The United States Supreme Court has refused to hear Minnesota’s appeal of the state’s carry age restrictions on 18 to 20-year-old adults, which were previously determined to violate Constitutional protections.
Minnesota enforced the now-defunct age restriction law throughout the appeals process, beginning in 2023 when a district judge sided with challengers, through 2024, when that ruling was upheld by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and right up until Monday, April 21, this year, when the case came to a sudden and decisive halt after being rejected on appeal by the Supreme Court.
The previous 8th Circuit decision cited the state’s failure to present evidence of a suitable historical analogue, making it clear that while a government is permitted to disarm individuals who threaten the safety of themselves and others, “Minnesota has failed to show that 18- to 20-year-olds pose such a threat.”
While this is a win for the Second Amendment community, the manner in which the law’s unconstitutional application survived both district court and Court of Appeals rulings for several years until the state’s final Supreme Court rejection is somewhat disturbing. Do you think we, as Americans, would be afforded the same oppertunity to defy lower and appeals rulings for years as if they didn’t count? Certainly, we would see the inside of a prison cell if we treated rulings with such blatant disregard. Additionally, I’d like to know what compensation, if any, is now owed to constituents who were forced to live under a law for several years after it had already been adjudicated unconstitutional by two courts. I won’t hold my breath.
Minnesota will no longer be able to enforce the law, barring people younger than 21 from obtaining a permit to carry in public. The state previously referred to the restriction as “modest,” considering current Minnesota gun laws that provide for significant access to youths, including the lack of an age restriction when supervised by a parent or guardian and the ability to possess guns on their property or while hunting without supervision by the age of 14.
Minnesota is not the only state to enact retaliatory legislation after the landmark 2022 Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, which required laws to be “consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation” to be compliant with the Second Amendment. I doubt we’ve seen the last of this type of subversive legislation.
As oddly incoherent as this sounds, the 8th Circuit’s ruling and the Supreme Court’s rejection of the appeal do not set nationwide precedent but only a standard that can be enforced in the states within the 8th Circuit’s jurisdiction: Minnesota, Arkansas, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota. Regardless of jurisdictional discrepancies on a right guaranteed to all law-abiding Americans by the Constitution, Bill Sack, the director of legal operations at the Second Amendment Foundation, says, “This ruling will have reverberations nationwide,” as he notes the group is currently embroiled in similar litigation around the country which seeks to “restore the rights of young adults who face similarly unconstitutional laws in their home states.”
Advocacy groups like the Second Amendment Foundation have their work cut out for them as more than 30 states, including the District of Columbia, have enacted similar carry restrictions. In a court filing, Minnesota attorneys stated that courts “should not lightly set aside legislative attempts to address the increase in gun violence by young people,” however, the state should be reminded of two important principles that stand diametrically opposed to this attempt to manipulate and gaslight. First, no government, be it local, state, or federal, should not lightly set aside the Constitutional rights of Americans, the way Democrat-run states seem so eager to do. Second, the denial of this unconstitutional restriction does not prohibit legislative attempts to address violence by Americans of any age group. It simply prohibits addressing them arbitrarily and by unconstitutional attempts at back-door gun control, which is really what the law was.
If anyone ever doubts the importance of being able to appoint judges in regards to advancing an agenda you may want to read up on the injunction dysfunction that is slowing down legitimate removal of illegal aliens now. This should have been a much less involved and impactful case for that circuit.
The inability to foresee a synthetically produced decision dilemma and how it would manifest is something we should be tarring and feathering “our side’s” elected and appointed officials over.
Though, I do have to say that the Trump Administration’s capacity to spread the Left thin and force them to take the wrong side of 80-20 issues is a massive step in the right direction. That said, without progress in some key areas within the next ~15 months, it will be for naught.
Progress has to come a lot sooner than 15 months. We’re 100 days in and many areas of this country practically have fewer Second Amendment rights than they did before Bruen. Quite frankly the administration is not doing enough for gun owners. Not by far.
The photo shows what may be a dumbfuk who shoved a chambered Glock down his pants. Observe the belt loop to your left and notice the tab at the waistline. Now observe the belt loop almost inline with the trigger. The belt loop tab is not fully visible because the inserted firearm rolled the tab. One of many unsuspected friction points that can cause an AD.
A few days ago I made note of doing such stupidity and was met with the usual armchair quarterback replies….And that firearm had a flat faced trigger which tend to snag things worse than the average rounded trigger Glock.
