The Newest NRA Lawsuits - Texas

wally626 said:
Purchase of handguns is an age of license issue not an age of majority.
Click to expand...
Nope. At issue are the Federal Statutes that prohibit a anyone with a Federal Firearms License (FFL) from selling handguns to any person under the age of 21. Also at issue, is the general prohibition of any merchant selling ammunition which is generally used in handguns, to any person under the age of 21.

This is not a licensing issue at all. It is a federal requirement for FFL's and those who sell ammunition. That is what is being challenged in the first case.

The second case is specifically challenging the Texas Concealed Carry laws, in as much as they deny the Fundamental Right of Self-Defense to adult citizens.

A drivers license is irrelevant, as the majority will quickly say that this is a privilege and not a right (I don't agree, but I'm in the minority). The same goes for drinking. That also is not an enumerated right.

The other things you mentioned (marriage, service, contracts) are rights and you will notice that they are all available once you reach 18. Hunting is special, in that both the State and Federal Governments have a compelling interest in keeping the game (and habitat) available to all. The laws governing this are narrowly constructed and are the least restrictive means to achieve that goal.
 
sundog said:
Is there a legal definition for 'age of majority'?
Click to expand...

Forgive me for forgetting about your question.

Yes, there are definitions. The age at which a person, formerly a minor or an infant, is recognized by law to be an adult, capable of managing his or her own affairs and responsible for any legal obligations created by his or her actions.

The common law age of majority was 21. Before this (medieval times), the age was 25. However, each State has the ability to set the age at whatever arbitrary age it wants. "If a legislative body wishes, for whatever purpose, it can wave a magic wand and emancipate (a minor) to suit its convenience. Though 21 usually is the dividing line between minority and majority, the age of majority in Michigan (in 1972) is now 18. The state seemingly can be as arbitrary as it pleases in raising or lowering the barrier for all or just some purposes." Smith v Smith (1972) 433 Mich. 606 (as an example of what the courts have said).

As a federal construct, the age is now 18. The same goes for the State of Texas (and many other States).
 
What other fundamental right is withheld from an adult, by governmental action, based solely upon age?
Click to expand...

None,

So what?

Al, you ignored my basic premise, viz: That a case could be factually presented that demonstrates that the restriction in question is not arbitrary but rather, well within the bounds of evolving 2nd Am Jurisprudence.

Undeveloped cortices? Makes a great record for the Court below. How many "children" (nyuk nyuk) commit gun homicides.

There have been several recent cases that illustrate how the facts, present or absent, can effect what a Court does. And if the restriction in question is arbitrary, why are you arguing with me about the facts:p

WildandihavemoreAlaska ™©2002-2010

Wild
 
Ken, I would posit that we are merely debating probable legal points. Any arguments would actually have to wait until we see the responses from the feds and the State.

As for your premise, I would think it would be more a State argument than a Federal argument, for the reasons given in the definition to sundog.
 
If the Constitution can set arbitrary age limits on the Presidency, the Senate and the House, it can also set the age of majority (a term of art meaning adulthood). Laws must then abide by those Constitutional limitations.
Click to expand...
Then at least make it consistent. Either have the age be 21 or 18 across the board.

One might take the road that 18 years are not responsible. Evidence shows not full developed front cortices that inhibit risky behavior. That we let them have guns in the military is ok because they are tightly supervised.
Click to expand...
Yet we let them own shotguns and rifles at 18 and drive at 16 in many places.

Drinking? Sorry, there is no right to drink alcoholic beverages. Even the passage of the 18th amendment, the Congress did not claim or state that drinking alcohol was a right.
Click to expand...
Congress has never claimed or stated that bring allowed to own a computer and radio is a right either, what's your point?

Congress has no right to restrict that activity. The federal government is supposed to only have the enumerated powers delegated to it in the constitution. (yea yea, I know they don't follow it.) Any powers not delegated to the federal government are left to the states. Every part of alcohol regulation is left to the states except for the drinking age which the government implicitly admits that it has no right to regulate because it has to do it via tying it to highway funding.
 
Crosshair, my point was simply that it took a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol. In doing so, the Congress never prohibited possession, and conversely, the Congress didn't call it a right like they did in the 26th amendment.

I also think most of us plebes would consider the commerce clause interpreted so broadly that there are very few, if any, restrictions left.:p
 
Crosshair, my point was simply that it took a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol. In doing so, the Congress never prohibited possession, and conversely, the Congress didn't call it a right like they did in the 26th amendment.
Click to expand...
OK, I was thinking about the 2st amendment and you're talking about the 18th.

I also think most of us plebes would consider the commerce clause interpreted so broadly that there are very few, if any, restrictions left.
Click to expand...
So true and good to see the states starting to fight back.
 
What this will come down to

Look guys there are a couple different ways this can go down.
1.) What alot of you fellas are critical of is the age (young enough to die for your country...etc.) That is a loser. What you would be doing there is attacking the law as denying equal protection under the laws due to the age of the plaintiff (being 18-20). That's going to probably lose. Hard. All the gov. has to prove is a rational basis for the law.....and that basis can be very, very, very, loosely tied to the law.

