State Supreme Court upholds law requiring Georgians to be 21 to carry handguns
The Georgia Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a state policy barring those between 18 and 21 from carrying a handgun in public.The Georgia Supreme Court upheld a state law that bars most people between the ages 18 and 21 from carrying handguns in public without military training Wednesday.
The court unanimously backed a lower court in rejecting the challenge from Thomas Stephens, a 20-year-old Georgian seeking to end enforcement of the prohibition.
Georgians between 18 and 21 can carry long guns in public, and they can carry handguns at home, in their car or in their place of business and use them for hunting, fishing or sport shooting with the associated license. But only 18- to 20-year-olds who have received weapons training as part of military service are generally able to carry a handgun in public.
Stephens' attorney John Monroe argued that the exception is arbitrary and other young adults may be as capable of safely carrying handguns as members of the military.
'When you look at the nature of the training that a young person in the military gets, which is, as we said in our briefs, geared toward rifles and using other small arms like hand grenades, that's not very well-suited or significant when it comes to carrying handguns in public, as opposed to training that people might get outside of the military that's geared exactly towards carrying handguns,' he said.
The state, represented by the Office of Attorney General Chris Carr, argued that the prohibition on handguns for young adults is authorized by the Georgia Constitution as a permissible exercise of police power.
The unanimous opinion authored by Justice Andrew A. Pinson rejects Stephens' call to overturn state precedent in favor of tests created by federal courts, describing it as a request 'to uncritically import federal standards to guide the application of a provision unique to Georgia's Constitution—a practice we have regularly criticized and disapproved.'
The state Legislature has been at the center of a debate over firearm access in recent years, especially since last September's shooting at Apalachee High School, in which four people died. Proposals designed to encourage safe firearm storage stalled during the 2025 legislative session.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
19 minutes ago
- Newsweek
White House Is 'Full of Lunatics' Says Economist
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A leading economist has said the White House is "full of lunatics" as debates over the legality of President Donald Trump's sweeping tariff plans have resulted in a federal court showdown. On Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit paused a previous ruling from the Court of International Trade (CIT) in Manhattan, which argued that Trump had overstepped his executive authority in imposing the majority of his tariffs. Commenting on the muted market reaction to these two developments, Justin Wolfers, a professor of economics and public policy at the University of Michigan, said investors had already reconciled themselves to the fact that the current administration is "out of control." Newsweek has contacted the White House for comment via email outside regular business hours. Why It Matters The legal dispute over Trump's tariffs playing out in federal courts could hold broad implications for the future of his trade agenda, which has already elicited criticism on constitutional grounds from Democrats and Republicans. Pending the result of its appeal, the administration has signaled its intention to take the case to the Supreme Court if necessary. What To Know "It's still true that the White House is full of lunatics and that still weighs on people's minds," Wolfers said in an interview with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. On Wednesday, the CIT ruled that Trump's use of emergency powers—specifically the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977—did not grant him "unbounded" authority to impose a global "baseline" tariff of 10 percent, the currently paused reciprocal tariffs, or the tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico in response to the fentanyl epidemic. "Because of the Constitution's express allocation of the tariff power to Congress … we do not read IEEPA to delegate an unbounded tariff authority to the President," the three-judge panel wrote in its ruling. "We instead read IEEPA's provisions to impose meaningful limits on any such authority it confers." President Donald Trump at a swearing-in ceremony in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C., on May 28. President Donald Trump at a swearing-in ceremony in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C., on May Markets Reacted While the CIT's decision potentially voided the majority of Trump's trade measures, markets reacted modestly to the news. The S&P 500, Dow Jones Industrial Average and Nasdaq rose slightly the next morning, but these gains were tempered only hours into trading. The reaction to the appeals court pausing the decision was similarly underwhelming, with all three indexes finishing in the green on Thursday. Wolfers—who similarly characterized the president's invocation of the IEEPA as unconstitutional—told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation that, given the significant reactions to previous tariff pauses or developments, markets would have presumably risen dramatically. "The other possibility is that the original policy announcement was so incoherent, so poorly thought through, so dramatic, so unconstitutional on its face, so absurd, with so much overreach in both the economic, political, and legal domains, that it signaled an administration that's out of control," Wolfers said, adding that investors had already learned in early April that "this is an economically unhelpful administration." Alex Edmans, a finance professor at London Business School, told Newsweek that markets had largely "priced in" the effects of the CIT's legal challenge, given that so many of Trump's tariffs have been paused or amended. "Markets are typically very sensitive to new information, but in this case, they have already adjusted to the idea that any new information is actually much less significant than it might appear at face value," he said. "The