In the aftermath of Parkland, Florida did something kind of stupid. They passed a slew of gun control measures all because they figured they had to Do Something (TM).

Among the measures they passed was a law that prevented legal adults under the age of 21 from purchasing long guns.

Federal law already prohibited them from buying handguns, but since they could have things like shotguns for home defense, there was some argument that they still had their Second Amendment rights.

With Florida’s law, one similar to those on the books in some other states, suddenly that door was shut entirely.

Now, that measure is going to have its day in court.

A federal appeals court next month will hear arguments in the National Rifle Association’s constitutional challenge to a Florida law that prevents people under age 21 from purchasing rifles and other long guns.

…

As the Florida lawsuit has played out, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued closely watched opinions in other gun-related cases. That has resulted in attorneys for Florida and the NRA debating how the Supreme Court opinions should apply to the dispute about the constitutionality of the age restriction.

The NRA argued in a July 31 brief that the Florida law did not align with a 2022 Supreme Court opinion in a case known as New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which said gun laws must be “consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

“This law is unconstitutional. The Second Amendment’s text protects young adults’ right to purchase a firearm, and the state has not proven that the ban is consistent with our nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The young adult ban cannot stand,” John Parker Sweeney, an attorney with the Washington, D.C.-based Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP firm, wrote in the brief.

But in an Aug. 30 brief, the state’s attorneys contended that the law “fits neatly within” the nation’s “historical tradition.” While the law bars people under 21 from buying rifles and other long guns, they are able to get the guns, for example, as gifts from relatives.

Honestly, I find that argument to be especially idiotic.

If your rights depend on the actions of another person, you don’t have your rights. My right to speak freely doesn’t exist only because someone opts to hand me a microphone. My freedom of religion doesn’t only exist if I’m invited to church. As such, my right to keep and bear arms doesn’t only exist if someone gifts me a firearm.

What about those young but legal adults who are estranged from their families? Do they not have the right to keep and bear arms?

And no, nothing about this is consistent with our nation’s history, text, or tradition regarding the Second Amendment. Once again, we have a state treating the Second Amendment as a second-class right, one that can be denied to people for no valid reason.

My hope is that the appeals court holds this to the Bruen standard, and then smacks it down, just as they should.

These young Floridians deserve to have their rights respected and the so-called Gunshine State damn sure isn’t doing that.