The Second Amendment is gaining nationwide and Supreme Court consideration.
In June, the Supreme Court of the United States invalidated a New York concealed carry legislation.
Unnamed 18- and 20-year-olds, along with the Firearms Policy Coalition, filed a lawsuit in Texas in November 2017.
In this case, a Texas judge selected by former President Donald Trump has already handed a big win for Second Amendment advocates.
Fox News reported that U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman ruled as illegal a state statute prohibiting anybody under 21 from carrying a weapon.
“Based on the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by Founding-Era history and tradition, the Court concludes that the Second Amendment protects against this prohibition.” The judge stated in his Thursday ruling. “Texas’s statutory scheme must therefore be enjoined to the extent that law-abiding 18-to-20-year-olds are prohibited from applying for a license to carry a handgun.”
“To start, the Second Amendment does not mention any sort of age restriction,” he stated. “This absence is notable—when the Framers meant to impose age restrictions, they did so expressly.”
According to experts, the significance of the verdict lies in the likelihood that similarly restrictive concealed carry regulations, which are mostly restricted to blue states, would also be successfully challenged.
MPR stated, “This decision is a big deal.”
“Previously, the court had only said that the Constitution protected the ability to have a gun inside the home for self-defense.
In that decision, which came down in 2008, the justices didn’t rule on how guns carried outside the home could be regulated.
It took almost 15 years for the justices to come back to that question, but now they have.”
The Second Amendment “protect[s] an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home,” wrote Justice Clarence Thomas in the majority opinion for Thursday’s ruling.
As a result, FiveThirtyEight said, “which required people who wanted a license to carry a concealed handgun in public to show they have a good reason, are no longer allowed.”
More on this story via The Republic Brief:
“Thomas’s opinion states regulations need to be historically consistent with the Second Amendment,” FiveThirtyEight’s analysis noted.
“That means when they look at a modern gun regulation, judges will have to figure out if another, reasonably similar law was passed earlier in the country’s history.
Previously, courts had also considered whether a regulation could be justified for other reasons, but that second layer of consideration is no longer allowed,” the site continued.
The analysis goes on to predict a “flood” of new litigation in states with similarly restrictively concealed carry laws.