Judge Refuses To Dismiss NRA Suit Challenging Florida’s Under 21 Gun Sales Ban

Gun store long guns


A federal judge has refused to dismiss the National Rifle Association’s challenge to a 2018 state law that blocked people under age 21 from buying guns.

Attorney General Ashley Moody’s office argued that Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker should dismiss the case, which challenges a law that the Legislature and then-Gov. Rick Scott approved after a gunman killed 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland.

But Walker, in an eight-page decision Friday, denied the state’s request to dismiss the case, which is scheduled to go to trial in January. Walker made clear that he was not ruling on the NRA’s underlying arguments that the law violates constitutional Second Amendment and equal-protection rights, only that the case should be allowed to move forward.

“It is important to keep in mind the narrow issue before the court at this stage of the proceedings. This court is not asked to, and does not, decide whether [the law] is constitutional. Rather, the question is whether plaintiffs’ complaint contains ‘enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,’” he wrote, quoting a legal precedent.

– Jim Saunders in Federal Judge Clears Way for NRA Challenge to Gun Law


  1. avatar Excedrine says:

    Hoping for a Constitutional strike down, but, I don’t have too much faith in the courts these days.

    1. avatar GratiaEtVeritas says:

      I believe Clarence Thomas is the justice assigned to this circuit, and I don’t think he is looking to keep the hoplophobes enabled through judicial negligence. While he may not be hearing the cases, I doubt any appeals on stays, injunctions, etc that get to his level at behest of the hoplophobes that are activist in nature are going to be viewed favorably by him. Given this, I I don’t think the circuit and appeals courts are going to be pulling anything other than merit decisions.

    2. avatar Thixotropic says:

      “The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they may please.”
      Thomas Jefferson, 1819 letter to Judge Spencer Roan

      1. avatar Roymond says:

        Which is probably better than allowing Congress to twist and jerk the Constitution back and forth as the party in power changes until the document is meaningless.

  2. avatar Geoff "Guns. LOTS of guns..." PR says:

    …and Moody is *supposed* to be a conservative…

    Read this :


    1. avatar Capt Tom says:

      She has to defend the state when sued. Even if she agrees with the plaintiff. She can’t roll over and play dead, even if that would fit her personal goals and opinions. That’s the difference between a constitutionalist and conservative versus a liberal who wants to legislate using the Bench.

      1. avatar Hydguy says:

        The law is patently unconstitutional on it’s face.
        The age of majority is 18. Therefore, the ability to participate in adult activities is 18. Yes, I know currently drinking is also unconstitutionally prohibited to those 20 and under, and that’s BS too, regardless of any court decisions that prop it up.
        As the Attorney General, she should not be wasting Florida tax payer money defending laws that are clearly unconstitutional, at both the State AND federal level.
        And that includes the federal law prohibiting the purchase of handguns by anyone 18 or older, or anyone whom has been emancipated by the state under the age of 18 or who is in the military.
        18 year olds can sign up to defend the Constitution, why is it lawful to deny them the very rights they are willing to die to defend?

        1. avatar Huntmaster says:

          Drinking alcohol isn’t an enumerated right.

        2. avatar Hydguy says:

          Really? Wasn’t prohibition enacted with a constitutional amendment, and overturned with another? That pretty much enumerates it.

        3. avatar that one guy says:

          the 18th and 21st involve the “manufacture, sale, or transportation” of alcohol. nothing about the possession or consumption of alcohol.

          in short, the 21st does not have a “keep and bear” portion.

        4. avatar JG says:

          Because possession and consumption were not illegal during Prohibition, we ended up with the level of organized crime that occurred. Had the average working Joe been at legal risk for having that drink after work, more would likely have abstained and the illegal liquor trade would have looked more like today’s drug trade. Still there, but less openly violent.

          The thing is that prohibition doesn’t work. It didn’t work for alcohol. It doesn’t work for drugs and it certainly won’t work for firearms. Although the “progressives” among continue to believe doing the same over and over again will have a different effect. Not very “progressive” thinking if you ask me.

        5. avatar Hydguy says:

          Yes, possession and consumption were also prohibited.
          Just like possession and consumption of pot is still illegal at the federal level.

        6. avatar Ron says:

          At age 18 Many responsible youngsters out weigh The typical rebels!!! Why Else would Our military Gov. Pick this age ? for Training in Battle To Use A MACHINE GUN Or Larger!!! We Have these young People Fight BATTLES ! but yet They come home and still cant’ Drink or purchase a beer – pistol – Rifle – Shotgun? Ammo?
          Dont Make Any Sense at all ! The Governors of states Dont follow OUR BILL OF RIGHT’S nether does OUR GOV. !!!!! Too Many Liberals- Leftist Mommys running the show !!! Let your Children BE ADULTS – If the LAWS WILL PROSECUTE THEM AS ADULTS AT 15 YRS OF AGE !??? what sense is this ? 15 – 16 – 18 — 20 !!! Make up your Minds !!!!!! I some 12 Year olds That are more MATURE Than the Speaker of the House!!!!!!!! and the dnc COMBINED!!!!

