Omar Bennett
Young adults have constitutional rights, and the National Rifle Association of America (NRA) has been actively fighting to defend these rights. Since 2018, Florida has banned 18-20-year-olds from purchasing firearms, with violations resulting in imprisonment, fines, or both. The NRA challenged this ban, arguing that it violates the Second Amendment rights of young adults to keep and bear arms. While the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ban, the NRA is now petitioning the Supreme Court to hear the case, citing that young adults are considered adults in other aspects of the law, such as voting and entering contracts. The NRA's argument is supported by legal precedents and scholarship, asserting that young adults were among the people protected by the Second Amendment at the nation's founding.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Age group | 18-20 years old |
| Right | Right to bear arms |
| Right infringement | Inability to purchase firearms |
| Legal action | Petition for Certiorari |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Petitioner | National Rifle Association of America (NRA) |
| Respondent | Florida |
| Law | Second Amendment |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The right to bear arms
The Second Amendment to the US Constitution states that "a well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." This amendment has been the subject of much debate and interpretation over the years, with some arguing that it guarantees an individual right to own and carry weapons, while others believe it is primarily concerned with the maintenance of a militia.
The Supreme Court has played a significant role in interpreting the Second Amendment. In the landmark case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court recognised that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. This decision shifted the focus of gun control litigation from state courts to the federal level. The Court's subsequent decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago further reinforced this interpretation, incorporating the Second Amendment to the states.
However, the Supreme Court's more recent decision in United States v. Rahimi, and the ongoing litigation in the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association case, have created some uncertainty in Second Amendment jurisprudence. The full implications of these cases are yet to be understood, but they may incentivise gun rights advocates to bring their claims to state courts, where the right to bear arms is explicitly protected in virtually every state constitution except California, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York.
While the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, it is not without limitations. The amendment itself refers to the importance of a \"well-regulated militia", indicating that certain regulations on firearms may be permissible. Additionally, the Supreme Court has upheld restrictions on firearms possession in the past, such as in the case of United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, where the Court found that the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to keep and bear arms that are not reasonably related to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.
French Constitution: Financial Crisis Savior or Spectacle?
You may want to see also
Voting rights
The right to vote in the United States was initially limited by factors such as race, gender, and property ownership. The Fifteenth Amendment, ratified in 1870, gave African American men the right to vote, but many states used literacy tests and other barriers to prevent them from exercising this right. The Nineteenth Amendment, ratified in 1920, extended the right to vote to women.
The Twenty-fourth Amendment, ratified in 1964, eliminated poll taxes, which had been used to disenfranchise African Americans. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibited voter discrimination based on race, colour, or membership in a language minority group. It also required certain places to provide election materials in languages other than English and placed limits on states with a history of voter discrimination.
The Twenty-sixth Amendment, ratified in 1971, lowered the voting age from 21 to 18 for all Americans, giving voting rights to an estimated 10 million new voters. This change was driven by youth activists and the increasing public opposition to the Vietnam War, which brought attention to the discrepancy between the draft age of 18 and the voting age of 21. The slogan "old enough to fight, old enough to vote" became a rallying cry for the youth voting rights movement.
Despite the expansion of voting rights, some obstacles to voting remain. Most states require voters to show some form of identification, which can be a barrier for those who lack the necessary documentation. Additionally, while the Twenty-sixth Amendment gave 18-year-olds the right to vote, no systematic changes were made to educate and prepare them for participation in the democratic process. This has resulted in lower turnout among young voters compared to older voters in elections.
Today, youth activists continue to advocate for even lower voting ages, with some municipalities such as Takoma Park, Maryland, and Berkeley, California, allowing 16-year-olds to vote in local elections.
Executive Orders: Overriding the Constitution?
You may want to see also
Marriage rights
Fortunately, this amendment was defeated, but it serves as a reminder of the struggles faced by diverse couples seeking marriage equality. One such couple, Richard and Mildred Loving, became central figures in the fight for interracial marriage rights. Richard was white, while Mildred was black and Native American. They faced significant challenges, with 35 states outlawing marriages between those considered white and non-white at the time. Mildred Loving, demonstrating bold initiative, wrote a letter to Attorney General Robert Kennedy seeking help. This led to a nine-year legal battle, culminating in a unanimous Supreme Court ruling in their favour on June 12, 1967.
Chief Justice Earl Warren's powerful words accompanied the ruling: "The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with theindividual and cannot be infringed by the State." This decision sent a strong message, and "Loving Day" is now celebrated annually to commemorate this victory for equality.
While the Loving decision was a significant milestone, it didn't immediately erase prejudice towards interracial couples, and some states retained anti-miscegenation laws for decades afterward. However, public opinion has evolved, with a Gallup poll showing 87% approval of black-white interracial marriage in 2013, a significant improvement from 4% in 1958. The Constitution's protection of marriage rights for young adults extends beyond race, as seen in the case of Zablocki v. Redhail, where the Court identified the right to marry as a "fundamental interest," necessitating scrutiny of governmental restrictions that directly interfere with this right. Additionally, in Jobst v. United States, the Court addressed the impact of marriage on benefit entitlement for disabled dependents, demonstrating the complexity of marriage rights in relation to other legal and financial matters.
The President's Powers: Understanding US Constitutional Limits
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Enlistment rights
In the United States, the minimum age to enlist in the military with parental consent is 17, and 18 without parental consent. The Army, for example, requires parental consent for 17-year-olds to enlist. However, minors cannot be processed into any branch of the Armed Forces if one of their parents or guardians objects to their enlistment. The affirmative consent of each parent is not required; instead, the objecting parent must communicate their objection in writing within 90 days of the minor's enlistment.
In the UK, there are debates surrounding the minimum age for military recruitment. While the current age is 16, there are widespread calls, including from the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, to increase the minimum age to 18. Research suggests that military training can cause short- and long-term problems for young recruits and that soldiers who enlist at younger ages experience higher rates of mental health and behavioural issues compared to older recruits and their civilian peers. Additionally, the military culture can be hostile to recruits from vulnerable backgrounds, including those from poor backgrounds, female recruits, LGBT people, and religious and ethnic minorities.
It is important to note that the information provided here may not be exhaustive and that enlistment requirements can vary by country, branch of military service, and other factors. It is always advisable to refer to the official sources and guidelines of the specific military or armed forces in question for the most accurate and up-to-date information.
Framers' Vision: Democracy and the Constitution
You may want to see also
Contractual rights
There are some exceptions to this. Contracts for necessities like food, shelter, education, and healthcare are often enforceable even when signed by minors. This also applies to contracts for essential needs, such as those for basic necessities. Additionally, some states have stricter regulations for certain industries, such as entertainment. Contracts involving sports and entertainment deals may not be voidable by minors, especially when significant time and money have been invested in the minor.
Digital contracts and online purchases involving minors are facing increasing scrutiny to protect young consumers. Some states have introduced special protections for minors signing digital contracts, and businesses often require a parent's or guardian's signature alongside the minor's to add a layer of protection. Parental involvement in minor contracts adds legal weight and ensures better enforceability.
It is important to note that rules for minor contracts can vary by state, and local legal knowledge is essential. While minor contract rights offer important protections, parental oversight is still the best approach to prevent problematic agreements.
US Constitution: A Global Inspiration
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
An appeal is a request to a higher court to review the decision of a lower court.
Some examples include Griffin v. Illinois, which affirmed the right of indigent defendants to access free transcripts of trial proceedings, and Frank v. Mangum, which established that convictions obtained in mob-dominated trials violated due process.
There are various types of appeals, including criminal appeals, bankruptcy appeals, and appeals of federal administrative agency decisions.
