Federal court voids ruling on minimum age requirements for buying guns
A federal appeals court tossed out an earlier ruling that found federal laws prohibiting the sale of handguns to young adults under the age of 21 are unconstitutional, because the woman who mounted the legal battle against the minimum age requirement turned 21.
A three-judge panel on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in an opinion Wednesday that the plaintiff, Natalia Marshall, turned 21 before the court could issue its formal mandate in the case, thus rendering her claims moot. The mandate consists of a certified copy of the judgment, a copy of the court's opinion and information about costs.
"Despite efforts to add parties and reframe her claimed injuries, it is too late to revive this case. So it must be dismissed as moot," Judge Julius Richardson wrote in an opinion.
The unanimous panel also instructed a lower court to dismiss the case.
"Here, Marshall challenged the prohibition on buying a handgun from a federally licensed firearms dealer while she was under 21," Richardson, appointed by former President Donald Trump, wrote. "Once she turned 21, nothing prohibited her from buying the handgun she desired from a dealer of her choice. So her original claims are now moot."...
The prior determination:
Appeals court rules 21-year minimum age for handgun purchases is unconstitutional
An appeals court ruled on Tuesday that a 21-year minimum age restriction for handgun purchases is unconstitutional.
A three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit determined that regulations preventing firearm dealers from selling handguns to individuals younger than 21 years old violated the Second Amendment.
Judge Julius Richardson, who was appointed by former President Trump, wrote the majority opinion, contending that the protections provided by the Second Amendment should apply “whatever the age.”
“Looking through this historical lens to the text and structure of the Constitution reveals that 18- to 20-year-olds have Second Amendment rights. Virtually every other constitutional right applies whatever the age. And the Second Amendment is no different,” Richardson wrote in the ruling.
“The militia laws in force at the time of ratification uniformly required those 18 and older to join the militia and bring their own arms. While some historical restrictions existed, none support finding that 18-year-olds lack rights under the Second Amendment,” he added.
Richardson did note the “weighty interest in reducing crime and violence” but concluded that the court will not “relegate either the Second Amendment or 18- to 20-year-olds to a second-class status.”
The decision, however, will likely be appealed...
I don't get that. Shouldn't they rule on the case as filed?