By Andrew Chung
Washington (Reuters) – Minnesota can no longer apply its law by banning people more than 21 years from giving permission to conduct a pistol in a public place after the US Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal against a court decision on Monday, which is considered the age restriction restriction.
The judges leave a decision for 2024 from the St. Louis-based 8th Court of Appeal of the United States that the restriction violates the rights of people aged 18, 19 and 20 to preserve and carry a weapon under the second amendment to the US Constitution, refusing to listen to the state-controlled complaint.
The case is one of the many challenges to the restrictions on the weapons at the state and federal levels, which emerged after the Supreme Court further expanded the rights of the weapons in a remarkable 2022 decision, recognizing for the first time, when a second amendment was the right to carry a pistol in a public place for self -defense.
Weapons rights groups, including the Caucus of Pistol owners in Minnesota, a second amendment Foundation, a firearm policy coalition, as well as some of their members, challenged the state’s age in the federal court.
Minnesota applied the age restriction as his complaints took place in court. The state called the “modest” restriction, given that young people already have significant access to weapons in Minnesota – including no age limit when controlled by a parent or guardian – and by the age of 14, they can have weapons in their property or while hunting unattended.
More than 30 other states and Colombia County have similar restrictions on the public transfer of firearms, reflecting the concern that weapons are the leading cause of death among children and teenagers, Minnesota said at a court institution.
The courts “should not slightly cancel the legislative attempts to deal with the increase in violence with weapons by young people,” the state added.
The judge gave way to the competitors in 2023. Round the 8th round confirmed this decision, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in 2022, which announced a strict test that requires the laws of weapons to be “in accordance with the historical tradition of the nation to regulate the firearm” in order to comply with the second amendment.
Minnesota did not provide evidence of a suitable historical analogue, said the 8th round. While the government can disarm those who pose a threat to the physical safety of others, the 8th round said: “Minnesota has failed to show that 18 to 20-year-old children are such a threat.”
The decision of the Supreme Court of 2022 in the case called the State of New York, the Association of Rifle and Pistol against Bruen, was one of the three key solutions that he has issued since 2008 that expanded the rights of weapons in one country, divided deeply on how to cope with violence with firearms. The United States has the highest percentage of weapons in the world.
The court confirmed the federal law last year, which makes a crime for people under domestic violence, restricting orders to have weapons, clarifying that the Bruen test is not infected and that modern weapons restrictions do not require a “historical twin” to be legal.
The Court of April 7 brought to the challenge to the restrictions on weapons that New York adopted after Bruen’s decision.
In another weapon -related case, the Court of March 26 upheld a federal regulation aimed at a large extent non -traceable “ghostly weapons”, although this decision did not focus on the issues of the second correction.
Last year, the court upheld the federal law, which makes a crime for people under domestic violence, restricting orders to have weapons in a second amendment challenge, but rejected the federal ban on Boom devices that allow semi -automatic weapons to shoot quickly as machine guns in case of no repair.
(Reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham)