Joined:
Dec 2023
Posts:
338
EE: 0% (0)
CT, USA
Posted: 7/28/2026 11:45:13 AM EDT
bearingarms.com is reporting that a federal Judge upheld ct's ban on 21 years old and younger adults from buying and carrying firearms...the suit was filed by CCDL....the tong is probably having to change his pants after this....
|
| The good news is that they did apply historical comparison tests this time. On the retail transfer component they actually did attempt to draw connection to the founding era (regulation of minors contracting). On upholding the licensing scheme, they drew heavy connection to the reconstruction era with heavy emphasis on mid-19th century firearm technology (i.e. repeating handgun) and social changes. Interestingly, they found that there wasn't standing to challenge the prohibition of private transfers to persons under 21. It would have been interesting to see how they would have approached that if there had not been a lack of standing, though I question what benefit such a ruling would have had because of the necessity of retail dealer involvement in private transfers in Connecticut.... |
|
Not surprised the court is once again relying on; "... Reconstruction era operated as historical analogues for the Connecticut Framework’s prohibition on the possession and carrying of handguns by individuals under the age of twenty-one." Never mind the fact that SCOTUS seems to be relying on laws pre-reconstruction for a number of their 2A opinions. Succow v. Bondi: https://saf.org/cases/succow-v-bondi/ Link to the Order: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ctd.163603/gov.uscourts.ctd.163603.162.0.pdf |
|
Originally Posted By M4A2: This was defeated in another court. Why wasn't this brought up in the suit? It was, and it is addressed in the opinion starting on page 44, see below. But as JAD indicated those other circuit court precedents (like the Fifth Circuit's Reese v. BATF) are not binding on CT due to CT being in a different circuit (Second Circuit). 1. Circuit Court Precedent Based on the Court’s research and the parties’ briefing, it is aware of two post-Bruen federal appellate cases that have squarely addressed whether the Federal Framework at issue here is consistent with the nation’s history and tradition of firearms. See McCoy, 140 F.4th at 572–80; Reese v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, 127 F.4th 583 (5th Cir. 2025).18 These cases reached conflicting conclusions on the Federal Framework’s constitutionality. In McCoy, the Fourth Circuit found the Federal Framework was constitutional, as it matched the same how and why as historical regulations on the commercial sale of firearms. Specifically, the Fourth Circuit concluded that at the Founding, infancy doctrine limited the ability of those under the age of twenty-one from making commercial purchases, including for firearms, and did so for the same reasons as the Federal Framework, chiefly because of “a recognition that individuals under the age of 21 lack good judgment and reason.” McCoy, 140 F. 4th at 576–78. Later nineteenth-century history provided a “confirmation” of its conclusion. Id. at 578–80. In Reese, the Fifth Circuit reached the opposite conclusion, resting primarily on historical Founding-era militia laws which required eligible male individuals between the ages of eighteen and twenty to serve in the militia and furnish their own weapons, and distinguishing historical laws restricting the ability of individuals between the ages of eighteen and twenty to carry or possess weapons on college campuses as differing from the Federal Framework in the reasons why they prohibited these individuals from possessing weapons. Reese, 127 F.4th at 593–600. In so holding, Reese found the government had presented “scant evidence” of similar age restrictions in the Founding era, and that the government’s “19th century evidence” failed to provide “much insight into the meaning of the Second Amendment when it contradicts earlier evidence.” Id. at 600 (citing Bruen, 597 U.S. at 66). Notably, the Fifth Circuit did not consider whether Founding era infancy doctrine, and the inability of minors to contract for non-necessary goods, could serve as a historical analogue for the Federal Framework. The Court is not aware of any binding Second Circuit precedent pertaining to the Federal Framework’s constitutionality as-applied to individuals between the ages of eighteen and twenty. |
 A Judge Just Upheld A Gun Ban After Admitting The Founding Didn’t Back It |