The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old October 3, 2011, 08:54 AM   #51
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,598
Quote:
This is a case of first impression and Judge Cummings has just signaled that he is too afraid to touch it.
I don't think that is the case as Judge Cummings was also the district judge in Emerson and was basically the first judge in the last two decades to find an individual right in the Second Amendment. I'd guess his finding has less to do with fear of rocking the boat and more to do with a genuine belief.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old October 3, 2011, 05:42 PM   #52
JoshM75
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 28, 2000
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts View Post
I don't think that is the case as Judge Cummings was also the district judge in Emerson and was basically the first judge in the last two decades to find an individual right in the Second Amendment.
.

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.
JoshM75 is offline  
Old October 6, 2011, 08:37 PM   #53
Eghad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 28, 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,231
Chapter 13 of the U. S. Code

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

excerpt....

Quote:
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and
2nd Amendment excerpt:

" 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
Eghad is offline  
Old October 21, 2011, 10:55 PM   #54
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,276
As I posted on Sept. 30th, Jennings D'Cruz lost at District.

From the PACER docket at the 5th Circuit:
Quote:
Court of Appeals Docket #: 11-10959 Docketed: 10/07/2011
Nature of Suit: 2440 Other Civil Rights
National Rifle Association, et al v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, et al
Appeal From: Northern District of Texas, Lubbock
Opened: 10/04/2011
Note well the name change .... Jennings D'Cruz NRA v. BATFE. The NRA (as an associational plaintiff) have placed themselves ahead of the (actual) plaintiff.

One would think that they have learned by now... Thank you, Chris Cox.
Al Norris is offline  
Old December 5, 2011, 10:49 PM   #55
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,276
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.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Jennings_BATFE CA5 Pltf Opening Brief.pdf (301.4 KB, 12 views)
Al Norris is offline  
Old December 12, 2011, 08:11 PM   #56
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,276
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.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf NSSF Amicus 2012_12_12.pdf (165.4 KB, 13 views)
Al Norris is offline  
Old December 13, 2011, 11:38 AM   #57
Don P
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2005
Location: East Central Florida
Posts: 4,704
Quote:
One might take the road that 18 years are not responsible. Evidence shows not full developed front cortices that inhibit risky behavior. That we let them have guns in the military is ok because they are tightly supervised.
Just a curiosity question as to how they were supervised in the jungles of Nam and in Iraq and Afghan?
__________________
NRA Life Member, NRA Range Safety Officer, IDPA Safety Officer
As you are, I once was, As I am, You will be.
Don P is offline  
Old December 13, 2011, 04:13 PM   #58
Armorer-at-Law
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 29, 2002
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 323
Quote:
One might take the road that 18 years are not responsible. Evidence shows not full developed front cortices that inhibit risky behavior.
Then we cannot risk allowing them to vote, enter into binding contracts, consent to sexual intercourse, get married, etc.

Quote:
That we let them have guns in the military is ok because they are tightly supervised.
18-20 year-olds are currently permitted to buy long guns from an FFL and to own/use handguns. Only handgun purchases from an FFL are prohibited. How is the distinction justified?
__________________
Send lawyers, guns, and money...

Armorer-at-Law.com
Armorer-at-Law is offline  
Old December 13, 2011, 04:30 PM   #59
hermannr
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.
hermannr is offline  
Old December 13, 2011, 04:35 PM   #60
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,101
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.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old January 22, 2012, 12:10 AM   #61
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,276
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:
Although Plaintiffs have not actually completed their applications for a CHL, to do so would be futile. The issuance of this license to non-military individuals under 21 years of age is categorically prohibited by statute. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 411.172(a)(2) & (g). Plaintiffs have put forward evidence that they would be qualified for a CHL but for the minimum age requirement, and McCraw has not demonstrated evidence to the contrary. The futility of a formal application, coupled with the fact that Plaintiffs would qualify for a CHL but for the age requirement, is sufficient to confer standing.
and then turns around and denies it on the other:

Quote:
Plaintiffs have not alleged facts sufficient to confer standing to challenge Texas Penal Code § 46.02 because they cannot demonstrate a credible threat that McCraw will enforce the statute against them. ... At no point in their complaint do Plaintiffs allege that they desire to carry a handgun openly (as opposed to concealed), concealed without a license, or in a manner inconsistent with the limitations governing licensed concealed carry. And because the possession of a validly issued CHL excepts the license holder from prosecution under Texas Penal Code § 46.02 for all intents and purposes, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated a credible threat of prosecution.

Therefore, the Court is of the opinion that Plaintiffs lack standing to challenge Texas Penal Code § 46.02. The Court is also of the opinion that, because the relief sought by the NRA with respect to its challenge to Texas Penal Code § 46.02 involves the issuance of CHLs for its otherwise qualified 18- to 20-year-old membership, it therefore lacks standing for the same reasons that are fatal to the Individual Plaintiffs’ challenge.
And then denies the plaintiffs MSJ and grants the defendants MSJ on 2A grounds (markups in the original):

Quote:
While not skirted entirely, the focus of the parties’ briefing does not center on the breadth of the Second Amendment but rather on the question of at what age does the right to keep and bear arms vest. This approach puts the cart before the horse. Because the Court is of the opinion that the Second Amendment does not confer a right that extends beyond the home, it need not reach the question regarding the age of investiture of such a right. See United States v. Marzzarella, 614 F.3d 85, 89 (3d Cir. 2010) (suggesting that a court’s inquiry into the constitutionality of a statute is complete upon holding that a challenged law does not burden conduct falling within the scope of the Second Amendment’s guarantee).

