|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
May 19, 2012, 06:36 PM | #76 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
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.
Quote:
|
|
May 21, 2012, 08:55 PM | #77 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 24, 2011
Posts: 730
|
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. |
May 22, 2012, 12:17 AM | #78 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 7, 2008
Posts: 151
|
Extending childhood all the way to 18/21 is a relatively new phenomenon.
Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2 |
May 22, 2012, 09:38 AM | #79 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, WA
Posts: 1,466
|
Quote:
__________________
Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and valorous feeling which believes that nothing is worth violence is much worse. Those who have nothing for which they are willing to fight; nothing they care about more than their own craven apathy; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the valor of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill) |
|
May 22, 2012, 03:14 PM | #80 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
He probably means that up until a couple hundred years ago, it was not uncommon for 15 year olds to be parents, soldiers, etc,
|
May 22, 2012, 05:10 PM | #81 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Not uncommon to have 15 year old parents and soldiers in some parts of the world today - sadly.
The issue is, for a psychologist, whether impulse control is sufficient at a certain cut off age. For those who want to lower the age to 18, the strongest argument is the rights arguments based on voting, marriage and entering the service. If you want to argue the neurophysiology of impulse control that is not the best argument for the lowering of the age, I have to say. It has been argued that in good old days, the younger males were supervised by older males more than today. Sorry to be a downer on that, but I know what I know. Glenn
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
May 23, 2012, 04:53 AM | #82 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 4, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,552
|
That really was the point I was clumsily trying to make earlier, in the post that got pounced on and got me branded a "Brady-buncher"
My experience is that less kids these days, especially males, have effective role models growing up. We see it more every year in our school, and the result is prolonged childhood, not the other way around. |
May 23, 2012, 08:32 PM | #83 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 24, 2011
Posts: 730
|
You could even call it forced, and enforced, late "childhood". Young people do not accept responsibility because they are not expected to.
When I was 12 I recieved my first firearm (that was "mine", in my room, for me to use when I could afford the ammo) Some back then (50's) got "their" first gun earlier, so later...but... My first gun was a single shot .22 rifle. I wanted a repeater and was very disappointed that it was a single shot. Dad said, "you show you are responsible with the single shot, we can talk about a repeater next year." Yes, that was my 12th birthday present. Oh, and yes, I did get the repeater for my next birthday...still have it. Marlin Model 80. If you did that today you would be considered crazy, or neglegent. No 12 year-old is "responsible" enough everyone says. Why? because they are never given, or are required to be responsible. Last edited by hermannr; May 23, 2012 at 08:40 PM. |
May 23, 2012, 09:25 PM | #84 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Regardless, the State has filed its response. It's 71 pages (of which about 13 pages are TOC, etc.). Haven't had a chance to read it.
|
May 24, 2012, 05:04 PM | #85 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
In the NRA v. McCraw response brief, the State is backtracking on at least one of its district court claims:
Quote:
The State also rightly claims that because the plaintiffs do not contest the States ban on open carry, they have lost on the merits. The State now claims that unless a plaintiff challenges the entirety of the law (ban on open carry and the age limits to licensing of concealed carry), they have no merits claim. Rmembering that in all of Alan Gura's carry cases, he repeatedly hammers home the idea that some form of carry must be available to be constitutional, here the State is using this exact same argument to nullify the claims of the NRA. Open carry in public spaces is banned by Texas. Only concealed carry is allowed (albeit with licensing). The NRA has not argued "some form of carry must be available," merely that 18-20 year olds must be treated as adults and given a license to carry concealed. The State is saying that the NRA has put the cart before the horse and has no valid claim. In Part III (pp 39), the State gets into its real argument: It is the States that set the age of majority, not the Federal Government. All in all, this brief points out many flaws in the NRA briefs. Both here at the circuit and at district. Despite the fact that I liked the NRA briefs, if I were to be objective... Barring something more, I suspect that in this case, the court will decide for the defendants. |
|
May 24, 2012, 06:26 PM | #86 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,747
|
Quote:
My understanding, though it very well can be wrong, is that the federal age of majority is 18 and the draft registration requirement is based on that. And isn't the legal age to vote also based on the same thing?
