|
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 |
October 3, 2011, 08:54 AM | #51 | |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
|
|
October 3, 2011, 05:42 PM | #52 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 28, 2000
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 231
|
Quote:
That's very true and IIRC he was the Judge who made a quip during Emerson about owning enough arms to fit out a decent South American coup. The commentary relating to the "commercial sale of arms" as set out in Heller strikes me as SCOTUS trying to maintain a legal footing for the State to operate - at best - a minimalist regulatory regime. In regards to commercial sales this could likely be envisioned as restrictions on sales to minors, the drunk, or other prohibited persons. Judge Cummings may well have a genuine belief that who is "prohibited" (in this case 18 - 19 year olds) is a matter for the legislature, but his view is missing the constitutional forest because of the trees. Hope this case continues on. |
|
October 6, 2011, 08:37 PM | #53 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 28, 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,231
|
Chapter 13 of the U. S. Code
ยง 311. Militia: composition and classes excerpt.... Quote:
" A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" So if we had some fantastic emergency we could see 17 year olds called up for militia duty with the posssibility of being trained and armed by our government. I wonder if this was the case in our early years before we became a a nation and after we became a nation. IN our early days I bet children were taught to shoot for hunting and defense purposes. on the frontier. You can enlist in the United States Military at age 17 with your parents permission. You can enlist at the age of 18 without you parents permission. My thoughts are on the matter if you are able to give you life for you country at the age of 18 then you should be able to enjoy the fruits of that liberty. If you enter the military and graduate from Basic Training and AIT you have shown some discipline and responsibility. If anything an exemption should be made for military personnel under the age of 21.
__________________
Have a nice day at the range NRA Life Member |
|
October 21, 2011, 10:55 PM | #54 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
As I posted on Sept. 30th, Jennings
From the PACER docket at the 5th Circuit: Quote:
One would think that they have learned by now... Thank you, Chris Cox. |
|
December 5, 2011, 10:49 PM | #55 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
The NRA has filed its opening brief at CA5.
The NRA rightfully shreds Judge Cummings decision. A might long, but a good read, nonetheless. Very much on target with the historical review. |
December 12, 2011, 08:11 PM | #56 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
On the heels of the NRA 's opening brief, the NSSF has filed an amicus brief today.
They really make a point in calling out the district court in its "public safety" ruling. Best part? Part "C" where they start of with the district court calling 18-20 yr olds, "infants" in light of military service. |
December 13, 2011, 11:38 AM | #57 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 17, 2005
Location: Swamp dweller
Posts: 6,187
|
Quote:
__________________
NRA Life Member, NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, NRA Certified Pistol Instructor,, USPSA & Steel Challange NROI Range Officer, ICORE Range Officer, ,MAG 40 Graduate As you are, I once was, As I am, You will be. |
|
December 13, 2011, 04:13 PM | #58 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 29, 2002
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 465
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Send lawyers, guns, and money... Armorer-at-Law.com 07FFL/02SOT |
||
December 13, 2011, 04:30 PM | #59 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 24, 2011
Posts: 730
|
I don't see it. I was an SSG E6 before I was 21. Closely supervised, yep, by a bunch of 18-20 year olds.
Don't say officer, my dad was a Chaplin (O3) at barely 21. |
December 13, 2011, 04:35 PM | #60 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Since this resurfaced from something I said - I will remind you that I was bringing forth arguments that might be used against earlier gun rights.
You are foolish if you don't consider opposition positions and how to counter them beyond complaining that you don't like them. So if the argument is that they are immature but supervised in the service - how do you counter that to extend rights to relatively unsupervised young people. Yep, the age limit is not crystal clear. We did change the drinking age, BTW. So if the opposition says that young people are risk takers as shown by: 1. Risky sexual behavior 2. Driving records 3. Drug experimentation 4. The need for tight supervision in the service - What do you say? If I'm undecided - convince me. Surface validity indicates not to trust young kids. Look at those idiots rioting for Coach Patterno. See the game. Can't just assume everyone is the choir. I work in a college and as I said before - I argued for campus carry and heard all the points above. What to you say?
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
January 22, 2012, 12:10 AM | #61 | ||||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
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; Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
February 26, 2012, 12:38 PM | #62 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
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: Quote:
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. |
|
March 22, 2012, 08:05 AM | #63 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
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. |
March 22, 2012, 08:40 AM | #64 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 18, 1999
Location: TN
Posts: 301
|
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.
|
March 22, 2012, 09:29 PM | #65 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,436
|
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 ... |
May 18, 2012, 08:25 AM | #66 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Quote:
|
|
May 18, 2012, 02:57 PM | #67 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 24, 2011
Posts: 730
|
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. |
May 19, 2012, 04:39 AM | #68 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 21, 2012
Location: Kitsap County, WA, USA
Posts: 445
|
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?
|
May 19, 2012, 08:45 AM | #69 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 4, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,552
|
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 |
May 19, 2012, 11:29 AM | #70 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
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. |
May 19, 2012, 12:58 PM | #71 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 4, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,552
|
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 |
May 19, 2012, 01:12 PM | #72 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
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...) |
May 19, 2012, 01:26 PM | #73 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 4, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,552
|
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.
|
May 19, 2012, 01:35 PM | #74 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Quote:
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 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? |
|
May 19, 2012, 01:42 PM | #75 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 4, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,552
|
Quote:
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. |
|
Tags |
2nd amendment , right to carry , rkba |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|