Latest news with #WilliamPryor
Yahoo
17-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
NRA Takes Florida Gun Law to Supreme Court
Calling split appellate-court decisions 'intolerable,' the National Rifle Association on Friday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take up a challenge to a Florida law that raised the minimum age to purchase rifles and other long guns from 18 to 21. 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.
Yahoo
17-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
A Conservative Giant Just Gave the Supreme Court Reason To Uphold Youth Gun Bans
Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily. For several years, the federal judiciary has been racing to strike down laws that restrict young people ages 18 to 20 from buying or possessing firearms. A slew of appeals courts have invalidated such measures, concluding that they violate the Second Amendment rights of people under 21. It seemed inevitable that these decisions would build a consensus that the Supreme Court might embrace—until Friday, when a court broke from the pack in a surprise decision. By an 8–4 vote, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit last week upheld Florida's law prohibiting 18- to 20-year-olds from buying guns. Better yet, the court's opinion was authored by Chief Judge William Pryor, a highly influential George W. Bush appointee. Pryor's decision is doggedly originalist, a meticulous history lesson that proves the constitutionality of Florida's ban beyond all reasonable doubt. It might just be persuasive enough to convince his ideological allies on the Supreme Court to uphold this lifesaving limit on the right to bear arms. At least 22 states limit the ability of young adults ages 18 to 20 to buy weapons. So does federal law, which generally bars those under 21 from buying a handgun. These measures have come under legal fire at the U.S. Courts of Appeals as the Supreme Court has steadily expanded the Second Amendment. Already this year, the 5th Circuit has struck down the federal age restriction as unconstitutional. And the 3rd Circuit refused to revisit a recent decision invalidating Pennsylvania laws that bar those under 21 from carrying guns in public during a state of emergency. Last year, the 8th Circuit tossed out a Minnesota law forbidding those under 21 from obtaining a public carry permit. And in 2022, the 9th Circuit struck down California's ban on the sale of rifles to those who are 18 to 20. (That decision was later set aside for reasons unrelated to the merits, though the 9th Circuit has not yet repudiated it.) These decisions were frustrating for two primary reasons. First, they were deadly: We know that people under 21 are far more likely to commit violent crime, especially with guns. One study, for instance, found that people ages 18 to 20 commit gun homicides at triple the rate of adults 21 and up. FBI data shows that this group commits deadly shootings at a much higher rate than older Americans. A disproportionate number of our deadliest mass shootings were committed by 18- to 20-year-olds who bought their weapons legally—including the Parkland shooter, whose massacre prompted Florida to enact its age restriction. Simply put, the data confirms that restricting young people from possessing firearms is a crucial tool for protecting all Americans from gun violence. Second, the decisions striking down those age-based laws purported to be originalist, yet they were, at their core, living constitutionalism at its most freewheeling and undisciplined. SCOTUS has instructed lower courts to uphold firearm regulations that comport with the nation's 'history and tradition.' And in 1791, when the Second Amendment was ratified, people under age 21 were considered legal minors with virtually no rights themselves, including the right to buy or possess weapons without their parents' consent. It is true that in the 20th century, most states shifted the age of majority back to 18. But that development does not mean that, as an originalist matter, the government violates our 'history and tradition' when it applies the 18th-century age of majority to gun possession. The courts that rejected this reality relied on the fact that in 1791, states often compelled 18- to 20-year-olds to join 'the militia,' which required them to bear arms. Gun rights advocates raised this argument at the 11th Circuit, as well—and they had good reason to think they'd prevail. After all, the court has a strong majority of Republican appointees. And after an unusually liberal three-judge panel upheld Florida's law in 2023, the full court swept away its decision, choosing to rehear the case en banc (with every judge participating). Typically, a rehearing en banc indicates that the full court disagrees with the panel decision. But that didn't happen here. Instead, the en banc court reached the same conclusion. And in the process, it provided vital new support and legitimacy for the legal basis behind these age restrictions nationwide. Chief Judge Pryor's majority opinion is so cogent and compelling that it almost makes you believe that courts can fairly apply the hopelessly unworkable 'history and tradition' test. He began by recounting the gruesome facts of the Parkland massacre, vividly reminding readers of the horrors that precipitated the statute's enactment. From there, he explained that at the nation's birth, 'a person was an 'infant' or a 'minor' in the eyes of the law until age 21'—an ancient rule of English law that the founders carried over to America. 