      2. avatar 9x39 says:

        I understand, and that’s correct.

        However, Moody’s office is going after me in a clear cut DGU. No faith is my position at this time. Time will tell if they ignore once again the exonerating evidence at hand, and evidence of impropriety in the “investigation” is prolific, that they have heretofore refused to even glance at. Railroaded is the term in play.

        My attorney is going to have a field day, but I am extremely perturbed none the less. My rights are currently under threat, and no one will listen. I don’t have the funds to fight this for long, and I imagine anyone can sympathize with the high level of anxiety that brings with it. Can’t really speak on anything else in a less than oblique manner, without potentially compromising my case’s, and the situation is actively in play.

        I will say we are under clear & present danger, and I’ve been ordered disarmed for the duration. Most disturbingly, I have evidence proving such. All else that can be said is, this isn’t right..

      3. avatar Innocent Bystander says:

        Huntmaster is correct and Hydguy is wrong. Again.

        1. avatar Hydguy says:

          And here is Miner’s rectal puppet coming and being stupid, yet again.
          Did you blow kisses to him today?

    2. avatar Mack The Knife says:

      Geof guns: and so is Rick Scott, then Governor, now Senator and Senator Marco Rubio. And so is the legislature. Bunch of leftist RINOs. Cowards is a better description since the state is now purple. Thank Rick Scott for that also for adapting Puerto Rico. That sure as hell did not work and cost the natives a couple of billion dollars and damn near the election.

  3. avatar Steve says:

    The Democrats really suck at Trump’s shell game and the whole time they trying to find the ball , he has appointed hundreds and hundreds of conservative judges….. H. Ross Perot play book to the T

    1. avatar Huntmaster says:

      The Republicans OWN this. It’s the most egregious example of Republicans whoring themselves off to the left we’ve seen in a long time. And they’ve been giving us a lot to choose from.

      1. avatar Huntmaster says:

        I just had to add that when the Dems are done with em, they’ll just slap em around, toss their butts out of the car and make them walk back to their corner in the dark and the rain. And their pimps in the RNC won’t lift a finger to help them.

  4. avatar Geoff "Guns. LOTS of guns..." PR says:

    In better news, we have this :

    “3 charged in killing of store security guard over virus mask”


    1. avatar Hydguy says:

      Who cares that a sack of crap Pagan chapter boss got greased?
      Dollars to doughnuts he had a lengthy record of violent crimes, and there is a high probability that he was involved in murders.
      But the biggest difference is the hit wasn’t random violence because a wannabe thug was told he couldn’t enter a store. No one innocent was killed in the hit.

  5. avatar Prndll says:

    This could be seen as:
    Not saying no is the same as saying yes. Small win since the man with the power did not say no.

    It sure sounds to me like:
    Your asking me? I’m not the one to ask.

  6. avatar DesertDude says:

    The judge is passing the buck.

    1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

      Yeah. I agree. Kinda…
      He could have tossed the suit, then it would go a different route if the nra appealed it. (Costing members more money)
      Instead, he’s allowing it to keep going.

      I kind of looked at it as a coin toss. Instead of a decision now, the judge just kept the coin in the air.

  7. avatar Debbie W. says:

    This law is nothing but cover for those who failed miserably to head the perp off at the pass. Those who were asleep at the wheel stooped to pass the buck and single out those under 21 years old all because the perp was under 21. They were appalled about the deputy who stayed clear of shots fired at school kids but when it came to a long list of their own failures to stop the perp they swept that under the rug and zeroed in on those under 21.
    What’s next? Perp wears blue shirt so deny firearms to those who wear blue shirts?

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Actually, I am in favor of denying firearms to people who wear blue shirts.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Blue shirts or blue helmets?

  8. avatar Huntmaster says:

    So the law doesn’t prevent the ownership or possession of firearms? Gifting or loan of firearms are OK? Could they be given away for instance, with the purchase of a car? Or with something like a ….30 day membership to a gun range. Can they be rented or leased? What about becoming a member of a trust? Of course the courts may look at all that as simply a obvious ploy to skirt the law. Oh….wait!

  9. avatar enuf says:

    Okay so this is just about the most minor victory you can have. A judge is saying you have adequate standing to sue, which says nothing about the merits of the lawsuit, and the case may proceed to the next routine step.

