BREAKING NEWS! MASSIVE 2A VICTORY IN YOUNG ADULT CARRY CASE IN FLORIDA!

[00:00:00]Major breaking news as an appellet court in Florida has just declared that the state's ban on 18, 19, and 20 year olds being able to conceal carry is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. This is a huge win for the Second Amendment.

[00:00:17]Another big win in a major state. The Overton window continues to expand in favor of the right to keep and bear arms. And I'm happy to report another huge precedent in favor of the right to keep marams has just been established.

[00:00:30]This is big news folks and the good news keeps right on coming. Let's break it down when we come right back.

[00:00:38]Hey folks, I'm Mark Smith, host of the four box and diner, proud American gun owner, constitutional attorney of the United States Supreme Court Bar and I'm proud to say the top voice of the Second Amendment in America. Thank you 2025 and 2026 gun news awards. All right, we have a huge great news, big win for the Second Amendment in a huge way. An appellet court in the state of Florida in the case of Jaylen Eubanks versus Florida has just found that the state's ban on 18, 19, and 20 year olds being able to conceal carry is unconstitutional under the federal second amendment. That's right. This law has just gone bye-bye thanks to a dec decision by the district court of appeal of the state of Florida for the fourth district. The case of Eubanks versus Florida. Here's what the court had to say about setting it up and finding indeed that the law preventing young American adults from carrying in Florida is unconstitutional. Check it out. Can law-abiding adults aged 18 to 20 be prohibited from exercising their Second Amendment rights to self-defense available to other law-abiding adults?

[00:01:44]The plain text of the Constitution and our country's history and tradition say no. Restricting 18 to 20 year olds, members of the same political community as other law-abiding adults from rights to self-defense would make the Second Amendment a secondass right. Thus, the relevant Florida statute, which disqualifies law-abiding adults aed 18 to 20 from being able to satisfy the criteria for concealed carry that is available to other law-abiding adults, is unconstitutional.

[00:02:10]We therefore find that this statutory provision is facially unconstitutional as it relates to 18 to 20 year oats.

[00:02:18]Fantastic news, folks. Again, another huge win in another huge state advancing the ball for a right to keep him arms. And it's pretty clear that the attorney general down there in Florida, James Utmire, continues to do a great job of expanding and protecting and in many respects restoring the right to keep and bear arms. Now, before we break down this decision a little bit more, I want to remind you why even if you are not 18, 19, or 20 years of age in Florida, this is still a big win. It means a lot for all of us in the Second Amendment community for several reasons.

[00:02:52]And I want to remind you why this is such a big deal. Just as a practical matter from a moral perspective, obviously even if you're not in that age cohort, the reality is you probably know people that are 18, 19, and 20 year olds, you know, maybe you have a niece or a nephew that's a nurse that has to work late in an ICU at a local hospital.

[00:03:10]Maybe they have to go to their law firm as a parallegal and they have to go through parking garages late at night and they're not allowed to carry guns, which means they're exposed to all sorts of criminality and predators. And of course, even if you don't know the people, we don't want innocent law-abiding Americans that are 18, 19, and 20 to be, you know, to suffer uh at the hands of evil predators. So, we want them to be able to protect themselves because today in the 21st century, 18, 19, and 20 year olds are full-blown adults. The second thing, of course, this continues to open up the Overton window as to what is politically acceptable. The more we can expand the number of people in the United States that are exercising their right to keep and bear arms as part of their lived experiences, the stronger, the better, the bigger our Second Amendment community becomes. So now if we can add 18, 19, and 20 year olds, of which there are millions of them in the United States, to the cohort that enjoys an exercise of the right to keep arms, that makes it harder for the anti-gunners to politically and successfully ban, restrict, or otherwise shut down our Second Amendment right to keep him arms.

