Source: http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?s=6d59cef04eb793013e099b384849a650&showtopic=68268
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 22:00:36+00:00

Document:
"At 18 years of age, law-abiding citizens in this country are considered adults for almost all purposes and certainly for the purposes of the exercise of fundamental constitutional rights. At 18, citizens are eligible to serve in the militaryto fight and die by arms for the country. Indeed, male citizens in this age-group are designated members of the militia by federal statute, 10 U.S.C. § 246(a), and may be conscripted to bear arms on behalf of their country, 50 U.S.C. § 3803(a). Yet, newly-enacted Section 790.065(13) of Floridas criminal code prohibits law-abiding adults in this age group from lawfully purchasing a firearm of any kind."
"Floridas new ban broadens these preexisting limits, by (1) extending the ban to rifles and shotguns, in addition to handguns, and (2) prohibiting these law-abiding, adult citizens from purchasing these firearms from any source, not just federally licensed dealers (i.e., those who are engaged in the business of selling firearms at wholesale or retail. 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(11))."
"This ban particularly infringes upon, and imposes an impermissible burden upon, the Second Amendment rights of those NRA Members described above who are female. Females between the ages of 18 and 21 pose a relatively slight risk of perpetrating a school shooting such as the one that occurred at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, or, for that matter, a violent crime of any kind. For example, in 2015, women in this age group accounted for only 1.8% of arrests for violent crime, while males in the same age bracket accounted for 8.7% of such arrestsand males between the ages of 21 and 24, who may lawfully purchase firearms under current law, accounted for 9.2%. See Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United States: 2015 tbls. 39 and 40, available at https://goo.gl/8pVWnb; see also BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS, WOMEN OFFENDERS at 2, 13 (2009) (female offenders responsible for only 14% of violent crimes, and only 10% of female offenders aged 18-20), available at https://goo.gl/3qAJXu. Regardless of its facial validity, Floridas ban is therefore unconstitutional, void, and invalid as applied to women between the ages of 18 and 21."
Count I alleges that the law is facially unconstitutional under Amendments II and XIV. Count 2 alleges the law is unconstitutional as applied under Amendments II and XIV. Count 3 is a facial challenge under Amendment XIV (equal protection, this law created new classes of citizens). Count 4 is an as applied challenge under the 14th Amendment. This is gonna be a wild ride.
If this were to go in our favor, would this impact the ability of 18 year olds to then buy handguns?
A part of me wonders if this was planned. It's obvious, this kind of law was being pushed all over by the antis. It is also obvious to many, it is blatantly anti-constitutional as mentioned above. Fight it in courts here, or even worse the 9th district, and that is a harder road to hoe. BUT, fight it in a more conservative court like the 11th, and you can set 2A friendly precedence.
I would probably think it wouldn’t. Think about it, by law 18 year olds are considered adults and thus have all constitutional rights. The second doesn’t differentiate between rifle or handguns, thats a seperate law. You would have to go after the law that prohibits 18-20 year olds from buying handguns and I don’t see that happening now.
I disagree. It depends on the ruling. Ruling could easily invalidate the handgun restriction as well.
Planned by the politicians to be challenged? Maybe. They get their political points for "doing something now," and then let the courts and the NRA take the heat if it is found unconstitutional. Not a bad plan.
The verbiage of the ruling will be used to either prop up or dismantle the law on handguns. They will need to be very decisive on exactly how they word it.
The suit does not challenge the constitutionality of the ban on handgun sales to people under 21, therefore a decision cannot affect the ban on handgun sales to people under 21.
Maybe a later case can try to leverage a decision in this one, but that would be a different suit.
No that's been dealt with by CA5 in NRA v. BATFE and it's considered "settled law." Until it isn't. The issue in that case was 18-20 transferring through an FFL, since law allows for ownership just not purchase through an FFL. IIRC some convoluted reasoning later, the court decided the constitution would have said that the age of majority is 21 for handgun purchases.
