TX CCW age lawsuit

G

gimike

New member
Texas has had a lawsuit filed by one of its' citizens to lower the required CCW age from 21 to 18. The position of the State of Texas is that an 18 year olds maturity level is insufficient to merit the responsibility of carrying a concealed weapon. The NRA has joined in the battle claiming that at 18, citizens are old enough to join the service and fight for their country, therefore they should be old enough to carry a concealed weapon. Seems on the surface, a legitimate argument. What about below the surface?

I can only speak from my own experience. I don't remember the exact number of fist-fights I have had in my life, but I can honestly say, I've had none since age 22. Whether this is because I matured, became more tolerant of others, or simply "filled out" a little more, could be debated. I'd like to think, that somewhere between 18 and 22, I figured out it was always better to avoid a fight if possible.

On to the "fight for your country" argument. In Texas, a CCW permit requires (among others) a 12 hour class. To serve in the military, requires (among others) a five to 13 week training period. I think my position on this debate will be: " I agree that 18 year olds should be allowed to apply for a CCW if they complete a five to thirteen week training course.

I'd be interested in hearing you sound off about this issue!
 
Lots of things you can, and cannot do at 18

At 18:
You can drive a car (now there's a deadly weapon)
You can get married (see above:rolleyes:)
You can vote (and aren't we so much better off)
You can drink alcohol (in some places, but not in others. Many places that had an 18yr old limit have raised them back to 21)
You can buy a rifle or shotgun from a FFL dealer (but not a handgun)
You can join the military (a controlled environment when you handle weapons in training, and thats the only time you handle weapons, outside of combat ops)
You can be legally tried as an adult (and you should be)

You cannot get a concealed carry permit in most states.
You cannot be president
You cannot be tried as a juvenile (nor should you be)
You cannot get the best rates on auto insurance (because, as a group, you have more accidents)
You cannot buy handgun ammunition (unless its for a rifle, and sometimes, not even then)

At 18, you are in a twilight zone. Too old to be a child, yet not fully an adult, except as provided by law.

I'm sure there are a lot of things I left out in both parts of the list, it has been a long time since I was 18, and quite a while since my youngest child was. But the point is that while individual 18yr olds may be responsible, as a group, they are not, compared to older (21) supposed "adults".

Society, and its laws must take into account the least responsible average, to promote public safety. And an awful lot of 18yr olds still have a lot of growing up to do in order to be responsible adults.

The whole argument that at 18 you are able to go and fight for your country, therefore you ought to be safe with weapons (and/or drinking, etc.) is a red herring. Serving military personel do not carry loaded arms at their whim. They are not allowed to, and for good reason. They are allowed arms only in the course of their duty. I was there, I know what a group of young soldiers can be, both good and bad. And overall, I think its a good policy, because there are some real idiots out there, and most of them are on the young side.

A person can be smart, but people are stupid. And the laws are made to account for people, more than any person.

I wish you luck, as at 18, if you are legally an adult for some things, you should be an adult for ALL things. Equal treatment under the law, you know.

BUT, we still have a carryover from our past, where things happened a lot slower. The whole system of juvenile justice, for one, but that's a topic for a different discussion.

We all go through it. Grit you teeth, grin and bear it, the 3 years from 18 to 21 can seem like the longest time in your life, but it isn't. And the older you get, the more you recognise (hopefully) that 18yr olds are not being picked on or punished. More like training wheels for adulthood. They won't keep you from falling, but they will help keep some things from making you crash.
 
If your not able to PURCHASE a handgun at 18, then why would you be able to CARRY one? I dont know of very many 18 year olds that are responsible enough to carry a firearm. Heck, I know a lot of 30+ 'adults' that dont fall into that catagory. I would imagine that most of the teenagers that inlist were far from 'responsible enough' when they did so. Now after their training may be a different story and as mentioned above, they are still heavily supervised. I'm going to dig down deep here and say that I was NOT ready for that responsibility at 18, were you?
 
44AMP said:
Society, and its laws must take into account the least responsible average, to promote public safety. And an awful lot of 18yr olds still have a lot of growing up to do in order to be responsible adults.
Click to expand...


