— Gun Owners Foundation (@GunFoundation) March 24, 2025
BREAKING
DOJ Attorney Steven Hazel argues that it is constitutional for the federal government to infringe Second Amendment rights by “restrict[ing]… the sale of handguns” to 18-20 year old adults. pic.twitter.com/1JvnwGcWQk
AG Bondi: The ball is in your court.
[Via Jess]
Related UPDATE
We’ll see if THIS comes into play:
Protecting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens is a high priority for @AGPamBondi. To that end, the Department will be re-evaluating some of its recent litigation positions on Second Amendment issues, including silencers.
And yet the relevant section of USC says those very same 18 – 20 year olds are part of the militia.
Quoting from 10 USC 246 Section (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.”
So how can a law explicitly denying a member of the militia the right to purchase arms not an infringement?
And further, if explicitly denying a member of the militia the ability to purchase a firearm isn’t an infringement, what is?