The Newest NRA Lawsuits - Texas

Judge Samuel Cummings has denied the MSJ for the plaintiffs and granted the Defendants MSJ in Jennings v. McCraw. This is the same judge that called 18yr olds "infants" in the case BATF case, that is now before the 5th CCA.

In this decision Judge Cummings grants standing on the one hand;

Although Plaintiffs have not actually completed their applications for a CHL, to do so would be futile. The issuance of this license to non-military individuals under 21 years of age is categorically prohibited by statute. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 411.172(a)(2) & (g). Plaintiffs have put forward evidence that they would be qualified for a CHL but for the minimum age requirement, and McCraw has not demonstrated evidence to the contrary. The futility of a formal application, coupled with the fact that Plaintiffs would qualify for a CHL but for the age requirement, is sufficient to confer standing.
Click to expand...

and then turns around and denies it on the other:

Plaintiffs have not alleged facts sufficient to confer standing to challenge Texas Penal Code § 46.02 because they cannot demonstrate a credible threat that McCraw will enforce the statute against them. ... At no point in their complaint do Plaintiffs allege that they desire to carry a handgun openly (as opposed to concealed), concealed without a license, or in a manner inconsistent with the limitations governing licensed concealed carry. And because the possession of a validly issued CHL excepts the license holder from prosecution under Texas Penal Code § 46.02 for all intents and purposes, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated a credible threat of prosecution.

Therefore, the Court is of the opinion that Plaintiffs lack standing to challenge Texas Penal Code § 46.02. The Court is also of the opinion that, because the relief sought by the NRA with respect to its challenge to Texas Penal Code § 46.02 involves the issuance of CHLs for its otherwise qualified 18- to 20-year-old membership, it therefore lacks standing for the same reasons that are fatal to the Individual Plaintiffs’ challenge.
Click to expand...

And then denies the plaintiffs MSJ and grants the defendants MSJ on 2A grounds (markups in the original):

While not skirted entirely, the focus of the parties’ briefing does not center on the breadth of the Second Amendment but rather on the question of at what age does the right to keep and bear arms vest. This approach puts the cart before the horse. Because the Court is of the opinion that the Second Amendment does not confer a right that extends beyond the home, it need not reach the question regarding the age of investiture of such a right. See United States v. Marzzarella, 614 F.3d 85, 89 (3d Cir. 2010) (suggesting that a court’s inquiry into the constitutionality of a statute is complete upon holding that a challenged law does not burden conduct falling within the scope of the Second Amendment’s guarantee).

Therefore, with regard to the Second Amendment issue, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
Click to expand...

Now for the Equal Protection Clause (again, all markups are in the original):

As the Court has discussed above, the licensing scheme does not burden the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.8 Neither does the licensing scheme target a suspect class. Traditionally, suspect class status is applied to a class that has been “saddled with such disabilities, or subjected to such a history of purposeful unequal treatment, or relegated to such a position of political powerlessness as to command extraordinary protection from the majoritarian political process.” San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 28 (1973).

The Supreme Court has categorically rejected age as a suspect classification. Kimel v. Fla. Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62, 83 (2000) (“[A]ge is not a suspect classification under the Equal Protection Clause.”). Therefore, Texas “may discriminate on the basis of age without offending the Fourteenth Amendment if the age classification in question is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.” Id. The Constitution permits states to “draw lines on the basis of age when they have a rational basis for doing so at a class-based level, even if it ‘is probably not true’ that those reasons are valid in the majority of cases.” Id. at 86.
...
Accordingly, with regard to the Equal Protection issues, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.


8 Although pleaded in broad terms, Plaintiffs’ Equal Protection argument seems to center on the infringement of a fundamental right. The Court has rejected that argument. Therefore, the Court will conduct only a short analysis on suspect classification because, although not clear from the complaint, Plaintiffs’ briefing indicates that they likely did not intend to raise this issue.
Click to expand...