Problem is, most idiotic, irresponsible, dangerous teenagers that I've known simply "grow up" into idiotic, irresponsible, dangerous adults.

Yes, some things change. I was a fairly irresponsible driver when I was young. I drove too fast, but not "stupid". Some things DON'T change. I was never, ever irresponsible or dangerous with firearms. There are certain things that you just *know* better.

People I know who party and drink too much, or are prone to fits of rage, at 18 are still, mostly, doing it at 40. People who are 40 and doing it were doing it at 18 too.

I don't see an age limit.

I stopped driving too fast because it got expensive.... and my kids and wife depend on me.... not because I wouldn't still do it if I didn't have responsibilities.

Firearms are a different world. I've never seen anyone "learn" to treat them correctly. Yes, there's the 4 rules, but people seem to basically instinctively get it or don't get it.

Those who don't, don't.
 
If your not able to PURCHASE a handgun at 18, then why would you be able to CARRY one?
Click to expand...
In TX (and in some other states) you can legally purchase a handgun at 18, you just can't purchase one from an FFL holder.
 
My position of requiring a five to thirteen week training course was tongue in cheek. No one would be willing to take or could afford such a course.

Well, after reading some of the replies, I realized I was guilty of one of the things I hate most. I personally limited the scope of the Second Amendment by posting my opinion about what age is okay to carry a gun. Shame on me. Of course all law abiding citizens should have the right to arm themselves.

Unfortunately, in today's society, where so many parents have not done a stellar job of raising their children to be responsible, proper training should remain a prerequisite to carrying a firearm in public. I apologize for my momentary lapse in judgment.
 
Last edited:
I'm currently 19 and I'm anxiously awaiting for my 21st BD, although I already own many handguns.

I read on another thread/forum that if you aren't responsible enough to carry a firearm at 18 to expect people to suddenly change in 3 years is nonsensical.
 
How about this for argument. Law enforcement officers safety act. Even if an officer is under 21 years of age they are still able to carry a concealed handgun off duty under federal law.

So not mature enough to get a permit but mature enough to enforce the laws of the land (including this one:p) and carry a pistol anyways.:confused:
 
@espnazi - Of course, that argument can be used on down the line. If 18 is essentially 21 because they're only separated by 3 years... What about 15 and 18? Hey, they're only separated by 3 years. And 12 and 15? Somewhere you have to draw a line. Where that line is to be drawn certainly is debatable, but I think it's bogus to pull the "yeah, but 18's practically 21" argument simply because you DO have to draw a line.

@teeroux - Out of curiousity, where does one find an LEO under 21? I realize such things are probably state dependent, but I've never heard of a state that didn't have a min age of 21 for LEO before.... So out of curiousity, where are you?


As for the OP.... My first & last fist fight was age 12. Does that mean I should have been able to carry at age 13?
 
I think one of the strongest arguments for 18 year olds to have full citizenship is the fact that they are tried and sentenced as adults.

Every one probably agrees that we need some laws to maintain the general peace and order, but I believe that the lowest common denominator (worst possible outcome) is not a proper threshold in a free society. Expect better and, as a rule, you get better. Treat everyone as a potential criminal and pretty soon you see everyone as a potential criminal. The rational for a certain law does not always stand the test of time. The 18 year old vote is an example. The disparity of privileges given and denied 18 year olds is difficult to understand. When we draw a line, we should at least draw it straight.

Let's move this one to Law & Civil Rights.
 
@teeroux - Out of curiousity, where does one find an LEO under 21?
Click to expand...

My immediate supervisor just turned 20. I also work with a few other fellas under 21. You can find lots of young guys working for sheriffs offices or small PDs.
 
Don't take this wrong teeroux, but LA should be ashamed of itself. I'm not gonna apologize for this statement but NO 20 year old has any business being a LEO supervisor. No wonder a majority of the state is so screwed up.
 
Bud, call me pesamistic (I call it realistic, not much difference) but I do see eveybody as a potential criminal until im proven otherwise. Seems like a safer way to be. I do agree with the 'straight line' and it should be drawn at 21.

