Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: examiner.com-NRA lawsuit to secure right of 18 year olds to buy handguns makes sense

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    examiner.com-NRA lawsuit to secure right of 18 year olds to buy handguns makes sense

    Please SUBSCRIBE to this column at http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner

    And DIGG and REDDIT the article at

    http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-i...rs-makes-sense

    SNIP

    Yesterday the National Rifle Association (NRA) filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas Lubbock Division. James D'Cruz of Lubbock, TX is the plaintiff in this case.

    . . .

    If there ever was a law that failed rational basis scrutiny (essentially a judicial giggle test), this would be it. The NRA lawsuit makes sense, and should be a home run.

  2. #2
    Regular Member KansasMustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Herington, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    1,005
    Makes absolute sense to me. If they can own them, they should be able to buy them from an authorized dealer. They're old enough to serve in the armed forces, they've reached their "Majority" Same reason in my generation we went for the 18 year old drinking law. We were old enought to go fight in Viet Nam then come back and not even be old enough to go to a bar.
    ‘‘Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.’’ Thomas Jefferson

  3. #3
    Regular Member t33j's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    King George, VA
    Posts
    1,384
    About damn time
    Sic Semper Tyrannis

  4. #4
    Regular Member ocholsteroc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Virginia, Hampton Roads, NC 9 miles away
    Posts
    1,317
    Yeah! Just what we need, finally someone with common sense!


    How long do you think this will take into effect?
    Last edited by ocholsteroc; 09-15-2010 at 12:58 PM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    The current status quo just proves how stupid the Brady Bunch is. By forcing 18-20 year olds away from FLLs, in many states, they are forcing them to bypass the background checks.

    If they (the Brady Bunch) had a lick of sense, they would push for dealer sales to be allowed, to push more of the total number of sales to 18-20 year olds to undergo background checks.

    TFred

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605
    A little TEA-21.., anyone?

    ...just kidding...

    The Federal Government has, for far to long, goten away with things, and theatens The States with the loss of vitally important Highway/Public Safety/Educational Dollars, should The States fail to comply.

    It is important to the Survival of The Union that The Supreme Court of The United States of America uphold the Validity of The 9th and 10th Amendments to The Constitution!

    I fear that a day will come when a State..., say...: 1. Alaska, 2. Montana, 3. Idaho, 4. Wyoming, 5. Arizona, 6. Utah, 7. New Hampshire, 8. Vermont, 9. maybe-New Mexico, or 10. maybe-Colorado..., might try to Sede form The Union!

    It has already happened once..., The South! The Civil War was over the exact same concept under our Federalism Government of ours..., which is: 1. The 9th and 2. The 10th Amendments, respectfully!

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    nevada
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by kansasmustang View Post
    makes absolute sense to me. If they can own them, they should be able to buy them from an authorized dealer. They're old enough to serve in the armed forces, they've reached their "majority" same reason in my generation we went for the 18 year old drinking law. We were old enought to go fight in viet nam then come back and not even be old enough to go to a bar.
    absolutly correct if they go to the service they get a weapon to carry werever they go in the field and they are now adults so if you can carry at 18 you should be able to buy at 18. As long as you go through same check as everyone else. Great comment 100% true and accurate

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by PoliceState View Post
    absolutly correct if they go to the service they get a weapon to carry werever they go in the field and they are now adults so if you can carry at 18 you should be able to buy at 18. As long as you go through same check as everyone else. Great comment 100% true and accurate
    While I advocate for 18-year-olds to be able to purchase that which they lawfully may carry, I think the argument that if they are old enough to go into the field with weapons, they are old enough to purchase a handgun is severely flawed.

    The goal of the argument may be desirable, the analogy is inapt. The young men who take weapons into the field have been trained in the use of the weapons they will be taking into the field, have been vetted, and will not be trusted by the same people who armed them while not on duty requiring the arms.

    Therefore it can be argued (I am not saying should be, but can be) that young soldiers weren't just handed the weapons willy-nilly, but only after due care was taken, as contrasted to a simple background check, no training, and almost no restrictions on when and where they'd carry if 18-year-old civilians were allowed to purchase guns.

    The proper argument is that wherever they are allowed to carry, it is only reasonable to allow 18-year-olds to purchase the guns that they are routinely allowed to carry. After all, it is not the purchase, but the carry that would provide the most concern for a young gun-owner with nefarious intentions.

    Again, I agree with the goal. I am just pointing out the glaring weakness in one particular argument.
    Last edited by eye95; 11-16-2010 at 11:52 AM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    While I advocate for 18-year-olds to be able to purchase that which they lawfully may carry, I think the argument that if they are old enough to go into the field with weapons, they are old enough to purchase a handgun is severely flawed.

    The goal of the argument may be desirable, the analogy is inapt. The young men who take weapons into the field have been trained in the use of the weapons they will be taking into the field, have been vetted, and will not be trusted by the same people who armed them while not on duty requiring the arms.

    Therefore it can be argued (I am not saying should be, but can be) that young soldiers weren't just handed the weapons willy-nilly, but only after due care was taken, as contrasted to a simple background check, no training, and almost no restrictions on when and where they'd carry if 18-year-old civilians were allowed to purchase guns.

    The proper argument is that wherever they are allowed to carry, it is only reasonable to allow 18-year-olds to purchase the guns that they are routinely allowed to carry. After all, it is not the purchase, but the carry that would provide the most concern for a young gun-owner with nefarious intentions.

    Again, I agree with the goal. I am just pointing out the glaring weakness in one particular argument.
    Yes it could be argued that way and that's why I like to say if they are old enough to fight and die for our constitutional rights they are old enough to have them.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by ocholsteroc View Post
    How long do you think this will take into effect?
    Common sense? Perhaps a return to the stone age, where those who lacked it simply died.

    Barring that, a much longer return to our roots
    Last edited by since9; 01-09-2011 at 05:27 PM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •