Fact check: Abbott calls it unconstitutional to raise age to purchase assault-style rifles

[LetMyPeopleVote]

Greg is full of crap when he claims that it is unconstitutional to increase the age to purchase assault weapons from 18 to 21

Link to tweet

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/texas/politifact/article/Fact-check-Abbott-calls-it-unconstitutional-to-17462285.php?utm_campaign=socialflow&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=referral

The claim: "There have been three court rulings since May that have made it clear that it is unconstitutional to ban someone between the ages of 18 and 20 from being able to buy an AR. That came out of the federal court of appeals." — Gov. Greg Abbott

Abbott was responding to calls from Uvalde community members to raise the minimum age from 18 to 21 to purchase semi-automatic rifles, like the AR-15-like assault-style rifle used to kill 19 children and two teachers at Robb Elementary. Some states have raised the age to buy a semi-automatic rifle to 21, according to the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

Politifact rating: Mostly False. Only one of the cases Abbott cited directly addressed the question of limiting purchases of semi-automatic rifles. Furthermore, the Supreme Court hasn’t weighed in on an age limit.

PolitiFact Texas spoke with experts and found that Abbott spoke broadly on the court rulings he cited, and there has been no Supreme Court ruling addressing the constitutionality of raising the minimum age to purchase a semi-automatic weapon.

Steven Vladeck, a University of Texas law professor, said, at most, only one case out of the three Abbott referred to was apparently relevant to his claim, but that ruling was vacated in September.

[Lovie777]

1. Abbott does not understand the US Constitution .....

actually majority of Republicans don't nor care because like the Bible, they cherry pick.

[maxsolomon]

2. It's probably "Unconstitutional" to limit purchases of Full-Automatic weapons, too.

"the right of the people to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed".

Why isn't Abbot agitating to let 18 year olds buy full-autos?

And why stop at 18? 17 year olds are in the Militia:

(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Perfect American Freedom is the most lethal weapon possible on everyone's hip, everywhere, at all times.

[Biophilic]

3. So what happened to "well regulated"? Doesn't that mean that there will be rules/regulations?

Yes, I know this is just to rile the base up. Abbott does it so well. But eventually we, the people, need to start regulating this so called militia.

[maxsolomon]

5. As I've had pointed out many times on DU,

"Well-Regulated" is an anachronistic term that meant that the weapons were well-maintained. Way back in 1788.

[Biophilic]

6. Actually, I had missed all the times you pointed that out. Well, rats! Thank you for the info.

[maxsolomon]

7. Pointed out TO ME, not by me.

I think that Amendment is poorly-written trash.

[Biophilic]

8. Ah, I see the difference. And yes, I agree with you about the amendment being trash.

It's one of those subjects that I'm not entirely sane about so I tend to try to avoid thinking about it until I can find an avenue to actually do something about it whether that is a political candidate I want to support or a group. But so far, we seem to be totally unable to stop something that is so destructive. See, it's not a subject that I'm sane about until I'm screaming about f'ing evil republicans.

[thucythucy]

13. Are you sure that isn't a right wing gungeon talking point?

Googling "origin of 'well regulated'" I get a bunch of right wing sites that repeat this contention, but after scrolling through them all I hit this:

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/105168/what-does-well-regulated-mean-and-could-it-have-meant-anything-different-in-t

There's a lot to unpack here--including citations of the Federalist Papers--but the gist seems to be that "well regulated" meant then just what common sense tells us it means now: that it's the militia that's supposed to be well regulated.

I suspect this notion of a shifting meaning is just more gun apologist nonsense, but I could be wrong. It just strikes me as similar to other right wing attempts to convince us that what obviously refutes their ideology is "incorrectly translated." Like for instance, when Jesus said it's more difficult for a rich man to get into heaven than for a camel to get through the eye of a needle, right wing evangelicals who worship money manufactured this bullshit story about "the eye of the needle" actually being some gate in Jerusalem that was tough to get through. That's just plain BS. It means what it says, is what it is.

Anyway, like I say, I could be wrong, but I have my doubts.

[maxsolomon]

15. I have my doubts, too. I'm not sure because it's been mainly

DU Gungeoneers that made the point.

I would like the militia to be regulated well. I don't see much regulation for it - at all.

[James48]

4. There is another alternative that IS Constitutional.

Remember, the Second Amendment specifically mentions the militia.

And Artcle 1, Section 8, of our Constitution gives Congress the right to prescribe the regulations for qualification and training of of the militia.

“To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;“


Simply require three years of militia experience with a single-shot shotgun and/.22lr bolt action, before someone is eligible for a semi-auto of any kind. The exception is for those on active duty. Other wise, three year experience.

That is simply an exercise in “governing”, and “arming”, in proscribing what weapons are considered properly needed by the militia.

That fully complies with the Constitution, and can pass Congress.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

10. Heller vs DC put an end to the militia argument

The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

SCOTUS ruled that the prefatory clause(the well regulated militia part) does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause(the keep and bear arms part). So passing any law regulating militias will have no affect on who can own guns.

A new ruling to reverse this will be needed first.

[robbob]

11. What militia did Stephen Paddock belong to

(Vegas shooter)? Or Dylan Roof, or any of the other mass shooters from the last few decades? It mystifies me how people can quote the 2nd amendment and then interpret it to mean everyone has a right to own an arsenal of killing machines.

[Brainfodder]

9. Something an ignorant asshole owned by the NRA would say for 200 Alex?

[dlk]

12. You can tell he's lying when his lips are moving

Abbott believes most Texans are too stupid to know better.

[krispos42]

14. It's perfectly legal, as long as the age is reasonable.

21 is okay, 121 isn't.

[Chainfire]

16. The question becomes is there a minimum age, if 18 is ok, how about 14, or 10?

I think that far right gun rights folks would tell you that there is no minimum age requirement because it is not in the Constitution.
They will also tell you that there is no authority to ban someone from having a howitzer, a land mine or a nuclear weapon. The far right accepts no restriction on weapons of any kind at any time. It is a notion that is ridiculous on it's face, and that doesn't bother them a bit.

[Liberal In Texas]

17. That WELL REGULATED part of their sacred 2nd Amendment is always sort of

ignored when they want to claim that any weapon can be purchased by anybody at any time. Age limit laws are regulation. Same as laws saying certain classes of weapons should not be owned by private citizens.