2A Coalition Moves to Protect Rights for 18 - 20 Aged Adults

GOALJim

NES Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2022
Messages
61
Likes
478
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
2A Coalition Moves to Protect Rights for 18 - 20 Aged Adults

Today, GOAL joined the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America, the Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, and Commonwealth Second Amendment to file a challenge to a portion of Chapter 135 of the Acts of 2024 in US District Court of Massachusetts.

Continuing the national co-operative effort the GOAL set in motion over year ago, this latest litigation seeks to enjoin the Commonwealth from enforcing laws that would prohibit 18-20-year-olds from possessing and carrying semiautomatic firearms and handguns.

If successful, this case would ensure that all adults, regardless of their relative age, would be afforded the same rights to concealed carry handguns in public for their own protection, and keep and possess semiautomatic firearms to protect their homes and families, as well as to hunt and perform other lawful activities. The lead plaintiff is Mack Escher, a brave young man from MA willing to put his name on this case to fight for the rights of his fellow young adults.

This case is shrunken in scope from its original intentions. Prior to the Supreme Court considering Snope v. Brown and Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island, this case was going to challenge the, greatly expanded, assault-style firearms and magazine restrictions in Chapter 135 as well. It was the consensus of all the groups involved that local injunctions are not being accepted by the courts on this matter. Further, it would be a waste of resources until we find out what will happen with the cases already at the Supreme Court Level.

Thanks to every group in this coalition and to all of our supporters that are making this fight possible.

Litigation against chapter 135 Continues!.png
 
While I think this is great, I've not been 18-20+364 days in about 35 years. My bigger concern are the massive infringements that affect the rest of us as well as 18-20yo's.
 
While I think this is great, I've not been 18-20+364 days in about 35 years. My bigger concern are the massive infringements that affect the rest of us as well as 18-20yo's.
The 5th circuit has already answered the question - 18-20 is part of the body politic and therefore cannot be restricted.
So, we have a win-win on this - if we win it's harder for other circuits to gold differently. If we lose, circuit split and off to SCOTUS.

Most of the other issues are either a total loss in the 1st or are so close to SCOTUS that nothing would happen locally. Any funding put towards those issues is wasted.
 
Back
Top Bottom