• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

M

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
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-...olds-to-buy-handguns-from-dealers-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.
 
KansasMustang

KansasMustang

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2008
Messages
1,005
Location
Herington, Kansas, USA
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.
 
TFred

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
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
 
A

aadvark

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
1,597
Location
, ,
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!
 
P

PoliceState

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
11
Location
nevada
kansasmustang said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
eye95

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
PoliceState said:
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
Click to expand...

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:
sudden valley gunner

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
eye95 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top