Appeals court weighs Florida gun law for under-21s – NBC 6 South Florida

Amid evolving interpretations of how firearms can be restricted, a federal appeals court on Tuesday wrestled with the constitutionality of a Florida law barring those under 21 from buying rifles and other long guns .

Florida lawmakers and then-Gov. Rick Scott included the age restriction in a sweeping school safety measure passed shortly after Nikolas Cruz, then 19, used a semiautomatic rifle to kill 17 students and teachers at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland in 2018. Federal law already prevented it. people under 21 from buying guns.

The National Rifle Association challenged the state law, but U.S. District Attorney Mark Walker upheld the age restriction. A three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also upheld the law, but the NRA asked the full appeals court to hear the case.

During what’s known as an “en banc” hearing Tuesday in Atlanta, the justices wrestled with questions about how to apply a series of U.S. Supreme Court rulings on gun rights to Florida law.

In a June decision in a case known as United States v. Rahimi, the Supreme Court upheld a ban on gun possession by people under domestic violence restraining orders. The 11th Circuit stayed the Florida case until the Rahimi decision was issued, and both sides filed a series of briefs on how the ruling applies — or doesn’t apply — to the age restriction.

An important 2022 Supreme Court decision, in a case known as New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, established that gun laws must be “consistent with this nation’s historic tradition of firearms regulation.”

Tuesday’s arguments focused, in part, on the country’s history of gun regulation.

John Parker Sweeney, an attorney representing the NRA, said the age restriction is unconstitutional because it “wasn’t a known tradition … at the time the Second Amendment was adopted” in the 18th century.

Judge Robin Rosenbaum was among the court members who pressed Sweeney on the age limit for gun purchases.

“Here’s the problem with that. The problem is that the common law at that time gave no rights to anyone under the age of 21, including the ability, the practical ability, to purchase a firearm,” Rosenbaum said, going add that those under 21 worked largely for their parents on farms, they did not. they had their own sources of income and could not enter into contracts to buy weapons on credit.

“They couldn’t sue, they couldn’t do much,” Rosenbaum said.

In addition, states at the time made the purchase of firearms responsible for anyone under 21 who was in the militia or military, Rosenbaum said.

“So how do you establish 18 as a number?” she asked.

“Anybody with cash could walk in” and buy a firearm at that time, including people under 21, Sweeney said.

“I’m not denying that the common law imposed limitations that could affect the ability to purchase, but it’s not a ban on the purchase of firearms,” ​​Sweeney said.

Christopher Baum, a Florida assistant attorney general, argued that the state’s age restriction “is consistent with the principles underlying this nation’s history and tradition of regulating firearms.”

Some of the justices, however, questioned the rationale for banning 18-year-olds, who are adults, from buying guns. Florida law allows people under the age of 21 to own or use guns, including guns they receive as gifts.

“One of the issues I have is that one of the arguments you make is that the ban, quote, ‘ensures that parents continue to play a key role in supervising and facilitating access to firearms for 18- to 20-year-olds.’ . The problem is, however, an 18-year-old in the state of Florida or any of the 50 states is a legal adult, and the parents have no role or responsibility,” said Judge Barbara Lagoa, a former judge of the Court. Supreme of Florida. he said

Justice Robert Luck followed the line of questioning, noting that the “justification” for treating 18- to 20-year-olds at the time of the founding was that parents had a “duty” to care for children under 21 years .

“Florida has now let 18- to 21-year-olds go and said, ‘You’re on your own, your parents have no obligation.’ But then Florida tries to treat them as children just for firearms purposes, and that’s where there seems to be a mismatch between the how and why of those older laws and the how and why of the Florida law,” Luck, who also served. to the Florida Supreme Court, he said.

“Well, since the founding, the age of majority has been different for different activities,” Baum said.

“How old do you have to be to buy liquor in Florida?” asked Chief Justice William Pryor.

“Twenty-one, and for tobacco too,” replied Baum.

“None of those are constitutional rights, are they?” Lagoa asked.

“That’s right, your honor,” Baum acknowledged, adding that the age of majority was a “legislative decision” that could be changed.

Lagoa was unconvinced by the state’s arguments, repeating that “you can’t regulate a parent” in Florida.

“So what’s the justification for saying, well, for a 20-and-a-half-year-old, you have to ask your parents to buy you a firearm but you don’t have to ask them to rent you an apartment?” she asked.

“The justification is the historical justification. That’s how it was at the foundation,” said the state attorney.

The justices also argued over whether any law existed at the time of the nation’s founding that gave minors the right to buy guns.

“We’re talking about a very different legal regime, I mean, most of the law was common law,” Pryor said.

But other judges said the laws at the time ensured that minors had access to guns and did not make it a crime to buy firearms.

Sweeney admitted that things have changed over the centuries.

“It’s clear from this discussion that the founding era was a different era than ours, and while they didn’t trust minors with credit, they certainly trusted them with firearms,” ​​Sweeney argued.

“But they weren’t trusted with firearms” unless they were under supervision, Rosenbaum said.

“There is certainly historical evidence to show that there was a concern from our founding generation that people under the age of 21 would always be subject to someone else’s supervision when they were in the military or militia, or until and all with their parents, with firearms,” ​​he added.