Age Limits | The Zelman Partisans

That’s what state Senator Roland Gutierrez wants to do.

Texas State Sen. Gutierrez announces ‘common sense gun safety’ bills</a
In a news release sent out Tuesday morning, Gutierrez’s office said the bills will address purchasing age requirements, a bulk ammunition database and the safekeeping of firearms.
[…]
Gutierrez started the conference by stating that he is not looking to take guns away; rather he wants the state to raise the age requirement of those who can purchase firearms from 18 to 21.

Given the BRUEN test of general historical tradition, that is likely to backfire on him. The general (federal) tradition at the time was The Militia Act of 1792, which specified:

“That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia”
[…]
“That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock“

18 year-olds must be armed. So raising the age won’t fly. And federal courts are beginning to agree.

The “backfire” part lies in the current law, 10 U.S. Code § 246 – Militia: composition and classes: “able-bodied males at least 17 years of age“.

Seventeen year-old males are in the militia.

Should Gutierrez’s proposal pass and be signed into law, court challenges — under BRUEN precedent — are very likely to force lowering the minimum age to purchase a firearm.

I think his other bills — safe storage, ammunition background checks and registration, liability insurance, etc — should also be reexamined in light of BRUEN. I think you’ll find Associate Justice Thomas’s words on surety interesting, when considering the liability insurance proposal:

…the surety statutes presumed that individuals had a right to public carry that could be burdened only if another could make out a specific showing of “reasonable cause to fear an injury, or breach of the peace.

The closest thing to firearm liability insurance only began happening in the mid-19th century, and then only for those against whom a credible and specific showing of a threat had been made (take note of that for “red flag” laws, too).

In case you wondered, Gutierrez is a Dimwit-ocrat; adf the Dims are being very slow to catch on to the nuances of BRUEN, and the new original playing field.

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses.
Gab Pay link
(More Tip Jar Options)

The case is Hirschfeld & Marshall v. BATFE, and the ruling came down today, July 13, 2021.

Plaintiffs seek an injunction and a declaratory judgment that several federal laws and regulations that prevent federally licensed gun dealers from selling handguns to any 18-, 19-, or 20-year-old violate the Second Amendment. We first find that 18-year-olds possess Second Amendment rights.

The feds will certainly request an en banc review by the full 4th Circuit Court. In the unlikely event that the full court upholds this ruling, The Supreme Court will — once again — be in a crack. Since MCDONALD, SCOTUS has done their utmost to avoid making any truly significant Second Amendment rulings. They won’t want to take this case, so the weasel-wording in dodging should be interesting.

Unless they simply deny cert without comment. Again.

But back to this ruling. I found the reasoning fascinating, because the justices used the very same argument that I have used for years: The Militia Act of 1792, passed less than six months after ratification of the Second Amendment, clearly establishes that 18 year-olds are part of the militia described the Amendment.

Every militia law near the time of ratification required 18-year-olds to be part of the militia and bring their own arms. Around the time the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791, Congress began debating invoking its power under the Militia Clauses to better organize the militias for federal use in emergencies. U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cls. 15–16. The effort was pushed by Secretary of War Henry Knox, who argued to Congress that while the “military age has generally commenced at sixteen,” the age for the federal select militia should be set at 18 because “the youth of sixteen do not commonly attain such a degree of robust strength as to enable them to sustain without injury the hardships incident to the field.”

I would further note that the current militia composition law, 10 U.S. Code § 246, sets the minimum age a little lower.

(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age…

Chief InJustice John Roberts must be peeing his panties right about now. If this stands, the precedent will be used to challenge every state and local law on age limits for carry, licensing, and more.