A 20 year old law enforcement supervisor?? Isn't a supervisor (in any field) supposed to be experienced above and beyond that of entry level people? I'm apalled by this and am only reassured of the dire state of our country.
 
Just so we are all on the same page, there are actually 2 NRA sponsored lawsuits on this. Both were filed at the same time in Texas.

The first is D'Cruz v. BATFE. This suit seeks to invalidate those portions of 18 U.S.C. § 921 and § 922 that prohibit a person aged 18 to 20 from buying ammunition that is being fired from a handgun and the prohibitions on FFL's from selling a person aged 18 to 20 a handgun.

This is strictly an attack on federal law that otherwise would treat those aged 18 to 20 as something less than full adults. Federal criminal gun laws are the only federal criminal laws that make such a distinction. For all other purposes, federal law considers a person, at age 18, to be a full adult.

The other lawsuit, the one the OP is opining about, is D'Cruz v. McCraw. Here the State of Texas is being sued under equal protection and infringement of the right to self-defense. You have to remember that under Texas law, the only manner in which you can carry, is concealed. And that only if you have the State issued CHL.

The reasoning behind these NRA civil rights lawsuits is quite simple. Since all the States, as well as the Federal government has deemed those aged 18 and above to be full adults, as far as criminal liability extends, then it is an infringement of their civil rights to withhold the protections afforded under the second amendment from this group of people.

Those of you that bring up the drinking age, are arguing a red herring. Drinking is not a right that is anywhere protected by any constitution, State or Federal.

The only real question here is that if the States and the Feds have set the legal age of majority at a certain point (in this case, 18), either all rights and protections ensue or none of them do.
 
I legally carried a sidearm in AZ at age 16. Current law says 16-18 have several restrictions, but can carry. 18-20 are back to where we were before 1994 on carry, open carry 99%, and 21 and up are Constitutional Carry. Maybe we can drop that to 18 next year.
I said when I turned 18 that I was an adult on probation for three years.
 
I recently read that the human brain is not entirely mature until about age 25. That'd sure be a big factor to me if I had anything to say about the matter.
 
That's true. The prefrontal lobes which are used for rational processes and inhibit impulsive behavior are not mature yet. It's well known.

However, that would argue for moving up the ages for lots of things to 21. The discrepancy is that we let kids vote, marry and die for our country earlier.

Also, with modern tech, we could probably scan many adults and test them for such impulsitivity. Should we take away their votes, guns and marriage rights?

Interesting issue.

Working with this age group, you do see alot of silliness to dangerous behavior. That make the argument complicated.
 
Are we there yet?

Expect better and, as a rule, you get better. Treat everyone as a potential criminal and pretty soon you see everyone as a potential criminal.
Click to expand...

Sadly, Bud, I think that if we aren't already there, in many ways, we are darn'd close. Wasn't it Ayn Rand who said something about (paraphrase) "there's no way to rule honest men, that in order to do so, they had to be made criminals in one way or other?"

Are we there yet? I'm sure we are closer than we used to be.

18yr olds got the vote, not because they were thought responsible adults (that could serve and die in our military), but because a political group thought they could gain an advantage by giving them the vote. Cynical, perhaps, but I believe it to be true. And I was one of those affected at the time.

Peetza, I fully agree that a lot of the irresponsible teens don't change, and just become older, physically. But some do change, most I think, to some degree. But the ones who don't are trouble for us at 40, like they were at 18, maybe worse, since they have had practice.;)

Once upon a time, our courts would offer some youthful offenders the choice between jail, and the military. I served with many. Most straightened up. A few didn't, and either got booted out with a bad discharge, or went to Leavenworth first, then got booted. I don't think they do that today, probably for what is held to be a good reason.

I do agree that if we are to draw a line, that it ought to be a straight line. That is Constitutional. What we have done, by not drawing a straight line, is to create another set of "second class citizens", abiet a temporary one. Looking back, nearly 40 years after the fact, we should not have done it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top