Steven Halbrook notes that the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals got the history wrong, but I hadn’t considered this one silver lining:
The government thus asserted that the plaintiffs were not injured and lacked standing. The court disagreed, finding the inability to purchase a handgun from a dealer to be a concrete, particularized injury.
So the Second Amendment protects some right to purchase a handgun in the 5th Circuit. We think such things are obvious, and they should be, but these are the courts we’re talking about. Halbrook also points out the skewed logic of the decision:
Now for the irony of this exercise, the law allows a person aged 18 to 20 to buy a handgun from a non-dealer and allows a person aged 21 or over to buy a handgun and give it to a person aged 18 to 20. Thus, since persons aged 18 to 20 are too untrustworthy to have Second Amendment rights, they do not have to go through a background check when obtaining a handgun. However, anyone purchasing a firearm from a dealer is subject to a background check for criminal convictions, mental commitments and other prohibited categories giving rise to a denial to purchase firearms. The court rejected the argument that this undermines the reasonableness of the fit between the restriction and the objective to keep firearms out of the wrong hands.
The courts have been basically looking for any excuse not to toss any laws out under the Second Amendment. What other right should work this way?