Rest assured should those who ridiculed my instructions on how to make a trigger plug ever witness one of their pals shoot his dingdong off they would scatter like scared roaches.
That’s nice now go play with your friends.
Gee deb, I can see the bar-tacking, top of belt loop, and top of said jeans in their entirety in the photo. Perhaps if you pulled your head out of your snotty ass and looked again, you would also. What would help is getting rid of the $10 nylon webbing belt and purchasing a suitable reinforced-leather one.
Also, we recently had an BD at our range caused by a trigger lock used with a loaded rifle, luckily the gun was pointed downrange on a cold firing line… NOTHING belongs inside of the trigger guard EXCEPT your trigger-finger, and ONLY when you intend to shoot the weapon.
Please stop with your corrosive, holier than everyone else attitude towards fellow posters here – you sound just as stupid to outsider lurkers whom come here to collect dirt on anyone they see as the enemy.
No need to introduce a foreign object into your trigger guard when the gun is holstered in a rigid holster as it is in the picture. Are you incapable of recognizing holster clips?
Oh, stop with your facts, logic and *checks notes* …functional eyes.
I am not a lawyer so someone help me understand this. According to the article, the ruling by SCOTUS does not apply nation wide. Why? The article cites jurisdictional boundaries, but other rulings, like gay marriage, became the law of the land. One is a plain text right as written in the Constitution and the other is not mentioned directly but is an implied right. What am I missing?
Only supreme court decisions apply nationwide. At first glance this appears to now apply to the 8th circuit (ND SD NE MN IA MO AR) http://dataserver.lrp.com/DATA/servlet/DataServlet?fname=US_Circuit_Courts_Map.htm for reference. Now such decisions can be used as arguments in other cases (but are not required to be considered) but the realistic function is when other circuits (see commie dominant regions) come up with different decisions creating a circuit split that can force SCOTUS to take notice.
LOL how those nationwide injunctions only apply when issued by lefty district judges agonists the 2A!
Ahh… SCOTUS did not directly uphold the law, rather did not hear the case, thus upholding the lower court ruling.
A win is a win. This may help create a circuit division to lead to review at SCOTUS (ACB the procedure queen).
Hat tip to my friend Honorable Duane Benton 8th Circuit!
Funny that the 2A doesn’t get any of those sketchy nationwide injunctions.
Smackdown of the moronic MN AG.
Honestly grateful to the guy, given the range of states in the 8th circuit his is the only one likely to start shit to get slapped around and create durable progress instead of pushing boundaries like the 5th.
I’ll take the victories where they come but over a longer time frame we really need a different strategy and a set of tactics our people enjoy deploying FTW.
The root issue, IMHO, with “the Right” is that people have opinions when asked but they don’t actually engage very much unless the thing in question directly affects them. They’re also unwilling to use general coercion, seeing it as unethical.
Refusing to use one of the two mechanisms our species has for convincing someone to behavior in a specific manner is a real, serious handicap.
The large percentage of reasonable Americans do not live under Democrat (commie) rule and really have no concept past a few fox news snippets of how ruthless their opponents (or controlled opposition republicans) are in their willingness to trample their rights and make them pay for the privilege of regaining them let alone exercising them. I look for everything I can that people can easily do (especially cheaply) that may force an overreaction from the state that gets progressively more retarded and advertise it in the right places. If the state jumps there is another avenue of attack the rest of the country can observe and exploit, if not people here find a workaround and build on what little they have. May not be the best tactic but it does seem to make the state and it’s exercise of power less popular and/or logical/reasonable.
What you’re saying makes sense if you’re tactical about it. Putting the state on the wrong side of issues for long enough will produce change. Keep in mind that the Left was doing this for 100 years before anyone really noticed.
I imagine that was rather demoralizing for many of them for the first number of decades. You’re actually running an Alinsky strategy back at them, it’s not meant to work instantly. Good for you.
For now my big deal is trying to educate people on the manipulation they’re subjected to and how it drives a divide and conquer strategy which can be hard to see because it functions like bankruptcy in being slow after first and then all at once.
Just as an example; It should be noticeable, and extremely concerning, to those paying actual attention how politically isolated Boomers actually are and how rapidly that isolation is progressing. It’s the obvious outcome of what I’ve referred to as Generational Warfare and I’ve warned about it for well over a decade. Yet it continues on and, at this point, big names in GenX have chosen a side, against the Boomers which is somewhat interesting given that they were not involved in any of this for 14 or so years.
