Brown v. BATF (N.D.W.Va. 2023):
Defendants’ reliance on mostly 19th century gun safety regulations as their justification in regulating the 18-to-20-year-old age group is misplaced under Heller and Bruen.8 When later evidence “contradicts earlier evidence,” it “cannot provide much insight into the meaning of the Second Amendment.” Bruen, 142 S.Ct. at 2154. At the time of the ratification of the Second Amendment in 1791, eighteen (18) was the age of majority for militia service throughout the nation. Although, in 1775, sixteen-year-olds were expected to fight in the Revolutionary War. United States v. Blakeney, 3 Gratt. 405, 441 (Va. 1847) (“During the war of the revolution, sixteen was the military age.”). ...
In summary, because Plaintiffs’ conduct – the purchase of handguns – “fall[s] [within] the Second Amendment’s ‘unqualified command’” and the challenged statutes and regulations are not “consistent with the Nation’s historic tradition of firearm regulation,” the Court FINDS 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(b)(1) and (c)(1) facially unconstitutional and as applied to Plaintiffs. ...
For the reasons discussed, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 23] and GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 28]. Defendants are ENJOINED from enforcing 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(b)(1) and (c)(1) against Plaintiffs and otherwise-qualified 18-to-20-year-olds.
This was a Second Amendment Foundation case.
No comments:
Post a Comment