The judge has used rational basis to uphold the Texas law. At least he was honest enough not to attempt to cloak it as intermediate scrutiny. Public Safety, trumps the right to self defense. Seemingly, at any age.
 
In NRA, et al v. BATFE et al, currently at the 5th Circuit, we've had the opening brief here and an Amicus brief, by the NSSF, here.

We've now had the response from the Government, and an amicus from the Brady bunch and the reply brief from the NRA.

The governments argument is simple, perhaps too simple:

  • Plaintiffs Lack Standing To Bring This Suit
    • The 18-to-20-Year-Old Plaintiffs Have Failed To Establish That They Cannot Lawfully Obtain Handguns and Handgun Ammunition For Use In
      Self- Defense
    • The Federal Firearms Licensee Plaintiffs Lack Standing To Challenge The Federal Laws On Behalf of Persons Aged 18 To 20 Years Old
  • Plaintiffs’ Claims Fail On The Merits
    • The Challenged Federal Laws Do Not Burden Conduct Protected By The Second Amendment
      1. Restrictions On The Commercial Sale Of Firearms To Persons Under 21 Comport With Historical Understandings Of The Second Amendment Right
      2. Federal And State Militia Laws Did Not Create a Vested Right To Purchase Arms For Individuals Aged 18 to 21
    • Even If Plaintiffs’ Suit Implicates Their Second Amendment Rights, The Challenged Federal Laws Are Constitutional
      1. At Most This Court Should Apply Intermediate Scrutiny
      2. The Challenged Federal Laws Satisfy Intermediate Scrutiny
      3. The Challenged Federal Laws Do Not Violate Plaintiffs’ Rights To Equal Protection
Click to expand...

A long read, but it is instructive as to how the Brady's, the VPC and Handgun Control Inc. (the prior Brady name) began to assemble their distorted facts - straight from the mouth of our dear government.

The Brady brief is the usual whining about how the sky will fall if "children" get their hands on guns, conveniently forgetting the gangbangers who already possess multitudes of firearms.
 

Attachments

The opening brief in NRA v. McCraw (TX 18-20 yr old restricted from CCW's) has been filed.

Every facet of Judge Cummings decision is addressed, particularly the "infant" angle. It's a very, very well plead appeal.
 

Attachments

Good stuff. Let's keep the pressure on all fronts, we're slowly winning our gun rights back from the liberals and other gun banners.
 
Dang. Just the first page of the Introduction is killah. The brief takes Texas' own positions and shows the hypocrisy of the law.

Good stuff indeed!

I wonder how Texas is going to try to get around saying that 18 year olds are the militia, but they can't bear arms ...
 
I have been thinking about all of this stuff...I wonder how many of these people remember pre GCA68. I was one of those "infants" back then. I was over 21 by 68. My dad gave me my first .22 at age 12. He purchased it used at the local hardware store. I had to purchase and pay for my ammo myself with money earned from my paper route.

I presonally (no parent present) purchased my first Rem 700, and my first pistol, a Rugar Bearcat, at 16 with my own earned money at a actual gun store. My best friend had a .44 mag S&W, but then his dad gave him the money.

Guess what...up to 1968 "infants" were not a problem...responsible use was a product of the family...not government mandated training or restrictions.

Those that would use a weapon improperly, generally do not care what the law is. They do what they want to..law? they have no use for it, and still don't. The only people impacted by gun laws are those that will use them responsibily anyway.
 
I think most age restrictions suck the life out of life, I mean, the 21-year old limit on drinking alchoholic(is that spelled right?) beverages makes sense,and it doesn't bother me because I don't intend to drink in my lifetime, but having to wait just as long for a handgun? What makes a 18-20 year-old so unworthy of owning a handgun sold by a FFL?
 
Because MOST people under the age of majority have not acquired enough maturity and responsibility to safely handle firearms without supervision. Of course, age is no guarantee that that has happened, but does make it more likely.