'The Founders' generation shared the view,' Pryor wrote, 'that minors lacked the reason and judgment necessary to be trusted with legal rights,' quoting Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. Because of this 'lack of reason,' minors 'were subject to the 'power' of their parents until they reached age 21.' In the 18th century, this 'legal incapacity' deprived minors of 'the capacity to contract, and to purchase goods on account.' They also generally had no income of their own, because their parents lay claim to any wages they earned for work. As a result, minors could not buy firearms themselves; they lacked both the legal right and the actual money to do so. When the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791, then, Americans ages 18 to 20 had no right to buy or possess a gun. So Florida's law, and others like it, are 'consistent with our historical tradition of firearm regulation.' But what about mandatory militia service for those under 21? Unlike other federal courts, Pryor took the time to canvass the historical record. And he found that 'states addressed the problem of providing minors the firearms necessary for militia service in different ways.' Some 'exempted minors from the firearm requirement entirely.' Others 'required parents of minors to acquire firearms for their militia service.' Another group 'implicitly required parents to supply minors with firearms' by subjecting them to fines if their children did not obtain weapons. As universal militia service faded in the 19th century, many states enacted outright bans on the sale or transfer of firearms to people under 21. These laws held firm until deep into the 20th century, when most states embraced 18 as the new age of majority. But as Pryor explained, 'the federal right to keep and bear arms' does not turn on 'a sliding scale defined by contemporary state law that varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.' A state does not 'lose its constitutional authority to regulate minors' access to firearms' just because it gives 18-year-olds 'greater rights than they would have enjoyed at the Founding.' To hold otherwise would mean importing into the Second Amendment 'an evolving standard of adulthood that is divorced from the text of the Amendment and from our regulatory tradition.' It is hard to overstate the significance of these words coming from the pen of a deeply conservative, dyed-in-the-wool Federalist Society stalwart like Pryor. He is arguably the most influential appeals court judge active today: Supreme Court justices regularly cite him by name, invoking his authority to bolster their own arguments—a rare honor reserved for marquee lower-court jurists. By embracing the constitutionality of Florida's law, he has instantly increased the odds that SCOTUS will say such age restrictions comply with the Second Amendment. Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, will take his opinion very seriously when they decide this issue. And they likely will soon, because there is a growing circuit split that the Supreme Court will feel obligated to resolve. (The 10th Circuit has also upheld an age ban.) Thanks to Pryor, the justices now have exhaustive historical evidence that the Framers would have no objection to age limits on gun purchase or possession. It should not be a close call. Compared to the 11th Circuit's decision, other courts' opinions on this subject are half-baked and muddled, reliant upon dubious generalizations that gloss over key historical materials. History, in its messy complexity, does not always provide a single correct answer. But here, it does. And the odds just shot up that the Supreme Court will reach it.
Yahoo
16-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
U.S. federal appeals court backs Florida gun age law
Saying the restriction is 'consistent with our historical tradition of firearm regulation,' a federal appeals court on Friday upheld the constitutionality of a Florida law that raised the minimum age to purchase rifles and other long guns from 18 to 21. 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.
Yahoo
16-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
U.S. federal appeals court backs Florida gun age law
Saying the restriction is 'consistent with our historical tradition of firearm regulation,' a federal appeals court on Friday upheld the constitutionality of a Florida law that raised the minimum age to purchase rifles and other long guns from 18 to 21. 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.
Yahoo
15-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Appeals court ruling: Florida law restricting under-21 gun purchases is constitutional
Saying the restriction is 'consistent with our historical tradition of firearm regulation,' a federal appeals court on Friday upheld the constitutionality of a Florida law that raised the minimum age to purchase rifles and other long guns from 18 to 21. 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.' The court ruling comes days after 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.' In the ruling, 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. This article originally appeared on Tallahassee Democrat: Appeals court ruling upholds Florida law restricting gun purchases