Liberation Day tariffs seemed shocking yet are being renegotiated, and other promises of extreme tariffs have been delayed or reversed." He added that the broader "volatility" in trade policy had "created a kind of 'noise' in the market, diminishing the potential for any one legal decision to trigger a large market move." What People Are Saying Economist Justin Wolfers told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation: "I'm an economist and what I can see is a consistent pattern of behavior, which is the president genuinely believes that tariffs are a good idea." "His lawyers will be telling him, as of this afternoon, Mr. President, the statutory authority you're using will come under question, but if you want to push ahead with tariffs, I've got lots of other ways you can do it. My guess, based on recent history, is that he'll say, 'That's terrific, let's keep going.'" President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social on Thursday: "Hopefully, the Supreme Court will reverse this horrible, Country threatening decision, QUICKLY and DECISIVELY. Backroom 'hustlers' must not be allowed to destroy our Nation! The horrific decision stated that I would have to get the approval of Congress for these Tariffs. In other words, hundreds of politicians would sit around D.C. for weeks, and even months, trying to come to a conclusion as to what to charge other Countries that are treating us unfairly." Alex Edmans, a finance professor at London Business School, told Newsweek: "The market was already pricing in the fact that the previously announced tariffs would be renegotiated anyway, so the 'good news' of the legal challenge was already priced in." "In this context, the court's ruling was just another point in a series of similar events, contributing to investor fatigue," he said, adding that the reaction to the outcome of the appeal would not be "as substantial as one might think." "If the appeal were to overturn the decision and reinstate the tariffs, the reaction might not be strongly negative because it may be that the tariffs are renegotiated anyway (Trump has shown that not even he is immune to market movements). If the decision is upheld, there might not be a significantly positive reaction since the original court ruling had little impact, and the market is pricing in renegotiation anyway." What Happens Next The tariffs related to the CIT's decision are set to remain in effect as the administration's appeal progresses. The appeals court has given the plaintiffs until June 5 to issue a response, and the government until June 9 to reply. "If, as I expect, they find this to be unconstitutional, then the tariffs will be back off again," Wolfers said on Thursday. "Then we'll be off to the Supreme Court."
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
If Trump keeps threatening our judges, we'll lose our rule of law
In recent weeks, President Trump has called various federal judges "monsters who want our country to go to hell,' "EVIL,' "lunatics,' "CORRUPT,' "crooked,' "unfair disaster[s],' and "disgraceful.' Down Pennsylvania Avenue, in the halls of Congress, Representative Andy Ogles (R-TN) recently put up Western-style "wanted posters' of various federal court judges. High-profile political actors from Elon Musk to Representative Marjorie Taylor Green to Arizona's own Representative Eli Crane have recently called for the impeachment of judges. All told, such words have unsurprisingly led to increased unpleasantness for federal judges – death threats to Judge Amir Ali, bomb threats to the sister of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, suspicious deliveries to Judges Paul Engelmayer and Jeanette Vargas, etc. The U.S. Marshals Service reported 224 investigated threats to federal judges in 2021. That number grew to 457 in 2023. And 2025 is on pace for a new record. U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts recently made a rare public rebuke of attacks on the federal judiciary: "For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.' So too did Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson ("relentless attacks … undermining our Constitution and the rule of law.') Last week, Congressional Democrats introduced a bill to transfer control of the U.S. Marshals – the men and women who provide security for the courts – from the executive branch to the federal judiciary. The authors of the bill fear that without the legislative change, judges will fear for their safety if they rule against President Trump. All of this is unfortunate. And while it might be worse than ever, none of this is new. We know that in Arizona. I clearly remember the left's hostile reaction when the Arizona Supreme Court ruled against the "Invest in Ed' initiative in 2018. Some critics challenged the merits of the legal opinion. That's fine. It's even healthy. Others chose a different route. They questioned the ethics of the judges. Or their patriotism. Or their commitment to democracy. Similar charges were made following the Arizona Supreme Court's ruling that reinstated Arizona's 1864 abortion ban. Activists focused on Justices Clint Bolick and Kathryn King, saying they were "unfit to serve' or that they were "abusing their positions for years to serve a political agenda.' Former state legislator Athena Salman called into question the whole judicial process: "[This] corrupt Court completely disregards our rights.' Nevermind that judges were being asked to make a specific legal determination on what the laws, as written, required. They weren't being asked for their opinion on what the law should be, or whether or not it was absurd to return to Arizona's territorial law. I once proudly thought the political right was largely immune from such nonsensical actions. But then Abe Hamadeh and Kari Lake came on the scene. Following their various losses, they blamed anyone possible. And that included the judiciary. Hamadeh, now a Congressman, once wrote derogatorily of the political left that, "In their attempt to further destroy the rule of law, Democrats are going after judges who stand in their way.' But his tune changed following his winless record in state trial courts, appellate courts, and the Arizona Supreme Court: "[Judicial] corruption must be rooted out completely.' "Marxist radical Democrat judges are destroying America while Republican judges are