55
-21
34 years of wishing I was 21
 
I don't know, Sparks, I think I'd feel a lot more comfortable with the idea of the 18yo who helped gather and stack our hay bales carrying a gun than I would with the idea of any number of middle-aged guys and old farts carrying a gun.

As far as maturity goes, I often think age is a better predictor of arthritis and hemmorhoids.
 
:D

Note that I qualified my post with a MOST, though you certainly have a good point.

I work with 16-17 year-olds all day, and many of the males especially still have a tendency to run on impulse power with little thought about consequences... but of course, there are exceptions
 
True.

I haven't been 21 (or 18) in a couple decades, but I remember impulses.

Of course, my impulse control still may be lacking a bit, at least when it comes to online ammo purchases or drooling at the LGS...

The thing is, though, I have a problem with age of majority and status offense laws. My take on it is, if the person would be charged as an adult for the crime, then the person should be treated as an adult, period.

In other words, if we want to have drinking age, carry permit age, etc predicated on age 21, then maybe we should move the vote back to age 21, too, and treat 20 and younger as juveniles across the board.

Given that the argument still stands about 18 year olds being draftable, and serving in the military, I don't think that would work. (Nor, frankly, would I advocate it anyway.)

So, my take on things is, if they incur adult liabilities at age 18 (criminal charging; ability to enter into binding contracts; etc) then they should receive full adult benefits at age 18.

Otherwise, older folks beware - because some of the stats about people under 21 being more dangerous in certain areas could come around in other categories to bite people over 65, or 70, etc.

"Hey, it's for the greater good - a 75 year old man should not be allowed to drive a Corvette!"

(Assuming, of course, the 75 year old man's hips and knees will let him enter, exit, and sit in the 'Vette in the first place...)
 
I've always thought that 18 should be the age at which full adult rights are given to people, in every respect. Maybe even 17.
 
Sparks1957 said:
Because MOST people under the age of majority have not acquired enough maturity and responsibility to safely handle firearms without supervision. Of course, age is no guarantee that that has happened, but does make it more likely.
Click to expand...

Most? really? Is this mere anecdote or do you have hard data to back that up?

Let's take another look at what you stated, but substitute other terms to it:

Because MOST people under the age of majority have not acquired enough maturity and responsibility to safely handle firearms manage their own finances/vote/manage a family/drive/drink/serve their country (insert any one of those or insert your own) without supervision. Of course, age is no guarantee that that has happened, but does make it more likely.

Sorry, this is a Brady tactic: Conflating Some or Most for Many.

Do you really think that the fundamental right to self protection can be legislated away, because of an arbitrary age of majority? An age, I might remind you, that has already been lowered to 18 in many, if not most, all other aspects of your life.

If you seriously do think this way, then what other civil rights should we take away from these infants?
 
Sorry, this is a Brady tactic
Click to expand...

No need to be so insulting.

Since I work intensely with teenagers all day at work, and have for many years, I happen to have a tremendous amount of experience observing their behavior and how they handle responsibility.

All experience is anecdotal.
 
Not meant to be insulting, Sparks. If you've read as many Brady & LCAV briefs as I have, you would see that it is exactly their argument, regardless of age.
All experience is anecdotal.
Click to expand...
Yup. It is. My 20 years in the Grocery business, has seen many such anecdotes. Somehow, they are the exact opposite of what you cite.
 
Sparks: Having raised 5 daughters, and now experiencing 14 grandkids...I would agree with you. When I was a kid (pre GCA68) I purchased a rifle and a pistol at a gun store, with my own money, without ANY "adult" present to represent me,,,at age 16. Perfectly legal..

And surprise, surprise...I still have those weapons 50 years later, and they have never jumped out and hurt anyone.
 
He probably means that up until a couple hundred years ago, it was not uncommon for 15 year olds to be parents, soldiers, etc,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top