Court Shift on Handgun sales to 18-21 year olds

[Craig_AR]

Last July, 2021, the 4th Circuit court of appeals ruled that barring sales of handguns to 18 year olds is unconstitutional:
Gun laws barring sales to people under 21 are unconstitutional, appeals court rules
However, as the ruling had not been finalized, and the subject of the case just turned 21, that court has now (Sept 2021) withdrawn that ruling as moot:
Court dissolves gun rights ruling on sales to people under 21
Since the young woman is no longer barred from buying a handgun, the ruling is not needed to make her life right.
Obviously, this fits with a general hesitancy of courts to rule on core constitutional issues.
I guess the gun community needs a new case involving a prohibited purchaser just recently turned 18 so there will be nearly three years to work the new case through district court and into the appellate court processes.

 

[rust collector]

This appears to be an example of the games people play. All that was necessary is that the "mandate", or documents putting the court's determination of record, be delayed until plaintiff celebrated her 21st birthday. Whoever caused the delay must be held accountable, because a great deal of time and expense went into litigating the matter and justice delayed is justice denied. If clerks or whoever held things up could be liable for litigation expenses, I am speculating that things would happen much more quickly.

 

[heyjoe]

This appears to be an example of the games people play. All that was necessary is that the "mandate", or documents putting the court's determination of record, be delayed until plaintiff celebrated her 21st birthday. Whoever caused the delay must be held accountable, because a great deal of time and expense went into litigating the matter and justice delayed is justice denied. If clerks or whoever held things up could be liable for litigation expenses, I am speculating that things would happen much more quickly.

i remember references here to other cases with a different subject matter, being continued and addressed even though the person who initiated it had timed out age wise, because it would have been impossible to ever decide the issue otherwise. The only appeal here would be to the supreme court

 

[hso]

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us...llowing-gun-sales-people-under-21-2021-09-22/

I find the reasoning for vacating the previous ruling based on the plaintiffs turning 21 to be curious, but I'm not an attorney or a legal scholar. Perhaps a reasonable explanation from one of our lawyers could help clear that up for me.

A U.S. appeals court on Wednesday threw out its recent decision that a federal prohibition on firearms dealers selling guns to young adults under 21 was unconstitutional, deciding the case was now moot because both plaintiffs have reached that age.

A panel of the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had issued the 2-1 ruling on July 13, authored by Circuit Judge Julius Richardson. But Richardson said it now serves the public interest to vacate the decision, clearing the way for further litigation on the matter.

Richardson also said the public and legal community will benefit because "the exchange of ideas between the panel and dissent will remain available as a persuasive source."

The federal measures being challenged bar handgun sales to people ages 18 to 20.

In the July decision, the panel's majority said people as young as 18 had a right to own guns under the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms.

It also said young adults could not be relegated to "second-class status," notwithstanding the "weighty interest in reducing crime and violence."

One plaintiff turned 21 before the court ruled, and the second turned 21 on July 25 before the court issued a mandate in the case. Both had sought unsuccessfully to buy firearms in Virginia, when they were younger.

"These young men and women are disappointed that the system continues to deny their equal access to fundamental liberties simply because of their youth" and because the litigation took too long, their lawyer Elliott Harding said in an email.

President Joe Biden's administration last month had asked the entire 4th Circuit to reconsider the panel's decision. That request is now also moot.

Judge James Wynn, who strongly dissented from the original decision, said on Wednesday the vacated ruling now has "no legal value" and its persuasive value "can be no more than the value of newspaper editorials."

The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on Nov. 3 in a separate case testing the constitutionality of a New York law restricting people's ability to carry guns outside the home.

A decision is expected by the end of next June. The case could generate the court's first major Second Amendment decision since 2010.

The case is Hirschfeld et al v Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, Tobacco & Explosives et al, 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 19-2250.

Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Will Dunham​

 

[rust collector]

As a retired attorney, the best analogy I can point out would be legislators or congress people voting for legislation they know is doomed, just so they can say they tried, or submitting bills that are DOA for the same reason. Here, all that was necessary was to protract the process until the plaintiffs reached 21 years of age, and the court could shrug and say "we tried". This is also an example of the "shadow docket" of the Supreme Court that continues the effect of unfortunate decisions or laws by refusing to act or accept cert. The refusal to decide acts as a decision without responsibility or opportunity to debate.

Moot means that there is no reason to decide the matter in controversy because the court cannot/need not grant relief. In this case, once the parties reached 21, they could purchase firearms without violating the contested law. Since it was not a class action (certifying a class would have greatly extended the time frame) there were no parties who had standing to continue the process through appeals to a final ruling. This type of lawsuit is unlikely to succeed within the window between 18th and 21st birthdays, because there are so many ways to delay litigation. Still, this situation effectively denies court relief to persons who are wronged by laws which infringe constitutional rights. Some would say this should be rectified, but the will does not seem to be there.

 

[hso]

If this had been a class action, could additional plaintiffs been added to keep within the 18-21 years of age window to keep the case moot?

 

[rust collector]

If this had been a class action, could additional plaintiffs been added to keep within the 18-21 years of age window to keep the case moot?

Possibly, but all would have had to be 18 to 21 at the time the suit was filed in order to be affected by the law, unless provision was made in the class certification to add members to the class while the suit was under way. I did not do much work in federal court, as I had a partner who was a part time federal magistrate.