Therefore, with regard to the Second Amendment issue, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
Now for the Equal Protection Clause (again, all markups are in the original):

Quote:
As the Court has discussed above, the licensing scheme does not burden the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.8 Neither does the licensing scheme target a suspect class. Traditionally, suspect class status is applied to a class that has been “saddled with such disabilities, or subjected to such a history of purposeful unequal treatment, or relegated to such a position of political powerlessness as to command extraordinary protection from the majoritarian political process.” San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 28 (1973).

The Supreme Court has categorically rejected age as a suspect classification. Kimel v. Fla. Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62, 83 (2000) (“[A]ge is not a suspect classification under the Equal Protection Clause.”). Therefore, Texas “may discriminate on the basis of age without offending the Fourteenth Amendment if the age classification in question is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.” Id. The Constitution permits states to “draw lines on the basis of age when they have a rational basis for doing so at a class-based level, even if it ‘is probably not true’ that those reasons are valid in the majority of cases.” Id. at 86.
...
Accordingly, with regard to the Equal Protection issues, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.


8 Although pleaded in broad terms, Plaintiffs’ Equal Protection argument seems to center on the infringement of a fundamental right. The Court has rejected that argument. Therefore, the Court will conduct only a short analysis on suspect classification because, although not clear from the complaint, Plaintiffs’ briefing indicates that they likely did not intend to raise this issue.
The judge has used rational basis to uphold the Texas law. At least he was honest enough not to attempt to cloak it as intermediate scrutiny. Public Safety, trumps the right to self defense. Seemingly, at any age.
Al Norris is offline  
Old February 26, 2012, 12:38 PM   #62
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,276
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:
  1. Plaintiffs Lack Standing To Bring This Suit
    1. The 18-to-20-Year-Old Plaintiffs Have Failed To Establish That They Cannot Lawfully Obtain Handguns and Handgun Ammunition For Use In
      Self- Defense
    2. The Federal Firearms Licensee Plaintiffs Lack Standing To Challenge The Federal Laws On Behalf of Persons Aged 18 To 20 Years Old
  2. Plaintiffs’ Claims Fail On The Merits
    1. The Challenged Federal Laws Do Not Burden Conduct Protected By The Second Amendment
      1. Restrictions On The Commercial Sale Of Firearms To Persons Under 21 Comport With Historical Understandings Of The Second Amendment Right
      2. Federal And State Militia Laws Did Not Create a Vested Right To Purchase Arms For Individuals Aged 18 to 21
    2. Even If Plaintiffs’ Suit Implicates Their Second Amendment Rights, The Challenged Federal Laws Are Constitutional
      1. At Most This Court Should Apply Intermediate Scrutiny
      2. The Challenged Federal Laws Satisfy Intermediate Scrutiny
      3. The Challenged Federal Laws Do Not Violate Plaintiffs’ Rights To Equal Protection
A long read, but it is instructive as to how the Brady's, the VPC and Handgun Control Inc. (the prior Brady name) began to assemble their distorted facts - straight from the mouth of our dear government.

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.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf NRAvBATFE CA5 Appellees Response Brief.pdf (195.8 KB, 3 views)
File Type: pdf NRAvBATFE CA5 Brady Amicus Brief.pdf (120.1 KB, 1 views)
File Type: pdf NRAvBATFE CA5 Appellant Reply Brief.pdf (109.7 KB, 2 views)
Al Norris is offline  
Old March 22, 2012, 08:05 AM   #63
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,276
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.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf NRA_McCraw CA5 Opening Brief.pdf (332.0 KB, 18 views)
Al Norris is offline  
Old March 22, 2012, 08:40 AM   #64
FTG-05
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 18, 1999
Location: North Alabama
Posts: 259
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.
FTG-05 is offline  
Old March 22, 2012, 09:29 PM   #65
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 5,940
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 ...
Aguila Blanca is online now  
Old May 18, 2012, 08:25 AM   #66
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,276
Quote:
05/14/2012 Open Document CASE TENTATIVELY calendared for oral argument for the week of 07/09/2012. [11-10959] (GAM)
And another case is set for orals, this summer!
Al Norris is offline  
Old May 18, 2012, 02:57 PM   #67
hermannr
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.
hermannr is offline  
Old May 19, 2012, 04:39 AM   #68
Gunnut17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 394
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?
__________________
________(====()_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-,
I_iiiii__/'''''''''[{]''''''''{_)_)_)_)_)_}========

"|Pistol calibers| all suck, so pick the one you shoot best."
Gunnut17 is offline  
Old May 19, 2012, 08:45 AM   #69
Sparks1957
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 4, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,459
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
Sparks1957 is offline  
Old May 19, 2012, 11:29 AM   #70
MLeake
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.
MLeake is offline  
Old May 19, 2012, 12:58 PM   #71
Sparks1957
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 4, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,459


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
Sparks1957 is offline  
Old May 19, 2012, 01:12 PM   #72
MLeake
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...)
MLeake is offline  
Old May 19, 2012, 01:26 PM   #73
Sparks1957
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 4, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,459
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.
Sparks1957 is offline  
Old May 19, 2012, 01:35 PM   #74
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparks1957
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.
Most? really? Is this mere anecdote or do you have hard data to back that up?

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 safely handle firearms manage their own finances/vote/manage a family/drive/drink/serve their country (insert any one of those or insert your own) without supervision. Of course, age is no guarantee that that has happened, but does make it more likely.

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?
Al Norris is offline  
Old May 19, 2012, 01:42 PM   #75
Sparks1957
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 4, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,459
Quote:
Sorry, this is a Brady tactic
No need to be so insulting.

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.
Sparks1957 is offline  
Reply

Tags
2nd amendment , right to carry , rkba

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2013 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.16258 seconds with 8 queries