[00:04:20]Likewise, and this is about methodology, remember as I've explained to you that precedent is like brick by brick by brick. So every win for the Second Amendment, whether it be in the appellet court in Florida, whether it be an appellet court in Toledo or in San Francisco or in Maryland or in Vermont, it doesn't matter. Every single win for the right to keep and bear arms anywhere in this country is another brick in the wall that allows us to continue to build and protect our right to keep and bear arms. So even if you don't live in Florida, a Second Amendment victory in Florida will help you where you live because it's another precedent that judges around the country, including the US Supreme Court, can ultimately cite to in our favor. And now here's another victory that applies the Breuan methodology correctly, which is the plain text first and then after assuming that the desire to carry guns falls within the plain text, which obviously does because the right to bear arms means the right to carry guns in public for self-defense. So, if you want to carry a gun, but you can't do it, obviously your activity is covered by the plain text, which means the burden shifts to the government, in this case, the state of Florida, to demonstrate there's a historical traditional firearms regulation that would justify 18, 19, and 20-year-olds being banned from carrying guns. And there's simply no way to do this because as part of the methodology and you've heard me talk about this many times, you've even probably read my law reviewview article, a very prominent one that's been cited hundreds of thousands of times at this point in various legal briefs and whatnot, explaining why the proper time period for assessing the historical dish of firearms regulation is 1791 when the second amendment was adopted along with the rest of the bill of rights. There's a bunch of reasons why I've explained this, not least of which is if you want to understand what a contract means, you want to understand what the contract meant when the parties entered at the time they entered into it. So, because the Bill of Rights came into existence in 1791, you need to look at what the Bill of Rights meant, what the Second Amendment in 1791. And I'm happy to report uh that's something I've written about, for example, in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy and all sorts of other things. I'm happy to report that this court literally embraced 1791. Again, further bricks, further precedents showing that the proper time period is 1791 for interpreting the Second Amendment. And this is a very, very big deal, folks, because in 1791, there's very few laws dealing with firearms outside of misusing firearms or functioning as a dangerous threat to others with firearms. That remains verboten. But generally speaking, in 1791 at the founding era of the country with the relatively few gun control laws, in contrast to where the anti-gunners want to sort of measure where they start the historical tradition of firearms regulation, the anti-gunners want to look to a different period 100 years later. They want to talk about the time period after the Civil War because there's a lot more gun control laws after the Civil War as states start to embrace what are known as the Black Codes of Jim Crow and they're passing gun control laws with the understanding that they would only really be applied to African-American the freed African-American slaves. So, you start to see more gun control laws in the late 19th century. And that's why it's so important and that's why I wrote the article right after Brun was decided that we have to make sure when you measure what is the historical jurisd regulation, you have to look to 1791 to see what the laws were then and not the 14th amendment 1868 time period because that's where the anti-guners are going to go. And that of course is where they're going to go. And I'm happy to say here, and again, this is another example why even if you don't live in Florida, even if you're not 18, 19, or 20 years of age, it is why this decision in Eubanks versus Florida is very good for us because it literally embraces the notion that 1791 is the proper time period for assessing if there's a historical tradition of firearms regulation that's analogous to the modern day gun control law and that 1791 is the key period. Here's what the court has to say. Bruins application the historical tradition because the second amendment presumptively protects the right of 18 to 20 year olds to the public carry of firearms which includes concealed carry then the burden shifts to the state to demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this nation's historical tradition of firearms regulation this burden has not been met here has not been met here by Florida and then it goes on to say in this opinion that As to the historical method, the US Supreme Court generally assumed that the scope of the protection applicable to the federal government and the states is pegged to the public understanding of the right when the Bill of Rights was adopted in, drum roll please, 1791.

[00:09:00]There you go. another brick in the wall that says that the time period for assessing whether or not there's a historical tradition of firearms regulation which is the burn is on the government is pegged to 1791. Now it's also great that the methodology in this case of Eubanks uh continues to be consistent with what I teach here on the four boxes diner the proper definitions from Heler. Who are the people? What does the right to keep mean? What does the right to bear mean? What is an arm?

[00:09:30]All this stuff laid out beautifully in this opinion. Take a look at what they say next and tell me if it sounds familiar with things you've learned here at the Farbox of Diner. Check it out.

[00:09:40]When determining if the statute is constitutional, we start with the United States Constitution. But even before the enactment of the Second Amendment and concurrent with the founding era, William Blackstone referred to the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense. citing to William Blackstone who we've talked to talked about a lot on this channel. And then the court goes on to say in this Eubanks case that the second amendment of the US Constitution provides a well- reggulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. And then he goes on to point out, tell me if this sounds familiar as well, folks. A key clause in the Second Amendment is that the people's right to keep an arm shall not be infringed. The definition of infringe at the time of the founding, see at the time of the founding is to violate, to break laws or contracts or to destroy or to hinder. Citing to Samuel Johnson, 1773, that lexographer we've always talked about in his English dictionary.

[00:10:43]And they also cite to another thing, uh, William Perry from 1788, not to be confused with the defensive tackle for the Chicago Bears, William Perry. But this is the William Perry that wrote the standard, the Royal Standard English dictionary published in 1788, again, 3 years before 1791. You see why it's important that we learn about founding era dictionaries to define terms in the Second Amendment. That's right. And he defines to infringe to mean to violate, destroy, or hinder. And then the court goes on to say because infringement could mean just hindering total destruction of the right was not required. Merely hindering that right would be sufficient to constitute an infringement. In this case, the inability of law-abiding adults aed 18 to 20 to use concealed carry available to all law- abiding adults 21 and older would certainly classify as a hindrance and as such an infringement of their Second Amendment rights. Exactly right.

[00:11:39]Again, you see how the court in the Eubanks case in Florida is setting more precedent in our favor by relying upon founding era dictionaries written by founding era lexographers. We've gone over this before. A lexographer is a person who compiles dictionaries. The most important ones for our purposes is Samuel Johnson who was an English Tory who at Oxford University at the time wrote an English English dictionary that the US Supreme Court has repeatedly relied upon to interpret the constitution which was enacted at the time of Samuel Johnson's dictionary.

