Another step in the right direction

Texas withdraws appeal to court order blocking gun law that banned adults under 21 from carrying firearms:

“We applaud Texas for doing the right thing and accepting the district court’s ruling against its law prohibiting 18-to-20-year-old adults from carrying firearms in public,” said Cody J. Wisniewski, FPC’s senior attorney for constitutional litigation. “Not only do young adults have the same constitutionally protected right to bear arms as all other adults, they are also among the reasons we have a Second Amendment, Constitution, and Country in the first place.”

Pittman noted the Second Amendment does not contain any mention of age as a restriction, unlike other portions of the Constitution.

“To start, the Second Amendment does not mention any sort of age restriction,” he wrote. “This absence is notable—when the Framers meant to impose age restrictions, they did so expressly.”

This only the Fifth Circuit. I would not be surprised to see the Ninth Circuit tap dance their way into believing they can set the age as 65 and over. Then the next day saying “Red Flags” laws allow confiscation for people over 60 because they are of unfirm mind.


6 thoughts on “Another step in the right direction

  1. I suspect this is less about the State “doing the right thing” and more about anti-gunners not wanting to set a nationwide precedent that the right to carry a concealed handgun in public starts at age 18.

    On the other hand, it is Texas, and my understanding is the AG was defending the law not because he supports the prohibition, but because as AG he is required to defend their laws against challenges. He’s just faithfully executing the duties of his office.

    But I’m neither a lawyer nor a Texan, so what do I know? 😉

      • If only leftist AGs felt the same obligations to defend laws with which they disagree. We need a lot more of this from conservatives. Tit for tat is the winning strategy.

    • “…as AG he is required to defend their laws…” — that sounds right, provided those laws are Constitutional. Conversely, by his oath of office, an AG is required NOT to defend “laws” that violate the Constitution. Few AGs actually understand this (or act as if they do).

      • Depending on the State, the AG may not have that discretion: he/she may be required to assume a law passed by the legislature or voters is Constitutional.

        Now, that’s not to say an AG couldn’t half-ass a token defense of an unconstitutional law, but not showing up isn’t necessarily an option.

        • Witness AG Bonta in California. Even he refused to defend the recently-passed legislation to place the burden of paying the state’s legal fees on the plaintiff in gun control cases, even if they won the case. Newsom had to hire third party attorneys to [poorly] state his case.

Comments are closed.