Since we have a mass emotional outburst today with the march for gun control, I thought it would be worthwhile considering if a ban on the ownership of guns or of some sorts of guns for people under the age of 21 would be constitutional.
Here's the simple issue: one of the new gun control measures being pushed in various legislatures around the country is a ban on ownership or purchase of assault weapons by those who are not yet 21 years of age. Is such a ban legal?
Here's the answer (which is not so simple): This is an issue which will likely ultimately get decided by the Supreme Court. At that point, the Court ought to find that such a ban is not constitutional.
1. Rights given by the Constitution are not limited by age with the exception of the right to vote. That right is guaranteed to those over the age of 18. Rights like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to be secure against unreasonable searches, etc. are not limited by age. Similarly, the right to have arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment is not limited by age.
2. Just because the Constitution grants a right, it does not make that right absolute; it can be limited under certain types of circumstances. Free speech does not allow someone to shout "fire" in a crowded theater is the classical statement of one such limitation. Freedom of religion does not mean that human sacrifices to pagan gods are protected by the Constitution. There can be limits placed on Second Amendment rights as well.
3. In order to limit a constitutional right, there has to be a compelling state interest. If a speaker calls a public official a moron, a degenerate or some similar insult, there is no compelling state interest in shutting the speaker up. On the other hand, if the speaker starts inciting his audience to armed insurrection to overthrow the US government, then there is a compelling interest which allows such speech to be stopped. There are a myriad of cases which set the definition of "compelling state interest" with regard to all sorts of constitutional rights.
4. For a ban on gun ownership by 18-21 year olds, the compelling state interest cannot be just a reduction of gun violence. Such an excuse might be used to limit purchase or ownership by all Americans of so called assault weapons. It does not provide a compelling reason to keep weapons out of the hands of a certain age group. The proponents of these limitations will need to have a specific reason tied to just this age group.
5. Limits on sales of alcohol to those under 21 cannot be used as a basis for the limitation of gun sales. Alcohol has a special status under the US Constitution which gives states special rights to regulate its sale. Also, there is no constitutional right to consume alcohol.
6. It will be very difficult to come up with a compelling state interest to justify a ban on gun ownership by 18 - 21 year olds. Clearly, these people can properly use guns. A major chunk of the US military is in this age group, and they all get weapons training without problems. There is no special characteristics of the age group to bar them from weapons; otherwise, they should be barred from the military as well.
Were I the judge deciding this issue, I would find that a ban on gun ownership limited to 18 to 21 year olds is unconstitutional.
Here's the simple issue: one of the new gun control measures being pushed in various legislatures around the country is a ban on ownership or purchase of assault weapons by those who are not yet 21 years of age. Is such a ban legal?
Here's the answer (which is not so simple): This is an issue which will likely ultimately get decided by the Supreme Court. At that point, the Court ought to find that such a ban is not constitutional.
1. Rights given by the Constitution are not limited by age with the exception of the right to vote. That right is guaranteed to those over the age of 18. Rights like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to be secure against unreasonable searches, etc. are not limited by age. Similarly, the right to have arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment is not limited by age.
2. Just because the Constitution grants a right, it does not make that right absolute; it can be limited under certain types of circumstances. Free speech does not allow someone to shout "fire" in a crowded theater is the classical statement of one such limitation. Freedom of religion does not mean that human sacrifices to pagan gods are protected by the Constitution. There can be limits placed on Second Amendment rights as well.
3. In order to limit a constitutional right, there has to be a compelling state interest. If a speaker calls a public official a moron, a degenerate or some similar insult, there is no compelling state interest in shutting the speaker up. On the other hand, if the speaker starts inciting his audience to armed insurrection to overthrow the US government, then there is a compelling interest which allows such speech to be stopped. There are a myriad of cases which set the definition of "compelling state interest" with regard to all sorts of constitutional rights.
4. For a ban on gun ownership by 18-21 year olds, the compelling state interest cannot be just a reduction of gun violence. Such an excuse might be used to limit purchase or ownership by all Americans of so called assault weapons. It does not provide a compelling reason to keep weapons out of the hands of a certain age group. The proponents of these limitations will need to have a specific reason tied to just this age group.
5. Limits on sales of alcohol to those under 21 cannot be used as a basis for the limitation of gun sales. Alcohol has a special status under the US Constitution which gives states special rights to regulate its sale. Also, there is no constitutional right to consume alcohol.
6. It will be very difficult to come up with a compelling state interest to justify a ban on gun ownership by 18 - 21 year olds. Clearly, these people can properly use guns. A major chunk of the US military is in this age group, and they all get weapons training without problems. There is no special characteristics of the age group to bar them from weapons; otherwise, they should be barred from the military as well.
Were I the judge deciding this issue, I would find that a ban on gun ownership limited to 18 to 21 year olds is unconstitutional.
No comments:
Post a Comment