➡ The U.S. Department of Justice, led by Attorney General Pam Bondi, is defending a law that prevents adults under 21 from buying handguns. Two young men from Connecticut, backed by advocacy groups, are challenging this law, arguing it violates their Second Amendment rights. The government is using historical arguments to justify the law, claiming that people under 21 were considered too immature to make important decisions like buying guns. This case could potentially reach the Supreme Court and have significant impacts on the Second Amendment and young adults’ rights.
➡ Visit blackoutcoffee.com and use the code ‘gng10′ for a 10% discount. Keep an eye on this important case as it progresses, especially if the Supreme Court gets involved. Don’t forget to like, share, and subscribe to stay updated. Remember, this channel, Guns N’ Gadgets, brings you daily updates on the Second Amendment. Stay safe and armed, and see you next time.

Hey guys and gals, welcome back to Guns N’ Gadgets, the premier source for Second Amendment news, the truth that you won’t hear in the media. And here is yet another case in which Attorney General Pam Bondi and the Department of Justice are fighting to keep Second Amendment infringements on the books rather than be the self-proclaimed most 2A-friendly DOJ ever. I really don’t want to keep crushing them, but the truth. Hey everybody, welcome back to the channel. This is Guns N’ Gadgets, your premier source for Second Amendment news that you won’t hear anywhere else, and today we’re breaking down a brand new filing out of the District of Connecticut, where the federal government, led by Attorney General Pam Bondi, is doubling down on the defense of the federal handgun purchase ban for adults under 21 years of age.

The same ones that liberated this country. That’s right, the feds are actually arguing that 18, 19, and 20-year-old American adults shouldn’t be trusted to buy a handgun from a licensed dealer, and they’re doing it by pointing to history and tradition and even John Adams. Yeah, you heard that right. The government is quoting the founding fathers to justify restricting the very same right that those same founders enshrined. Let’s break this down, it’s a good one, because this case, Saccao versus Bondi, could have major impacts on millions of young adults and the Second Amendment as a whole.

Can you imagine? The people who helped secure this country, they can’t do it anymore. The plaintiffs here are two young men from Connecticut, Zachary Saccao or Saccao and Samuel Town, and they’re backed by two advocacy groups that we all know and love, and they’re challenging federal and state laws that apply to anyone under 21 from purchasing a handgun. Now, they can own one, say, if it’s gifted by a parent, but they can’t legally buy one through a gun store, and that’s where the federal law, 18 U.S.C. 922 B-1, comes in.

That’s the same section of the Gun Control Act of 1968 that says FFLs, or Federal Firearms Licencies, cannot sell handguns to anyone under 21. Now, the plaintiffs argue that this violates their Second Amendment rights under Bruin. I agree. They’re asking the court for two main things. Number one is a declaration that these federal laws are unconstitutional, and number two, a permanent injunction to stop the government from enforcing them. And then as a backup, they also want permission for Connecticut to use the NICS system, which is the federal, the FBI’s background check system, the database, to allow private handgun transfers for people between 18 and 20.

And now here’s where this gets wild. The federal government’s argument is basically, yes, the Second Amendment is fundamental, but, there’s always a but. But it’s perfectly fine to ban young adults from buying handguns because history says so. Now, they cite two cases from this year, McCoy versus ATF, which was in the Fourth Circuit, and NRA versus Bondi, which was in the Eleventh Circuit, where these courts upheld laws restricting firearm purchases for people under 21. But they also acknowledge that the Fifth Circuit’s opposite ruling in Reese versus ATF, in which the court found the same laws unconstitutional under Bruin.

So we have that circuit split that they love to quote in the DOJ. And the government is openly telling the court to side with the anti gun rulings, instead of the pro Second Amendment one. They even mentioned two Supreme Court cases now on the docket, Wolford versus Lopez and United States versus Himani, saying that those two could shed light on how this issue should be revolve, revolve, resolved. Translation, the government knows this fight is heading straight to the Supreme Court. So why not argue that it’s unconstitutional? Under the Bruin test, once the plaintiffs show their conduct is covered by the Second Amendment, the plain text, the burden then shifts to the government to prove that that restriction aligns with our nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

And what does the DOJ argue? The most pro you know, most to a friendly one, that the founding at the founding people under 21 were considered infants under the law lacking reason and judgment, and therefore not entitled to the same rights as full adults as for contracts. But they literally cite Blackstone, Zephaniah Swift from Connecticut, and even like I said, in the opening, John Adams, claiming that the founders thought 18 to 20 year olds were too immature to make important decisions like voting or buying guns. And according to the filing, this tradition supposedly supports banning them from purchasing handguns.

