Supreme Court tosses out decision letting 18-year-olds carry guns during emergencies in Pennsylvania

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: AP

Updated 12:14 PM EDT, October 15, 2024


WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday tossed out a decision allowing 18-year-olds to openly carry guns during emergencies in Pennsylvania.

There were no noted dissents in the high court’s brief order. It lets stand a ban on people aged 18 to 20 carrying guns in public during a declared state of emergency. The case comes amid major shifts in the firearm legal landscape following an influential Supreme Court decision in 2022 that expanded gun rights. The high court said any firearm restrictions must have a strong basis in history.

Multiple gun laws have been struck down in the wake of that ruling, including age restrictions, by judges in states like Minnesota, Virginia and Texas. The Pennsylvania challengers argued that younger people weren’t barred from carrying guns at the time of the nation’s founding, so they shouldn’t be barred today.

But the Supreme Court handed down a new opinion this year that upheld a law intended to protect victims of domestic violence. The high court said Tuesday the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals should reconsider the Pennsylvania case in light of that decision.

Read more: https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-guns-pennsylvania-minors-77026634672c25ca42aca47941b55072

[Walleye]

1. "A strong basis in history"?

Great let them have all the muskets and flintlocks they can buy

[GB_RN]

2. The Disconnect...

Between the court’s whackos and society in general is astounding. The mind boggling, twisted and illogical nonsense they call “decisions” is even more astonishing…and disturbing.

The Reichwingers rail against “librul judges legislating from the bench,” but decisions like this, the Dobbs case and “presidential immunity,” go far, far beyond any legislating from the bench, in that they’re just making shit up as they go. And they have no duty to consider what impact any of their decisions have on the country, according to Roberts (paraphrased and I think that’s who said that).

Fuck these assclowns.

[Walleye]

3. And most of their written opinions are rationalizations for decisions they wanted to make anyway

[Grins]

4. Skimpy article. Who was the plaintiff??

You’d think the AP would put that in the article.

[BumRushDaShow]

6. There was a link in AP's article to their earlier article on the appeals decision (that is now overturned)

https://apnews.com/article/pennsylvania-gun-rights-young-adults-ruling-8e6c87534558ae41a509172cf6882fac

(snip)

The Firearms Policy Coalition, which represents the plaintiffs in the case, said “it would be a deep perversion of the Constitution” to exclude young adults from Second Amendment protections. The group has supported challenges to gun bans involving assault weapons, places of worship and other laws across the country.

“We applaud the Third Circuit’s decision in this case confirming that 18-to-20-year-old adults have the same right to armed self-defense as any other adult,” Cody J. Wisniewski, the group’s vice president and general counsel, said in a statement.

Pennsylvania State Police declined to comment on the ruling Thursday.

(snip)

[J_William_Ryan]

5. "...a law intended to protect victims of domestic violence."

And the Court continues to be inconsistent with its application of the 'historical tradition' test.

If 18 to 20 year-olds weren't barred from open carry in the 18th Century, they shouldn't be so prohibited today.

This yet another example of how reckless and irresponsible the Bruen decision was, and the cowardice of the conservative majority to not consistently apply Bruen.

[BumRushDaShow]

7. Bruen (like the nonsense that Roberts did with "broad Presidential immunity" )

has been an unmitigated disaster when it comes to applying Constitutional intent. These were like knee-jerk, extreme partisan decisions with little or no thought about the impact in the long term.

Ironically, Roberts has displayed surprise at the results and has made halting attempts in subsequent-related rulings, to walk BOTH pieces of crap decsisions back.