    A boring routine step. Wake us when the real fight commences.

  10. avatar Felix says:

    “scheduled to go to trial in January” — justice delayed is justice denied.

    This ought to be scheduled a lot sooner. Both sides ought to be ready to argue immediately.

  11. avatar Mr. L. says:

    The courts, states and feds had better closely look at this and rule it as unconstitutional. Someone who is under 21 (18-20) is considered an adult. They can go to prison for crimes committed, vote and have to register for selective service along with the ability of joining the military where they fight and die for our country. However, they can’t buy alcohol, cigarettes or firearms. This could have huge ramifications. An attorney could challenge this by citing age discrimination and since they haven’t been afforded the same constitutional rights, then nobody under 21 shall be able to join the military, register for selective service or be charged as an adult for any crimes they commit. Just some food for thought.

    1. avatar Huntmaster says:

      Those aren’t enumerated rights.

      1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

        pursuit of happiness.
        or take the vote away.

        1. avatar Mr. L. says:

          True, they could change the voting age from 18 back to 21. It used to be 21 until it was changed in 1971 to 18. It was changed to 18 primarily due to citizens saying “old enough to fight, old enough to vote.” The drive to lower the voting age from 21 to 18 grew across the country during the 1960s, driven in large part by the military draft held during the Vietnam War, as well as the student activism movement. The draft conscripted young men between the ages of 18 and 21 into the armed forces, primarily the U.S. Army, to serve in or support military combat operations in Vietnam.[2] A common slogan of proponents of lowering the voting age was “old enough to fight, old enough to vote.”[3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

        2. avatar neiowa says:

          NO the voting age was changed by the demtards to create more demtard (stupid) voters. Didn’t/hasn’t really worked out for them. Our betters of 1783 had it correct. Children don’t get the vote. (Grand daddy also GAVE women a gift of the vote in the hope she would shut up and put out; like ever in history that would work).

    2. avatar GS650G says:

      “Someone who is under 21 (18-20) is considered an adult.”

      Where is that defined? States have various age limits on everything from driving to marriage.

      1. avatar Huntmaster says:

        It’s called making it up as you go along.

        1. avatar Hydguy says:

          Run along fudd.. you are wrong, yet again. You should try to educate yourself before you continue to be proven to be an idiot.

        2. avatar Innocent Bystander says:

          Good technique Hydguy. When you can’t prove your point just call the other guy names

        3. avatar Hydguy says:

          I’ve already proven him wrong.
          Where is your fluffer? Haven’t seen that idiot Miner post about the fake Nazi flags and nooses.

      2. avatar Mr. L. says:

        Marriage licenses. Only 2 states (Nebraska 19 and Mississippi 21 allow someone who is 18 to marry. https://worldpopulationreview.com/states/marriage-age-by-state/ Driver’s licenses. All states allow someone under 18 to get a driver’s license. The maximum age is 17 in New Jersey. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver%27s_licenses_in_the_United_States. Federal law considers someone at the age of 18 to be an adult. “A person who commits a crime while aged eighteen or older may not be tried under the Juvenile Act but must be proceeded against as an adult. United States v. Smith, 675 F. Supp. 307, 312 (E.D.N.C. 1987).” https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-117-federal-juvenile-delinquency-code. The age of majority for all states except 3 (Alabama & Nebraska-19, Mississippi-21) is 18. https://worldpopulationreview.com/states/age-of-majority-by-state/

      3. avatar Mr. L. says:

        The “age to get married in all states, with the exception of 2 for marriage (Nebraska-19 and Mississippi 21).
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution. The age to get a drivers license is under 18 in all states (New Jersey is 17). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver%27s_licenses_in_the_United_States. Federal law says that anyone 18 years of age or older shall be tried as an adult and that the Juvenile Act does not apply to them.
        https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-117-federal-juvenile-delinquency-code. All states with the exception of 3 (Alabama & Nebraska-19, Mississippi-21) is considered an “age of majority” and will be tried as an adult at 18. https://worldpopulationreview.com/states/age-of-majority-by-state/

  12. avatar GS650G says:

    The left believes in gun bans starting at the store counter. Their logic follows the line that stores and clerks say No and their legislative desire is fulfilled. Boy are they out of touch.

  13. avatar gene says:

    “Judge Refuses To Dismiss NRA Suit Challenging Florida’s Under 21 Gun Sales Ban”

    Which one of LaPierre’s suits is it?

    1. avatar Ed Schrade says:

      The 1000 dollar green suit.

  14. avatar Alan says:

    Seems as if Florida is concerned about the validity of it’s legislation being tested in court. One wonders why?

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email