I can see it now: This isn't a total ban since a parent can buy the gun and give it to the 18-20 YO. I have no faith the courts will do the right thing. As bad as politicians can be, the courts are probably worse as far as buckling to media pressure. That, or the fact they have carry rights by law, so the less "little" people have guns, the more safe they feel.
So what if parents can gift a rifle to a child to circumvent the law? How many parents would do that? How many are even aware that's permissible? Being "allowed" to possess a firearm only if it is given to them by a family member makes it even more egregious.
What if you have an 18-year-old who has been legally emancipated? In such situations, that individual is a legal adult for all contracts and other situations, as well as being killed in combat while serving in the military, but they can't own a hunting rifle?
Except in IL, where they can't get a FOID card without a parent or guardian signing off on it.
Yeah, I remember that there was a court case where a female under 21 who was emancipated was denied a FOID because there was no parent who could give her permission. That idiocy was on full display in Horsley v. Trame, with the ridiculous legal gymnastics about "Well, she could have petitioned the Director of the ISP, who maybe would have decided that she was worthy of exercising her Constitutional rights under the Second Amendment."
I wonder, if she had petitioned, and had been denied, would the decision have been any different? Or did the mere fact that there was ostensibly a mechanism, albeit one that would in practice never allow an 18–20-year-old to own a firearm without parental consent, torpedo any chance for that to prevail?
skinnyb82? You usually have good insight on these things. What say you?
This case was BUNGLED from the start. First of all, Horsey retained Thomas Maag, a "toxic tort" litigator who has a checkered past full of prostitutes (allegedly). Her second mistake was not firing his a** when he managed to lose on summary judgment. I could've told him that his citations of Casey and other abortion cases won't do a damn bit of good. He didn't get statistics about FOID appeals. His citation or Mosley is no good either not in that context. The state says she can appeal (yeah and the appeal will be moot because she'd have turned 21 before it was addressed). What I would've done is subpoena EVERY SINGLE record on FOID appeals relating to age-related denials. This general circumstance. But he didn't. He (Maag) didn't even seem to be aware that ISP slow rolls this stuff so he set an awful precedent in the Circuit. Posner could've been persuaded had Maag been able to show that an appeal to the director is about as pointless of an affair as possible. They drag it out until it's moot. I'm trying to not personally insult her counsel but you just don't hire an asbestos litigation attorney to litigate a constitutional issue. Period.
Yeah, that is what my view was from reading over the case and seeing some of the accounts of it. Pretty much, it's like some of these cases like in California or Hawaii, where sure, you can apply for a license to carry, but no one is ever issued one due to the "discretion" of the local law enforcement being that they shouldn't have it for no good reason.
Yes, Young v. Hawaii, one of the panel judges (Ikuta) asked the attorney arguing for Hawaii or on behalf of that, if no licenses had been issued in 20 years, how can they say that they issue licenses. That's quite on point.
Maag didn't realize what he was getting into and we actually tried to email him and clue him in because of the gravity of the case, but his hubris got the best of him. If you listen to arguments in that case, having the records of appeals and all of that would've won that case. State argues "we have an appeal process." Yeah, you do, it doesn't work. The "appeal" is "wait until you're 21." Get an inexperienced or...just a lawyer out of his or her area of expertise to prosecute a case like this, it never ends well. All of that being said, that same 18-20 no parental endorsement ban on the right to keep arms could be prosecuted again, successfully on the second shot. Requires a parental endorsement or endorsement of legal guardian. He never pointed out that having a legal guardian after age 18 would mean the person is a prohibited person. So that leaves parents. Appeal process, subpoena the crap out of Trame for records. I guarantee CA7 will hold differently if they see that the state simply does not process appeals and thus denies rights to everyone 18-20 who does not have a parent willing or able to sign the "permission slip."
That's why I'm happy to see David Thompson repping the NRA. Met him before he was torn a new one by Posner in the second Shepard appeal which should've been expected. Good guy who knows his stuff. I don't see the 18-20 handgun ban going anywhere but this Florida nonsense is going down in flames.

References: § 246
 § 3803
 § 921
 v. 
 v. 
 v.