Anyone paying attention to the general trends in trade, economics, demographics and debt can see where this is going and how poorly it ends for Boomers. Those that can’t see such a thing are willfully blind or simply not very smart.
As I’ve said, if you allow yourselves to be synthetically divided, don’t be surprised when you end up conquered. This is why my major concern, even bigger than the 2A, is the maintenance of acceptable levels of social stability which requires a lot of inputs most people don’t pay attention to because they’re distracted by other things.
Have to plan long term as nothing will move short of court action (lol maybe) up here in a good direction. With that said boomers as a demographic will be the main target until they are extinct for 3 reasons. 1 they are utterly devoted to television (yes there are outliers but for those of you think of everyone your group you have ever known you know the truth)
2 largest generation by numbers/voters this is of course changing but it has been that way for over 50 years so the focus (and obscene investments in manipulative psychology/propaganda is invested there)
3 it is where the money is and I would imagine why the die with nothing and enjoy your retirement message is being pushed. Can’t have a new generation not as shaped by propaganda getting any measure of financial independence let alone wealth or they may get ideas they are not slaves.
All of that is true.
There’s a multi-page, probably 50 printed pages, “rant” about the related issues here but I’ll just point out the one that’s about to bite.
The other driver is that for the next decade there will be a low number of people for entry level jobs. While I’m sure that media will push that as “lazy kids” the same way they have since 2010ish, the reality is that it goes back to 2008 and moving forward with Obama.
You can see it in the birth rates and the step function in the age of first child. Turn out, when you totally fuck an entire generation’s ability to enter the workforce in a meaningful way for nearly a decade, they don’t have the kids that they can’t afford.
18 years later, there’s a shortage of entry level workers, and all the things that entails, like “inflation”. Which, again, I’m sure they’ll blame on “lazy kids” because it’s worked for 17 years at this point, so why not? I’m old enough to remember WSJ’s editorial pivot on this in 2011/12 from panic about a “lost generation” and the impact of that to gaslighting the population.
[Well, that and they’ll blame Trump as much as possible. Which, given the political leanings of GenZ men, actually kinda works for the Left.]
Hollowing out the economy has serious consequences down the road. As does the fact that, apparently, most “adults” can’t figure out how TPTB game the averages when the median is the telling figure.
The lazy kids statement draws hilarious reactions to the what kids response I have been giving since I took a moment to talk to a server about why restaurants were closed just about everywhere on Mondays. Turns out a mix of not enough workers that can even pretend to speak English and to a lesser extent not enough customers to e worth the overtime for existing employees.
Minnesota is not the only state to enact retaliatory legislation after the landmark 2022 Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, which required laws to be “consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation” to be compliant with the Second Amendment. I doubt we’ve seen the last of this type of subversive legislation.”
Bruen does not exclude it includes noting the History of Gun Control. Unfortunately dumbfuks leave Gun Control’s Achilles Heel sitting on the table, out of sight and out of mind…puts a pleasing sht grin on the face of Gun Control zealots..
But MN is the only commie/”blue” state in an otherwise solidly “red” Circuit.
Do firearms restrictions keep guns out of the hands of 15 year olds?
Only if they are law abiding.
Laws that disarm law abiding citizens give tremendous advantages to those whom do not obey laws.
Why do we constantly get to have great big earth changing decisions out of the court followed up by crickets when the lower courts flat ignore they’re great big earth changing decisions?
oh….thats right……
Because The conservative justices always forget why they are there, and the liberals never do.
yea, I used the wrong their above, deal with it.
If gun control gets eliminated the RNC would need to focus on economic issues that benefit the lower and middle class. There isn’t a high enough percentage of America first types to make that a priority.
Yeah, no shit – just look at the list of RINOs taking Trump policy to task for making the markets dip.
I’ll take a temporary 2k point slide over 4 to 8( 12?) more years of lib spending and resultant inflation. We’re still circling the rim, but at least by clogging the shitter you can pick out what turds need to get thrown back in the bowl.
Unless the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay to its own injunction, that injunction had full legal force and any government employees who acted in violation of that injunction were violating the rights of Minnesota citizens under color of law–a federal felony with huge potential fines and prison time. Of course that is only pertinent if the U.S. Justice Department would actually enforce said felony law against Minnesota government employees. Oddly, the U.S. Justice Department never seems to enforce that felony law against rebellious state government employees.