Last night we got the news from John Hoge:
A Civil Rights Victory @AaronWorthing @PatriarchTree @MsEBL @DaTechGuyblog @PolitiBunny @GrizzlyJoeShow https://t.co/uFZ5amJ3S2
— The WJJ Hoge (@wjjhoge) May 12, 2023
Mr. Hoge likes to refer to court cases that vindicate the Second Amendment as ‘Civil Rights’ victories. And logically, speaking, they are. The right to bear arms is rightfully considered one of the basic civil rights of Americans. As stated by Mr. Hoge:
Judge Robert E. Payne of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment today in Fraser, et al. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives, et al. He found that the prohibition on 18-to-20-year-olds buying handguns violates the Second Amendment and ‘cannot stand.’
This is one of many cases that renewed challenges to often long-standing gun restrictions in the wake of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022). To understand how gloriously disruptive Bruen was, it helps to understand a little about the recent history of Second Amendment litigation. Prior to Bruen many courts had adopted a two-step approach:
At the first step, the government may justify its regulation by ‘establish[ing] that the challenged law regulates activity falling out-side the scope of the right as originally understood.’ … At the second step, courts often analyze ‘how close the law comes to the core of the Second Amendment right and the severity of the law’s burden on that right.’
(citations removed). Lower courts, often utterly hostile to the Second Amendment would frequently admit it failed the first step, but then rely solely on the second step of the analysis to justify upholding a gun regulation. In Bruen, the Court said they should only use the first step. So suddenly, those hostile lower courts got the proverbial legs cut out from under them.
This story naturally got praise from advocates of gun freedom:
A MASSIVE win for Gun Rights!
The hypocrisy of the Military Age Gun Ban that allowed 18-20 year olds to carry a firearm for Uncle Sam but not to protect themselves at home has been struck down!
— National Association for Gun Rights (@NatlGunRights) May 11, 2023
Huge win for gun rights! If you’re old enough to die for your country then you should be old enough to purchase a pistol. https://t.co/uDJrG6UKGX
— Joseph Neville (@joenev) May 11, 2023
Indeed, an 18 year old can be a cop or a soldier, so it seems illogical to say they are categorically prohibited from carrying a gun.
Aahhh, the 2nd Amendment allows citizens to purchase and own guns, no matter what age. That’s why the Marxist freaks HATE our Constitution. https://t.co/PvQXqFGido
— Tango Golf Sierra (@TangoGolfSierr1) May 12, 2023
Indeed, Mao got it:
That’s why China has some of the strictest gun control in the world:
China and the US were both born from armed conflict. They're now polar opposites on gun control | Analysis by @jessieyeung8 & @steve0george https://t.co/y09RDa7q0K pic.twitter.com/k8eMofBYD6
— CNN (@CNN) September 20, 2021
CNN seems to think China has the right idea but accidentally shows they do not:
China swung in the other direction [from America’s tradition of gun freedom], deciding that an armed public posed a threat to safety and stability in the still-fragile, newly won country. For Communist Party leaders, weapons were a means of revolution, with Chairman Mao Zedong famously declaring in 1927: ‘Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.’
Just two years after the People’s Republic was founded, the government implemented measures prohibiting citizens from buying, selling or privately manufacturing guns. Several smaller ministries had passed gun control laws over the years – but the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown, in which the Chinese military crushed protests led by college students in Beijing with deadly force, marked a tipping point.
It goes on to discuss how, after the Tiananmen Square massacre, China has subsequently made it almost impossible for most private citizens to own a gun, let alone carry it, with few exceptions. Because political power comes from the barrel of a gun. In America, the people have the guns. In China, the government makes sure the people do not have the guns or the power.
And it certainly makes it easier to for China commit genocide against a hated minority:
We thank the @committeeonccp's call for accountability from @Disney, who have consistently chosen to ignore China's #UyghurGenocide. #EndUyghurGenocide https://t.co/U1X7mnggdS
— Campaign For Uyghurs (@CUyghurs) May 11, 2023
Back to reactions to yesterday’s ruling:
Does the Constitution have an age range for gun possession? If not, can 17 year olds buy guns? Why not 16 year olds? High school kids buying AR-15’s? What could go wrong (except for some 16 year old kids in school never seeing their 17th birthday)
— OK, Boomer (@tom_lowell_born) May 12, 2023
If we’re going to send 18 year olds to war with a gun in their hand they should be able to have one in their own country.