__________________
NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearms Safety, Pistol and Rifle Instructor “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life......” President John F. Kennedy |
|
May 25, 2012, 05:44 AM | #87 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 228
|
I believe so. You'll also note that in many states you can legally (open) carry a handgun under age 18.
|
May 25, 2012, 04:32 PM | #88 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, WA
Posts: 1,466
|
Quote:
Back then, one of the big arguments for lowering the voting age was that if you were old enough to die for your country, you should be old enough to vote. I don't necessarily agree with that logic. Like they say, the only difference between the Army and the Boy Scouts is that the Boy Scouts have adult leaders!
__________________
Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and valorous feeling which believes that nothing is worth violence is much worse. Those who have nothing for which they are willing to fight; nothing they care about more than their own craven apathy; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the valor of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill) |
|
May 25, 2012, 07:29 PM | #89 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
In the "For What It's Worth Department..."
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: Quote:
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. |
|
May 25, 2012, 09:36 PM | #90 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, WA
Posts: 1,466
|
Perhaps the NRA should restrict itself to doing what it does best -- lobbying and influencing legislation (and legislators).
Leave the SAF to what they do best -- litigating. I'm an Endowment NRA Life Member. Perhaps I should strongly suggest this concept to the leadership.
__________________
Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and valorous feeling which believes that nothing is worth violence is much worse. Those who have nothing for which they are willing to fight; nothing they care about more than their own craven apathy; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the valor of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill) |
June 24, 2012, 02:24 PM | #91 | |||||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
On May 30th, the Brady Group filed an amicus brief, which I did not bother to download, let alone read. We've all read their drivel way too much, as it is.
On June 18th, the NRA filed its response brief. On the question of standing (Rebekah Jennings and Brennan Harmon have reached the age of 21 and the State wants them dropped from the suit as no longer having standing to sue), the NRA responds that since the State concedes that Andrew Payne still has standing, that all other parties may remain. See footnote #1 (pp 10 of the pdf). Moving on... Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Mr. Cooper then goes into attacking the States reliance on the 14th amendments voting age, as a distinction to majority age in Part II of the brief. In Part III, Mr. Cooper addresses the "in the home" mantra of the lower court that the State did not defend. Right off the bat, Mr. Cooper attacks the Brady amicus brief. Part IV of the brief goes to scrutiny. If not TH&T, then Strict Scrutiny must be applied. Even under Intermediate scrutiny, as applied to law-abiding citizens, the laws of Texas would fail. Part V addresses the Equal Protection Clause of the plaintiffs. All in all, a very well thought out and written brief that counters each and every claim of the States response. |
|||||
October 25, 2012, 09:28 PM | #92 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Just out today, the decision in the case of NRA (was Rebecca Jennings) v. BATF #11-10959, the CA5 panel has affirmed the dismissal of the lower district court.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions...59-CV0.wpd.pdf In addressing the issue of standing, the court reasoned that the plaintiffs did have standing to challenge the law. That's the good news. The bad news is that while the CA5 adopted the 2-prong approach used by Skoien (CA7), Chester and Maciandaro (CA4), and Marzzarella (CA3), the panel reasoned that the founding term of including infants as prohibited persons was sound. Infants as the court concluded were those children and minors below the age of historical (and common law) majority: i.e. 20 yrs. and below. Quote:
In short, the NRA shot its own foot and gave the court its "out" in the matter of age/majority. The 2A claim was rejected on Intermediate Scrutiny. Likewise, the Equal Protection clause was rejected on Rational Basis. Expect the same treatment in the somewhat related case of NRA (was Jennings) v. McCraw (age of Texas CCW holders). These cases jumped the gun and have provided a rather negative precedence, all because the NRA did not want to wait for the issue of "carry" to be fully formed. |
|
October 25, 2012, 09:38 PM | #93 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
In other news, NRA v. McCraw was set for oral arguments, yesterday:
Quote:
|
|
October 26, 2012, 08:43 PM | #94 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 2,199
|
I'm surprised they didn't go with the current Title 10 militia definition. Sad that they lost that one.
