|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
September 10, 2010, 10:57 PM | #26 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
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. |
September 11, 2010, 10:09 AM | #27 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 16, 2004
Location: Grand Forks, ND
Posts: 5,333
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
I don't carry a gun to go looking for trouble, I carry a gun in case trouble finds me. |
||
September 12, 2010, 09:59 PM | #28 |
Member
Join Date: July 31, 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 21
|
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. |
September 12, 2010, 11:23 PM | #29 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
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. |
September 13, 2010, 01:54 PM | #30 |
Member
Join Date: July 31, 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 21
|
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. |
September 13, 2010, 02:08 PM | #31 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 28, 2008
Posts: 10,442
|
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? |
September 13, 2010, 05:40 PM | #32 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
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. Quote:
D'Cruz v. BATFE is being argued by attorneys from Cooper & Kirk, who are regular litigants for the NRA.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
||
September 14, 2010, 06:06 AM | #33 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
|
Quote:
If they can outlaw transfers of handguns to 18-20 year olds, why not other guns? |
|
September 14, 2010, 10:34 AM | #34 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
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.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
September 14, 2010, 10:57 AM | #35 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, WA
Posts: 1,466
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
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) |
|
September 14, 2010, 11:07 AM | #36 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
Quote:
As such, we're back to the question of a unique and arbitrary restriction on what is considered a fundamental right: owning a handgun.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
||
September 14, 2010, 01:57 PM | #37 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
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.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
September 14, 2010, 03:15 PM | #38 |
Member
Join Date: June 21, 2010
Posts: 46
|
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.
|
September 14, 2010, 03:46 PM | #39 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
When are you an adult?
18 or 21 Guns vs. liquor vs. driving? Voting, marrying, age of consent? Life is complicated.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
September 14, 2010, 04:58 PM | #40 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
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. |
September 14, 2010, 05:28 PM | #41 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
That's a slam dunk argument, right there, IMO. There is no rationale basis for that regulation. You can own it and use it but only purchase it from certain people? You can buy other, much more powerful weapons, from these same people but the little bitty ones that you can hide, those you can only get from unlicensed individuals? Total nonsense. Put together with the fact that those 18-20 are allowed EVERY SINGLE other fundamental right and you're left, I think, with a very easy argument.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
September 14, 2010, 08:50 PM | #42 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Quote:
|
|
September 14, 2010, 09:06 PM | #43 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
Getting the RKBA defined as "fundamental" in McDonald is what will make that comparison valid in the eyes of the courts. Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
||
September 14, 2010, 10:51 PM | #44 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Carlos Ray "Chuck" Norris is of Irish (paternal) and Cherokee (maternal) descent. Mine is Welsh (paternal) and German Jew (maternal). If there is any relation, it is very, very distant.
|
September 15, 2010, 08:00 AM | #45 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
|
Quote:
There is no specifically protected right to drink or to drive on the roads, and I was driving around our farm at about 13. |
|
September 15, 2010, 11:58 AM | #46 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
Nah, you just remind me of Prince, that's all.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
September 15, 2010, 12:48 PM | #47 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Quote:
|
|
September 30, 2011, 09:35 PM | #48 | ||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
This thread is slightly over a year old and we have the results of one case in.
Yesterday, in Jennings (was D'Cruz) v. BATF&E, Judge Samuel Cummings denied Jennings MSJ and the .Gov MTD but granted the .Gov MSJ. You can read it here. On the second amendment question, Judge Cummings quoted and highlighted this passage from Heller: Quote:
Quote:
Of course in saying this, Judge Cummings completely ignores Ezell. If in Ezell, the 7th Circuit held that training at a firing range was a corollary right and a ban of firing ranges thus merited "almost strict" scrutiny, then the ability to purchase a handgun for self defense ("in the home"), is also a corollary right and a ban on the purchase of the tool that makes self defense possible, also merits the same scrutiny. The above logic is inescapable. This is a case of first impression and Judge Cummings has just signaled that he is too afraid to touch it. Despite having a wide latitude to do just that. So he falls back to the 2A Two-Step. As for the Equal Protection claim, Judge Cummings dismisses it with rational basis scrutiny (at least he is honest enough to directly say this), because the 2A claim has no merit. |
||
September 30, 2011, 09:59 PM | #49 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 6, 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 995
|
Quote:
__________________
I am not a real bullet, nor do I play one on television. American socialism: Democrats trying to get Republicans to provide for them. |
|
October 2, 2011, 09:47 PM | #50 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 28, 2000
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 231
|
While I understand that the Judge's decision references the power of the state to regulate "commercial sale of arms" as set out in Heller. I do wonder the logic of how that interest - in this case - out weighs the constitutional protections for individuals. To me this decision is odd and unexpected. It's also possible that this decision will spawn new regulatory ideas from the Brady ilk.
Last edited by JoshM75; October 2, 2011 at 09:52 PM. |
Tags |
2nd amendment , right to carry , rkba |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|