surrendering.' "I wish our judges loved the rule of law more than they hate me.' Never once did Hamadeh consider that he was simply wrong on the law and the facts. Instead it was the moral character of every single judge who ruled on his cases. He got so convinced of his own victimhood and judicial corruption that he took to the airwaves on the James T. Harris Show to call for the removal of Ducey-appointed Justice Clint Bolick. As for Kari Lake, after each legal loss – and there are lots of them – she takes to social media to boldly state that she only lost because of 'corruption,' 'cowardice,' 'cabals,' or 'compromised' judges. She even accused one judge of unlawfully handing over his judicial responsibilities to liberal attorney Marc Elias – a 'ghostwritten' legal decision. I witnessed first hand the effects of such comments. In May 2023, I sat in the courtroom of one Lake case when my team found a social media message from a Lake supporter threatening the judge in the case. We showed it to the court. The court paused the case until additional security could be provided. This needs to stop. The judiciary's role is to make decisions on facts and law. Inevitably, some litigants win, and some lose. That's true even in emotionally fraught cases. It's true in political cases. And sometimes, even if the public is overwhelmingly on one side, that side might lose because the facts and law don't support that side. That's how the law works. And we are a country of law. The losing party must respect this process. You can of course disagree with a court's ruling. You can write or speak about how they got the law wrong. You can appeal. But comments to the effect of 'corruption,' should be reserved for situations in which there is, in fact, corruption – e.g. if a judge takes a monetary bribe to rule a certain way. Similarly, calls for impeachment or the removal of the judge shouldn't be made simply because you dislike a ruling. They should be limited to obviously deficient or illegal conduct. If the path we're currently on continues, and if politicians like President Trump continue threatening our judiciary, then it's trouble for the future independence of the judiciary. Judges won't be able to fairly evaluate facts and law if they fear that a ruling that aggravates one party may lead to the judge's physical harm or removal from the position. That's extortion. And who would even want to be a judge in such a setting? Only the corrupt. As Arizona Justice Clint Bolick wrote in these pages, "it's game over if judges look over their shoulders.' Stephen Richer is a former Maricopa County recorder. He is now a senior fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government's Ash Center, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, and CEO of Republic Affairs. Follow him on X: @stephen_richer. This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Trump's attacks on judges threaten US rule of law | Opinion
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
MSNBC Host: ‘Humiliation Day' Coming for ‘Irreversibly Stupid' Trump
Lawrence O'Donnell has said the worst is still to come for President Donald Trump, even after a federal trade court shot down his 'illegal and unconstitutional' tariffs. The Court of International Trade said Wednesday that Trump had exceeded his authority and unanimously ruled to block his sweeping 'Liberation Day' import levies from early April. However, the Court of Appeals suspended the ruling, saying that the tariffs can remain active while it 'considers the motions paper' from the White House. The next hearing in the case is on June 5. If that doesn't go Trump's way, it could go all the way to the Supreme Court. O'Donnell said during a blistering monologue on MSNBC's The Last Word Wednesday evening that the levies "were constitutionally insane.' Following up on Thursday, O'Donnell said the worst is yet to come for the president. The multi-hyphenate host, who is also an actor, screenwriter and TV producer, pointed out that Trump, through his lawyers to the appeals court, had pledged to issue refunds to affected businesses if his tariffs are found to be illegal in a final court ruling. 'And so, as many humiliation days as Donald Trump has had since he started his failed trade war 'Refund Day' will be the ultimate 'Humiliation Day' at the end of Donald Trump's disastrous trade war,' O'Donnell warned. ''Refund Day' is coming, and it will be the most humiliating day Donald Trump will suffer in his losing trade war.' A former customs official told the BBC that if the appeal is unsuccessful, Customs and Border Protection would issue directions to its officers to refund tariff payments made at U.S. borders. John Leonard, a former top official at the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency added that, for now, Trump's duties will continue to be paid. O'Donnell added that on Thursday evening, Trump 'humiliated himself once again by showing how irreversibly stupid and flawlessly ignorant he is of the actual words of the Constitution and their meaning.' He was referring to a rambling Truth Social post in which Trump said the courts had 'incredibly ruled against the United States of America on desperately needed Tariffs.' The host said the post reveals Trump's 'most severe mental weakness, not just in the history of the presidency, but in the history of federal elected officials in this country.' O'Donnell said that the U.S. Court of International Trade had in fact ruled in favor of the United States of America and added that even high school students know the usual process for trade deals. 'Donald Trump goes on to say, if allowed to stand, this would completely destroy presidential power. The presidency would never be the same. Exclamation point,' O'Donnell went on. 'No, Donald, no, no no, Donald. If the Court of International Trade's decision is allowed to stand, that means the presidency would be the same as it has always presidency in which no president, other than Donald Trump, ever tried to randomly set new tariffs all around the world, all by himself.' He called Trump the 'utterly lost occupant of the White House,' and called the director of his National Economic Council, Kevin Hassett, 'permanently smiling and utterly incompetent.' 'The second Trump presidency has turned out to be much, much, worse than his first presidency,' he concluded.