Which is why the NRA has waited until now....when the Supreme Court has ruled the right to bear arms a fundamental right THAT APPLIES TO THE STATES (through the 14th amendment). Leading us to:
2.) Fundamental right (and this is how plaintiff is doing it) Uncle Sam is going to have to prove 2 things:
A.) Narrowly tailored legislation tied directly to
B.) a compelling state interest.
Basically, Uncle Sam has to prove an exceptionally good reason for the law, and must show their is no real better way of accomplishing that goal.
 
Patches, you're assuming that the court will rule that strict scrutiny applies.

And what of the other suit? The one against the Texas CCW age?

For this strategy to work, both suits must be won.
 
Correct, I am assuming the court will rule that strict scrutiny will apply. I think they will, this has been adjudicated to be a fundamental right applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment. Making an equal protection argument, without arguing a fundamental right turns this case into a loser.

The CCW law would probably be tied in with this case. I don't see how one could not influence the other.
 
Not meaning to change the subject, but is this law suit really the efforts of the NRA or are they claiming credit for someone else's work?
Apparently, the NRA has, disturbingly, been accused of doing just that, with recent legal victories that others initiated, paid for, conducted and won.
Anyone know?
 
Patches, you're assuming that the court will rule that strict scrutiny applies.
Click to expand...
It's an equal protection case involving a "fundamental" enumerated right. It'd be hard to get around that.

In Boston or Baltimore, maybe. In Lubbock, I think we stand a good chance. Furthermore, the other side has to articulate an "important" government interest at the very least. What government interest is served by denying 2nd Amendment rights to 18-20 year olds?

While the other side could trot out selective mortality tables to show that folks in that age range die at higher rates than other ranges, the range in question usually covers up to age 25. Basically, I'm more likely to get shot at 18 than I am at 40, but I'm still more likely to get shot at 22 than I am at 40.

Not meaning to change the subject, but is this law suit really the efforts of the NRA or are they claiming credit for someone else's work?
Click to expand...
And we're off the reservation. Bonus points for attempted subtlety, however.

D'Cruz v. BATFE is being argued by attorneys from Cooper & Kirk, who are regular litigants for the NRA.
 
Yet we let them own shotguns and rifles at 18 and drive at 16 in many places.
Click to expand...

Those are the most important points to me. Teens are a lot more likely to kill the rest of us using their cars than their guns, but the real question that needs to be asked is:

If they can outlaw transfers of handguns to 18-20 year olds, why not other guns?
 
Double edged sword. The irresponsibility of young drivers is well known. So how does that help the gun argument? Maybe we should take away their cars? It's been argued.

Also, one can argue that rifles and shotguns are more important in a sporting paradigm. That is not a major reason for handguns (yes, folks do handgun hunt).

Be careful with this sort of argument. If it is that they misgbehave with Y so they should have X to misbehave with, that is not a winning argument.
 
What government interest is served by denying 2nd Amendment rights to 18-20 year olds?
Click to expand...

Good point. The age restriction of 21 years or older is one of the last vestiges of the statutory requirement of 21 to vote or be legally considered an adult. In the military, 18-yr olds and even 17-yr olds are routinely issued handguns and expected to use them.

True, teenage drivers are responsible for a hugely disproportionate number of traffic accidents, and the drinking age was raised to 21 after the number of accidents spiked when it was lowered to 18. But, neither driving nor drinking are Constitutional rights. The case is a slam-dunk.:cool:
 
Double edged sword. The irresponsibility of young drivers is well known. So how does that help the gun argument? Maybe we should take away their cars? It's been argued.
Click to expand...
Actually, a ten-year-old can buy a car if they want. I don't know who would sell it to them, but there are no laws that I know of that forbid it. Now, getting a license isn't usually allowed until age 16, but then again, cars (and driving) do not enjoy specific constitutional protections. Arms do.

Also, one can argue that rifles and shotguns are more important in a sporting paradigm. That is not a major reason for handguns (yes, folks do handgun hunt).
Click to expand...
Here's the thing. Heller mainly covered the right to own a handgun for the purposes of self-defense. It can be read (as the 7th Circuit did in Skoien) that such is the central right protected by the 2nd Amendment, and that "hunting" and "sporting" are not as sternly protected.

As such, we're back to the question of a unique and arbitrary restriction on what is considered a fundamental right: owning a handgun.
 
The key anti argument is when does the irresponsibility of youth necessitate a reasonable restriction.

That's what they would say. The core of the argument is the discrepancy between 18 and 21 for different things that these age cohorts do and/or have rights to do.
 
saying that an adult citizen is not responsible enough to buy a pistol, because of their age is stereotyping. Just because someone is young does not mean that the individual is irresponsible. If almost any other group was discriminated against, such as not being able to purchase a handgun because of your gender, race, or religion, this law would have been overturned long ago.
 
The age restriction is not reasonable.

Citizens are either adult at 18 or they are not. If they are not, they cannot be criminally charged as an adult; They can not contract; They can not marry; They can not be sent into a combat zone; They can not be drafted, etc. And we would have to change the Constitution to take away voting rights - The Court cannot do this.

If this age group are adults, there are no compelling arguments to maintain a handgun prohibition when allowing other, more powerful firearms (meaning the law is not narrowly tailored to fit the reasons). Remember, the federal law does not prohibit the ownership, it just prohibits an FFL from selling a specific firearm to anyone in this age bracket. The Heller Court has already listed the prohibited item as the quintessential tool, preferred by the public, for self-defense.

The only arguments against, are arguments of emotion, not fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top