Because back then, infants couldn’t enter contracts. They couldn’t own property independently, or act in public life without parental permission. They go further, saying that the federal law preserves access through parental consent. Since minors still receive firearms from parents, they can still do that. So it’s allegedly consistent with historical norms. But that’s quite a stretch to be honest guys and gals because the same founders, who they’re quoting, also required 18 year olds to arm themselves under the militia act of 1792. In fact, the law required able-bodied men 18 to 45 to provide themselves with a musket or firelock required.

The DOJ brushes that off, claiming that the militia act doesn’t really prove young adults had independent rights because, quote, states often required parents to supply the firearms for their sons, end quote. They say this shows that even militia service didn’t mean 18 year olds had the right to buy their own guns. That’s the argument that they’re hanging their hat on. This filing lays it all out clearly. The Bondi Department of Justice is staking out the position that federal age-based firearm bans are constitutional, even after Bruin and Rahimi. That’s very two-way friendly of them.

They’re saying the federal government can regulate gun sales to adults under 21 because, one, those restrictions comport with the principles underlying the Second Amendment, and, two, they’re consistent with our regulatory tradition, which is hogwash. They even admit that the conduct, which is purchasing a handgun, is protected by the Second Amendment. But they still claim that the law is justified by historical analogues. That’s the same circular logic we’ve seen in dozens of cases since Bruin, acknowledging that the right exists, but then carving out some kind of historical exception big enough to swallow the law whole.

And the federal government doesn’t stop there. They also want the Circuit Court to reject the plaintiff’s alternative claim about Connecticut using nicks for private transfers. Why? Well, because they argue there is no federal law stopping that, and it’s the state’s fault. They’re saying Connecticut’s laws, not federal law, are what’s keeping those young adults from buying or transferring handguns, so they want the federal government to dismiss that entirely from the claim. Basically, Connecticut, you want to fix, you do it. Now, this case might sound like it only affects 18 to 20 year olds, but it actually is part of a much bigger national battle.

See, you’ve now got three different federal circuits that are split over whether the government can ban law-abiding adults under 21 years of age from buying handguns. That’s almost guaranteed to reach the Supreme Court within the next year. Circuit split. That’s what, six, seven, like all the kids last night, I was at a concert, six, seven. Sorry. And the Wolford and Himani cases already have been accepted by the Supreme Court, and this issue could become the next major Second Amendment decision since Bruin and Rahimi. If the court rules that these bans violate the Second Amendment, it could permanently strike down the federal age restrictions and restore the right to purchase handguns to millions of Americans who serve in the military, pay taxes, can vote, can get married, but can’t legally by the means to defend themselves at home.

But if the court sides with the government, it would set a dangerous precedent, one that could justify all sorts of temporary age-based disarmament schemes from college students to young parents, all based out of the claim that history shows they’re not mature enough. Maybe we shouldn’t let young people vote. How would the Democrat Party fail in? It would fail. And if that logic stands, what’s next, guys? They could start applying the same reasoning to other rights, speech, voting, self-defense, all in the name of tradition. So here’s the bottom line.

The federal government is once again fighting to shrink the Second Amendment, not protect it like they claim. It’s very easy. They could do this. They choose not to. They’re using the Founding Father’s words to argue that some adults simply don’t deserve the same rights as others. But history, real history, tells a different story. The same 18 year olds they’re calling infants today were the ones who stood on the line at Concord and Lexington Battle Green with muskets in their hand facing the most powerful enemy on earth. The fight for liberty didn’t start with fully grown men.

It started with the young, the brave, and the armed. And speaking of fighting for freedom, you can’t support companies that actually are against us. You should support companies that share our values. So today’s video is sponsored by Blackout Coffee, a pro 2A American company that believes in the same values that we talk about every single day on this channel. We roast every single batch of coffee fresh right here in the United States to support freedom-loving Americans like you and me. Head on over to blackoutcoffee.com slash gng use my code gng10 for 10% off of your entire order.

Don’t forget it’s blackoutcoffee.com slash gng code gng10. Wake up every single morning with a taste of freedom. And we appreciate your support. Folks, this case is one to watch closely. I will do what I do. I will keep you posted every step of the way as it moves through the court system, especially if the Supreme Court gets involved. Now, if you found this breakdown helpful, please do the favor of hitting the thumbs up button and share the video to spread the word. And make sure that you’re subscribed here with the bell turned on so you don’t miss any updates.

I have about 48% of the people who watch my videos are not subscribed. So if that’s you, please do me a favor and subscribe so that we can prove to YouTube that this matters. My name is Jared. This is Guns N’ Gadgets. The truth of the Second Amendment is out there and I’ll bring it to you every single day. Stay safe. Stay armed. Stay free. And I’ll see you on the next one. God bless you. Take care. [tr:trw].

See more of Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News on their Public Channel and the MPN Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News channel.