A Conservative Giant Just Gave the Supreme Court Reason to Uphold Youth Gun Bans
BY Herschel Smith
9 hours, 41 minutes ago
It seemed inevitable that these decisions would build a consensus that the Supreme Court might embrace—until Friday, when a court broke from the pack in a surprise decision. By an 8–4 vote, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit last week upheld Florida’s law prohibiting 18- to 20-year-olds from buying guns. Better yet, the court’s opinion was authored by Chief Judge William Pryor, a highly influential George W. Bush appointee. Pryor’s decision is doggedly originalist, a meticulous history lesson that proves the constitutionality of Florida’s ban beyond all reasonable doubt. It might just be persuasive enough to convince his ideological allies on the Supreme Court to uphold this lifesaving limit on the right to bear arms.
It is hard to overstate the significance of these words coming from the pen of a deeply conservative, dyed-in-the-wool Federalist Society stalwart like Pryor. He is arguably the most influential appeals court judge active today: Supreme Court justices regularly cite him by name, invoking his authority to bolster their own arguments—a rare honor reserved for marquee lower-court jurists.
To me, he’s a nobody. I couldn’t care less about him, nor do I play the same game as the “justices” on the supreme court.
I would have thought that Judge James Ho or Judge Don Willett would be much better buddies than Pryor.
As for age, David Codrea has this to say.
No, they’re not sure. They just made it up.
The over-mountain men were pulling in crops and couldn’t go to meet the British forces. They sent their sons. The women lined the roads and sang hymns as they sent their sons off to battle. Their sons won. Thus ended the plans by Cornwallis to use loyalists to win the war.
— CaptainsJournal (@BrutusMaximus50) March 17, 2025
On March 18, 2025 at 10:22 pm, Dan said:
Another anti 2A ruling magiced into existence by black robed pirates who WILLFULLY and with complete knowledge, ignore the clear, concise and undeniable words SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Hang them all.
On March 18, 2025 at 10:55 pm, Rick said:
18 USC 242
Deprivation of rights under color of law.
If death results from acts in violation of this section, this section includes imprisonment for life, or a sentence of death.
Question: If death of a person denied a means of self defense should result from the 11th Circuit opinion, should the court be held liable?
Would this argument stand in a court of law?