— Kramer (@KramerD23) May 12, 2023
In fact, revolutionary soldiers and militia members were known to be as young as fourteen.
in Virginia? That won't stand 5 minutes
— Jet Black Box (@jet_black_box) May 12, 2023
Going up against the Fourth Circuit, maybe not. But then the Supreme Court gets the final say.
Why in God’s name would a person under 21 need a handgun? If you reply for protection, what a sick society you have! 🤮
— Roman Zachariak (@ZachariakRoman) May 12, 2023
Because criminals check people’s ID before attacking them? ‘Hey, lady, I was going to rape you, but I just learned you turn 21 next week, so I guess I’ll wait,’ said no criminal ever.
Idiot guntards forget that the 2A was written for militias. The framers had an issue with a standing army. The 2A is now the most outdated amendment.
— Finn McCool (@Robo069) May 12, 2023
Even if it was outdated, the courts can’t just ignore it. And it’s not outdated. The threat of tyranny is evergreen.
One person noted it was inconvenient for a proposal in Texas to raise the age of purchase to 21:
WATCHING now as @moodyforelpaso tries to add bill to raise the age to 21 for AR-15-type rifles as an amendment to another bill. Rep Cain is trying to halt the amendment – a cruel move after @RepWalle just read the names of murdered children in #uvalde pic.twitter.com/vyl5vqqPnv
— Texas Gun Sense (@txgunsense) May 11, 2023
Guess you have not heard the news today….https://t.co/qvjkcAq9Uy
— anthony canales (@tonycanales) May 11, 2023
(Weird, that a simple link to the Bloomberg story is being marked as “sensitive.”)
Indeed, a number of people asked if it applied nationwide. The court is not entirely clear. We believe it doesn’t yet, but the court has stated that it might turn the case into a class action suit, which could potentially apply far beyond the Eastern District of Virginia—which is why it might end up being a victory for all Americans (if they are of the right age).
Doesn't this logically open up the idea that you simply can't set an age limit for guns? https://t.co/83zBJtHJzf
— Josh Fields (@partiallypro) May 12, 2023
Respectfully, it just means that the current age limit of twenty-one is too high. There is little question that the law can prevent, for instance, nine-year-olds from carrying.
I would like to see @GOP politicians argue with a team of Developmental Psychologists, offering logical proof on why 18-year-olds are adults.
Dev. psychologists propose adulthood is a process, not an event, that takes place between 22-40 yrs of age.#ItsTheGunsAndTheRepublicans https://t.co/wh5OVsAi8a
— Dr. Etta M. (@DrEttaM1) May 12, 2023
So … one can’t bear arms until they are 41?
The Judge Payne argument that "Because the statutes and regulations in question are not consistent with our nation's history and tradition, they, therefore, cannot stand," is ridiculous. The 2nd Amendment clearly states gun ownership can be regulated. Scalia’s ruling was wrong. https://t.co/5Zm5aFDms1
— George Kokoros 🇺🇸🇬🇷🇺🇦🇵🇸 (@beavisthegreek) May 12, 2023
Scalia and Thomas never said there couldn’t be any laws restricting guns, and neither did Judge Payne.
Strange this is unconstitutional, but a drinking of 21 stands up. https://t.co/ggJc68cOod
— Tim Jaques 🇺🇦 (@PretendEditor) May 12, 2023
There’s no constitutional right to drink.
Finally, one person also noted how funny it was that Bloomberg Law was their source:
"Bloomberg Law is operated by entities controlled by Michael Bloomberg, who serves as a member of Everytown for Gun Safety’s advisory board."
😂🤣😆😂🤣😆😂🤣😆
Cope and seethe commies…https://t.co/NRITmPmIq0
— StarvinLarry 🏴☠️ Biden's Kulak (@StarvinLarry) May 12, 2023
Somewhere, Michael Bloomberg is seething in anger. And every time he seethes in anger, liberty is safer.
***
Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy Twitchy’s conservative reporting taking on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth. Join Twitchy VIP and use the promo code SAVEAMERICA to get 40% off your VIP membership!
Join the conversation as a VIP Member