The real problem here is that the Right to Keep has been ruled upon. We have yet to have the Circuits, much less the Supreme Court. agree that the Right to Bear means bear in public spaces.
That's what all of Gura's carry cases are about.
Not so the NRA. They have jumped the gun with this case. After all, Texas agrees that there is a right to bear in public spaces, but that right can be regulated. They choose to regulate by having no open carry and a licensing scheme for concealed carry.
Where they disagree is on the age of majority and they have made a very strong showing for regulating that age. As far as the 14th amendment is concerned, the historical age is on their side... Unless you take into account how the 14th reads, as amended. Huh? You didn't know it was amended?
Clause 2, section 2 of amendment 14 (as amended) reads:
But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male OR FEMALE (19th amendment) inhabitants of such State, being
|twenty-one EIGHTEEN (26th amendment) years of age, and citizens of the United States, ...
I would have argued that with the 19th and 26th amendments the gender and age requirements of the 14th were effectively rewritten.
There is also Supreme Court precedent (Roper v. Simmons,
543 U.S. 551 (2005) - Capitol Punishment can not be used on minors/juveniles/infants - those under 18 years) that could have been used to bolster the age of majority argument.
Then the argument becomes that some form of carry must be available to the adult citizens of Texas.
The NRA did none of these things at district court. They can not now bring this up. It is a new argument and not one briefed at the lower court.