[00:12:12]Beyond that, let's take a look at how this Florida appellet court embraces all the proper definitions. Because, as we've gone over before, when you interpret the plain text of the Second Amendment in a Second Amendment case, you your analysis of the plain text is a linguistic analysis. It's a linguistic analysis. You try to understand what each word meant, what every phrase meant in the 18th century. Then when the burn shifts to the government, once the plain text has been implicated by the conduct you want to engage in, like carrying a gun or whatever it is, then the burn shifts to the government. At that point, it becomes a historical analysis where you look to historical laws, historical regulations, and the burden is on the government to show there is indeed a long-standing historical tradition of some sort of restriction. For example, that's easy to establish to show that you're not allowed to use a gun to commit murder, rape, or robbery. that's always been outlawed with the use of guns and otherwise. So, that would be an example of a long-standing historical tradition that the government would able to meet the burden that says you can't use a gun to commit murder would be something that would be consistent with and upheld despite, for example, the text of the Second Amendment. Now, with that said, check out the definitions that this court uses and you'll see how familiar these definitions are.

[00:13:25]Something you've heard repeatedly here at the far boxes. Check it out next. the brewin application of the plain text of the second amendment. Based on the framework in brewin, we must first determine whether the second amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct. If so, then the constitution presumptively protects that conduct.

[00:13:41]Initially, the right to keep arms encompasses the right to public carry of a firearm. Additionally, 18 to 20 year olds are part of the people. The people referred to in the second amendment. The term the people refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset signed to Heler.

[00:13:59]Heler also referred to the people as law-abiding responsible citizens. And in brewing, the court, meaning the Supreme Court reiterated that ordinary law-abiding adult citizens are part of the people whom the Second Amendment protects. That's all perfect. Exactly what we've talked about on the four box of diner. When you do the linguistic analysis, you're analyzing the language of the plain text of the Second Amendment. You use the definitions that the Supreme Court used in Heler. And the definitions the Supreme Court used in Heler were all from dictionaries used at the time of the founding. Now, the other interesting thing here is remember how I explained to you, I think I talked about this at the Federalist Society. I think I've talked about this at gun owners of America and the Second Amendment Foundation's uh gun rights policy conference. I repeatedly explained that even assuming that there is historical evidence at the time of the founding that 18, 19, and 20 year olds were considered minors or or they could have their gun rights restricted. All of which I think is sketchy history because of course the militia act of 1792 literally said that 18, 19, and 20 year olds have to bring their own guns with them to militia musters. So, one wonders how can you bring a gun with you at the age of 18, 19 or 20 uh in 1792 if you're not able and you don't have the right to acquire the guns and the ammunition in the first place. But set that issue aside, which I think is a waiting issue for us. But let's assume for the sake of argument that even in 1718, even assuming in 1791 and 1819 and 20-year-old had no right to keep and bear arms, which I don't think is true, but let's assume that's the case. It actually doesn't help the gunners, the anti-gunners today because today 18, 19, and 20-year-olds are no longer minors.

[00:15:36]So the historical principle theoretically could be that if you're a minor, you could be denied your right to keep arms at the time of the founding.

[00:15:42]But then when you apply that legal principle, that historical tradition today in the 21st century, you find that yeah, okay, you can ban minors, let's say, from possessing firearms, but because 18, 19, and 20-year-olds are not minors. That historical principle does not deny 18, 19, and 20 year olds today in 2026 their right to keep marriage because they're no longer minors. And that is a point that was basically embraced by this court in Florida in the Eubanks matter. Take a look at what they have to say. Tell me what you think. We do not define adults today as starting at age 21 like adult was defined at the time of the founding. We define adulthood today in the world we know.

[00:16:18]Similarly, we do not define weapons of self-defense as being limited to musketss or firelocks. As Helder explained, such an argument borders on frivolous because we do not interpret constitutional rights that way. The court here goes on to say 18 to 21 year olds in Florida today, in other words, adults are analogous to legal adults at the time of the founding, not legal minors. The Constitution's protections are not limited to those persons who are older than the most common age of majority in the 1700s. Exactly right.

[00:16:47]Even assuming that there's a legal principle at the time of the found that you can ban minors from having guns. It does no good today for the anti-gun movement because today minors do not include 18, 19, and 20-year-olds who can enter into contracts. They can get married. They can change their sex. They can join the military. They can do all sorts of things including the right to vote. So again, uh the principle derived pres presumably at the time of the founding for the sake of argument uh that minors could be denied the right to keep merarms uh doesn't do any good for the anti-gunners because again 18 19 and 20y olds are not minors today. So anyway, this is a huge win for the second amendment not just because it's great to expand the scope and the number of people in the second amendment community that are exercising their rights in a lived experience every day.

[00:17:29]Now you got 180 and 20 years in Florida that will be able to do this. That's great. more support for our community, for our rights and so on. But beyond that, also the methodology that's been embraced by this court was correct and can be cited by other courts moving forward in favor of the right to keep in Brahms. And that is a very good thing all the way across the board, including for those people that are over the age of 21 and for those of people who do not live in Florida. It's still a big win for all of us in this community for the reasons that I've just articulated. All right, folks. There you have it. I hope you enjoyed today's episode. Make sure you follow me on xforoxarn. Don't forget to subscribe both the YouTube and the Rumble and I'll talk to you again real soon here at the four boxes diner.

[00:18:07]>> Orders up. Table 2 A.