The U. S. Department of Justice has cited the Supreme Court’s decision in , United States v. Zackey Rahimi , to argue in favor of continuing to prevent access to firearms for people between 18 and 21 years old.
The federal restrictions on entry to weapons for people under the age of 21 have been challenged by gun rights organizations like the Firearms Policy Coalition, the Second Amendment Foundation, the Louisiana Shooting Association, and two people under the age of 21 who want to buy them. The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is currently hearing the case, which the defendants started challenging in 2020.
Arguing in favor of continuing the age limit for handgun purchases, Justice Department attorney Steven Hazel pointed to the Supreme Court’s 8- 1 decision in , Rahimi , finding that , a court can strip someone of their firearms rights , with a domestic violence restraining order ( DVRO ), even if that individual is n’t first found guilty of a crime. The Court does not dispute the Court’s claim that the Second Amendment would obstruct the passage of laws banning the possession of weapons by groups of people who were perceived by the government to pose a particular risk of use.
Referencing the , Rahimi , choice, Hazel , wrote , in a June 26 text that “legislatures have long recognized that exposure to arms by young individuals poses a particular danger to public safety and had adopted several measures to lessen that risk”.
Hazel’s explanations provide some indication of how gun control opponents properly interpret the judge’s logic in the , Rahimi , situation to other methods to restrict weapon exposure.
Attorneys for the State of New Jersey have also pointed to the , Rahimi , decision in two cases currently before the Third U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
In his lone dissent in Rahimi, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that the majority of the court’s majority did not find a historical analog that matched the current federal law barring the possession of firearms by subjects of DVROs, and instead used “piecemeal” citations of pre-financed surety and affrays laws that did not clearly prohibit the possession of firearms by those who had not been criminally convicted. However, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority that the historical analogies that support the continued federal ban on allowing people to use weapons under a DVRO “need not be a” dead ringer” or “history twin.” “
Roberts ‘ “dead ringer” comments, according to New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, are sufficient historical references to back up the state’s laws prohibiting people from carrying weapons in so-called” sensitive places. ” New Jersey adopted these” sensitive- places “provisions into law after the Supreme Court ruled in 2022 in , New York State Rifle &, Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen , that states generally have to permit the public carry of firearms and must set objective standards for carrying a firearm in public. In New Jersey and a number of other states that required new permits for public carry, laws were passed to limit public carry by identifying specific public spaces where it would not be permitted.
In a brief to the appeals court on Wednesday, June 26, Platkin’s office , wrote , that” the challengers here demand historical analogs identical to the modern regulations” but that the analogs New Jersey has found” more- than- adequately encapsulate “its new” sensitive- places “provisions.
In a separate case, Platkin’s office argued that the Second Amendment is “entangled in amber” and does not only protect access to those firearms that were present at the time of the United States. In a different case, the state’s laws restrict the 3D printing of firearms. Platkin’s office argued in another June 26 , letter , to the court that the Second Amendment should also permit” more than just those regulations identical to ones that could be found in 1791.”
Additionally, Platkin’s office argued that it is acceptable to restrict access to the coding software so that those who threaten the safety of others, including those who are DVROs who have n’t actually been convicted, do n’t violate these restrictions. Not just those with criminal convictions or DVROs on their record, but all residents of New Jersey are prohibited from 3D printing firearms and distributing instructions to 3D print firearms under the state’s laws.
This article was originally , published , by , FreeBase News , and is reprinted with permission.