|
October 27, 2012, 09:06 AM | #95 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 4, 1999
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,889
|
I purchased my first gun, a Rem 510, when I was 10. I walked with a friend who was about 12 from Queen City, TX to Atlanta Tx (3mi) by the RR tracks, and bought it for $7.50 from a hardware store. No adult was with me. My grandmother had borrowed the money from a neighbor.
Many boys had a shotgun or .22 by the time they were 12-14. In that period children did not kill their teachers or school mates for whatever reason, but settled with other boys with fists, and teachers with "Yes maam." The teacher or principal might administer a spanking with a belt or paddle. But things are not the same now. I don't need any study to tell me that. I recently saw a TV program where youth were playing games. Some were violent. An 8 year old was asked why he liked to play the games, and his reply was, "Because I get to kill people." There is a very different mindset today than in my youth, and the movies and games plus the absence of fathers greatly contribute to it. We see the results in the mass shootings and killings of others, and even killing parents and children. So for that reason I do not object to the age requirements currently in effect. No need to tell me if a young man is old enough to fight and even die for his country he is old enough to purchase a firearm. I does not take the same mature judgment to fight as you have been trained and under good leadership, that drinking or owning a gun requires. Having 28 years of military service, 22 active, does give me some understanding of young men. I realize others of equal or more service might disagree, but that is my view resulting from my personal experience. Regards, Jerry
__________________
Ecclesiastes 12:13 ¶Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. 14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil. |
October 27, 2012, 09:39 AM | #96 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2010
Location: South West Riverside County California
Posts: 2,763
|
"These cases jumped the gun and have provided a rather negative precedence, all because the NRA did not want to wait for the issue of "carry" to be fully formed."
As they taught us in law school, bad facts/clients make bad (appellate) law. Bad precedent keeps on giving exactly what we did not want. |
November 21, 2012, 06:44 PM | #97 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
In the case of NRA v. BATF, Stephan Halbrook wrote an article to Jurist Magazine, in which he categorizes the mistakes made by that panel: NRA v. BATFE: A Misinterpretation of History
So it seems that the NRA will shortly be filing a petition for an en banc hearing. We know that the State case, NRA v. McCraw, is scheduled for orals on Monday, Dec. 3rd. But, in the current docket we have: Quote:
The State now argues that the other case is controlling and that oral arguments are no longer necessary. The Appellants/Plaintiffs argue that the State cannot make the same arguments they made at the other case, as they do issue permits to 18-20 year olds who are military. They briefly state that the other panel was wrong (see Halbrook's article, linked above). Thanks for this update go to Krucam (MDShooters), as I completely missed it. |
|
November 28, 2012, 11:27 PM | #98 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
In the category of, "it ain't over 'till it's over," the NRA has filed a request for an en banc hearing.
|
December 3, 2012, 09:29 PM | #99 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Oral arguments were heard today in NRA v. McCraw (TX), CA5.
I haven't had a chance to listen to them yet, but you can listen/download them here: McCraw Orals |
May 1, 2013, 05:37 PM | #100 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
A couple of things that have occurred in regards the 18-20 ye. old buying from an FFL:
11-25-2012 - Petition for rehearing and en banc hearing filed.So the en banc rehearing was denied, but you really should read the dissenting opibnion! The vote was a 8-7 vote, a very narrow loss, Judge Jones' dissent was quite powerful and may well pique the attention of the Supreme Court on an NRA petition for cert. And yes, I do expect the NRA to file the cert petition. They have until July 29th to file. |
Tags |
2nd amendment , right to carry , rkba |
|
|