The Marxists are on the march in America and it is no wonder why so many people are rushing out to buy guns to protect themselves.
Whether it’s the ‘defend the police’ movement, the Biden regimes desire to ‘come and take’ American’s guns, the war on all of us ‘evil white people’ and the sanctioned racially motivated violence … I could go on for hours, but the point is Americans need their guns rights now more than ever.
Luckily for some of the most vulnerable among us (those just above the age of majority) in some states an 18 year old could fly a military jet with a nuclear payload but now legally own their own handgun … that’s some sound logic, isn’t it?
Well, here is the good news …
‘A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that regulations setting a minimum age of 21 for handgun purchases from licensed dealers violates the Second American rights of those citizens.
The three-judge panel in the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals delivered the ruling in a split vote 2-1, with an appointee of former President Donald Trump writing the majority opinion, arguing the laws relegated “either the Second Amendment or 18- to 20-year-olds to a second-class status,” CNN reported.
“Looking through this historical lens to the text and structure of the Constitution reveals that 18- to 20-year-olds have Second Amendment rights,” Judge Julius N. Richardson wrote. “Virtually every other constitutional right applies whatever the age. And the Second Amendment is no different.”
A George W. Bush appointee, Judge G. Steven Agee, joined Richardson in the majority – a direct case of where political leaningss of members of the judiciary impact interpretation of American law.
A Barack Obama appointee, Judge James A. Wynn, Jr., was alone in dissent, arguing adults ages 18-to-21 years of age are less mature and crime statistics show are more likely to commit a crime with the handgun, including potentially using it in a suicide.
That particular argument, however, seems to support the majority opinion that younger adults would be ruled not equal under the law.
Wynn’s dissent also took a political position versus a constitutional, textual and legal one, accusing the majority of giving “the gun lobby a victory in a fight it lost on Capitol Hill more than fifty years ago,” CNN reported.
Wynn, who lost in the ruling, also argued the court’s ruling usurped constitutional authority of lawmakers, writing it was not “consistent with the proper role of the federal judiciary in our democratic system.”‘