This seems to be the gist of what the three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit said, although I have only just started reading the opinion.
They do appear to cite a number of early post-bellum laws that restricted arms from those under 21 as well as laws against having arms on college campuses. They also mention the importance of such laws today due to, according to them, 4% of the population (18-20 year olds writ large) committing 15% of the types of crimes these laws are purportedly meant to address, although I wonder if they'd be willing to apply such reasoning if laws barring negroes from keeping and bearing arms were to be revived (I think we know the answer to that one). They have stuff like this in there: "As to the first component of Bruen’s first step, it’s not clear whether 18-to-20-year-olds “are part of ‘the people’ whom the Second Amendment protects."
They seem to have decided to focus on laws from around the time of the ratification of the 14th Amendment rather than the 2nd Amendment, probably due to that period being more favorable to them. Part of the issue here I think is that McDonald and Bruen create a double-edged sword. Without them, we wouldn't be able to meaningfully assail most State gun control laws.
On the other hand, laws that violate the RKBA that were common around immediately post-bellum can be pointed to as reflecting "understanding" of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment's protections due to the presumption (present in this ruling) that the common understanding of the time was that the 14th Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights against the States. The reality is that it was not part of the common understanding of the time nor is it evident from the plain language of the texts (a plain reading certainly precludes such an understanding; twisting of the language is required), so these laws were not passed with reference to the 2nd Amendment and do not reflect understanding of it (incorporation doctrine is the product of judicial activism but one that has become too deeply engrained in case law).
I've only done a cursory reading so far, but it does seem like they had a desired result and found whatever they could to justify it and they did manage to find something, unlike in the cases in the 9th Circuit (we'll see how the circuit there handles the appeals of Benitez's rulings). That's my impression, anyways. I'm unsure of the ideological composition of the 3-judge panel.
This case is the one challenging Florida's law banning sales of firearms to persons under 21 years of age.
-bigstick61 AR-15.com
Opinion:
https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202112314.pdf
The first time laws against gun ownership show up, its applied against slaves to hopefully prevent slave rebellions. Which was a real possibility and they knew it from the newspaper headlines about Haiti.
And later, gun laws against freed blacks, for kinda the same reason. And later still, laws that were ostensibly racially blind but in reality only applied against blacks.
By the time you got to Progressive politics regulating guns for "the greater good" in places like NY and MA, they didn't care if you were white or black, male or female. Your rights were worth violating equally.
They do appear to cite a number of early post-bellum laws that restricted arms from those under 21 as well as laws against having arms on college campuses. They also mention the importance of such laws today due to, according to them, 4% of the population (18-20 year olds writ large) committing 15% of the types of crimes these laws are purportedly meant to address, although I wonder if they'd be willing to apply such reasoning if laws barring negroes from keeping and bearing arms were to be revived (I think we know the answer to that one). They have stuff like this in there: "As to the first component of Bruen’s first step, it’s not clear whether 18-to-20-year-olds “are part of ‘the people’ whom the Second Amendment protects."
They seem to have decided to focus on laws from around the time of the ratification of the 14th Amendment rather than the 2nd Amendment, probably due to that period being more favorable to them. Part of the issue here I think is that McDonald and Bruen create a double-edged sword. Without them, we wouldn't be able to meaningfully assail most State gun control laws.
On the other hand, laws that violate the RKBA that were common around immediately post-bellum can be pointed to as reflecting "understanding" of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment's protections due to the presumption (present in this ruling) that the common understanding of the time was that the 14th Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights against the States. The reality is that it was not part of the common understanding of the time nor is it evident from the plain language of the texts (a plain reading certainly precludes such an understanding; twisting of the language is required), so these laws were not passed with reference to the 2nd Amendment and do not reflect understanding of it (incorporation doctrine is the product of judicial activism but one that has become too deeply engrained in case law).
I've only done a cursory reading so far, but it does seem like they had a desired result and found whatever they could to justify it and they did manage to find something, unlike in the cases in the 9th Circuit (we'll see how the circuit there handles the appeals of Benitez's rulings). That's my impression, anyways. I'm unsure of the ideological composition of the 3-judge panel.
This case is the one challenging Florida's law banning sales of firearms to persons under 21 years of age.
-bigstick61 AR-15.com
Opinion:
https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202112314.pdf
The first time laws against gun ownership show up, its applied against slaves to hopefully prevent slave rebellions. Which was a real possibility and they knew it from the newspaper headlines about Haiti.
And later, gun laws against freed blacks, for kinda the same reason. And later still, laws that were ostensibly racially blind but in reality only applied against blacks.
By the time you got to Progressive politics regulating guns for "the greater good" in places like NY and MA, they didn't care if you were white or black, male or female. Your rights were worth violating equally.
