tariffs and most non-business issues, he called the move "the ultimate wealth tax" because it diluted all shareholders by 15% upfront. Cuban estimated the measure will result in Nvidia paying about $4 billion per year, connected to roughly $25 billion in high-margin revenue. He stressed that while it won't fix the deficit, it shows how targeting what wealthy companies need can result in significant tax revenue. Cuban's comments tie together a recurring theme in his public statements: using incentives to drive behavior. Whether it's corporate tax breaks for companies that pay higher wages, leveraging business needs to generate revenue from billionaires, or teaching his children to earn their own way, Cuban repeatedly comes back to the idea that motivation should come through opportunity rather than punishment. Still, the pushback shows that many people believe those same incentives should apply to working-class Americans, not just the wealthy. Read Next: Kevin O'Leary Says Real Estate's Been a Smart Bet for 200 Years — Bill Gates Warned About Water Scarcity. Imagn Images Up Next: Transform your trading with Benzinga Edge's one-of-a-kind market trade ideas and tools. Click now to access unique insights that can set you ahead in today's competitive market. Get the latest stock analysis from Benzinga? NVIDIA (NVDA): Free Stock Analysis Report This article Mark Cuban Says Rich People Should Get Incentives To Help Others, But Gets Asked Why The Working Class Only Gets Discipline, Not Incentives originally appeared on © 2025 Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved. Sign in to access your portfolio


CBS News
9 minutes ago
- CBS News
How new laws are changing Colorado school policies on religion, library materials
Books covering themes like race, sexual orientation, gender identity, and political or religious beliefs are staying on library shelves in Boulder County but your student may not have to read them. The night before the first bell of the school year rings for Boulder Valley School District, the school board approved a policy change that allows students and parents to opt out of curriculum covering controversial themes with no questions asked. However, the new policies also allow books and materials to stay accessible for all students. This shift in policy follows a June Supreme Court ruling requiring schools to provide parents the option to excuse their child from class when course material conflicts with religious beliefs. At the center of that case was the Montgomery County school system in Maryland. Parents sued the school board seeking to opt their elementary school kids out of class when reading material with LGBTQ characters. Parents argued that the fact they couldn't opt their kids out violated the First Amendment, and in a 6-to-3 decision, the justices agreed. That ruling is now impacting schools nationwide. Boulder County is one of the state's first school districts to adopt new policies after the Supreme Court ruling, but they didn't exclusively include a new opt-out option for parents. The new policies mean parents have more of a say in what their child learns about in class, but they also protect those resources in the library for other students to use. In 2020, B.J. and Brecken Jones sued the Boulder Valley School District in Colorado with a similar claim as the June ruling about a desire to opt their child out of lessons. Today, Jones celebrates the new opt-out policy but sent a statement reacting to the policies around general material access in part, "BVSD appears to be delegating more educational content decisions to activist "'educators' and away from parents, families, and the community." Meanwhile, some teachers tell CBS Colorado they're worried these policies are forcing them to think more like a lawyer than an educator, and worry about possible added work if consistent replacement assignments are needed for students who opt out. Tuesday's policies are some of the first changes since the 1980s. On Tuesday, the school board explained they're trying to thread the needle between following federal decisions and supporting access to materials that discuss things like gender, race, and sexuality. "I think for us it's important for our educators that they know that they're supported, and they know clearly what the rights of parents are as determined by the Supreme Court," BVSD Superintendent Rob Anderson said. The new BVSD policies also mean librarians will have more say about what goes on their shelves. These changes separate what's taught in the classroom and can be opted out of by parents from what's available to read at the library. Rae Ciciora is the District Library Coordinator for BVSD, and she explained that, in following the new Colorado law, book challenges or complaints about what's on the shelf must also now come from someone with a direct connection to a school or neighborhood rather than anyone with a concern. "It's limited to a parent or a community member in that school neighborhood, so that that group from Virginia can't come in and complain about our books and our libraries, only our students, families, and communities can complain about a book," Ciciora said. In the 2025 regular session, Senate Bill 25-063 became law and now requires many of these protections, alongside BVSD's policy affirming a librarian's choice in content. "I don't feel as exposed as I did last year with all of the administration that's you know, all the changes that are happening with the administration, and some of the movements that have come from out of state requesting, 'What titles are you having in your school libraries? We think we might want to pull some of those titles,'" Ciciora said, "This is giving me a sense of we are actually protected. Not just I know they've got my back, but the policy has our back." Board members expect to keep talking about these policies and get feedback from the public as the year continues. Meanwhile, some teachers tell CBS Colorado they hope it won't have too much of an impact on their day-to-day lessons. Superintendent Dr. Anderson also says that while BVSD may be one of the first to make these changes, he expects other schools to follow as the year begins. Senate Bill 25-063 also mandates that schools have written policies about library resources by Sept. 1.