Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: D'Cruz v. BATFE

  1. #1
    Regular Member Yooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Houghton County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    808

    D'Cruz v. BATFE

    Federal law prohibiting the purchase of handguns by 18-20 year olds being challenged.

    http://www.kltv.com/Global/story.asp?S=13120824
    http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=6020

  2. #2
    Regular Member TheQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts
    3,448
    "I understand long rifles for hunting and so forth, and I believe in the right to bear arms...[but] I also believe in the responsibility that those arms bring and the ownership of owning guns," said McDonald. "If you can't legally drink, then you shouldn't legally purchase a handgun."
    I don't get it. What does being able to buy liquor have to do with alcohol? We don't want you to buy a weapon unless you can get drunk at the same time? WTF?

    ...I just don't follow the logic.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran Glock9mmOldStyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Taylor, Wayne County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,047
    Thanks for the post Yooper. I hope he kicks their backsides. If he should lose then in my opinion the Armed forces should be prohibited from accepting anyone under 21 years old. As they "are not responsible enough" to handle the standard issue M9 pistol, correct? This is a stupid law; at age 10 I was trained by my family to use firearms safely and was allowed to hunt at an early age. No accidental discharges, injuries etc...
    Last edited by Glock9mmOldStyle; 09-11-2010 at 02:06 PM. Reason: got yooper's mixed up sorry :0

  4. #4
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756
    Quote Originally Posted by Glock9mmOldStyle View Post
    Thanks for the post Yooperlady. I hope he kicks their backsides. If he should lose then in my opinion the Armed forces should be prohibited from accepting anyone under 21 years old. As they "are not responsible enough" to handle the standard issue M9 pistol, correct? This is a stupid law; at age 10 I was trained by my family to use firearms safely and was allowed to hunt at an early age. No accidental discharges, injuries etc...
    Errr... Yooper and Yooperlady are two different people my friend....

    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  5. #5
    Regular Member lil_freak_66's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Mason, Michigan
    Posts
    1,811
    Quote Originally Posted by Glock9mmOldStyle View Post
    Thanks for the post Yooperlady. I hope he kicks their backsides. If he should lose then in my opinion the Armed forces should be prohibited from accepting anyone under 21 years old. As they "are not responsible enough" to handle the standard issue M9 pistol, correct? This is a stupid law; at age 10 I was trained by my family to use firearms safely and was allowed to hunt at an early age. No accidental discharges, injuries etc...

    I feel this way too.

    at 17 one can enlist,go overseas at 18,with a fully automatic short barreled rifle,mortars,handgun,grenades,explosives...use equipment costing several million,if not billions of dollars.

    come home,cant buy a civilian variant of the same handgun you used in war,from a dealer,or at all in many states.


    p.s.
    i sometimes mix up yooper and yooperlady too! they both have very similar usernames.
    not a lawyer, dont take anything i say as legal advice.


  6. #6
    Regular Member detroit_fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Monroe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,196
    "I understand long rifles for hunting and so forth, and I believe in the right to bear arms...[but] I also believe in the responsibility that those arms bring and the ownership of owning guns," said McDonald. "If you can't legally drink, then you shouldn't legally purchase a handgun."


    I think he's absolutely right, the age to buy alcohol & a handgun should be 18.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    .

  8. #8
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336
    Just to throw in my $.02.

    McDonald v City Of Chicago SCOTUS Decision clearly states we have a Fundamental Right of Self-Defense and that is most often provided by use of a handgun. To say that someone is an adult at 18, but yet restricted from purchasing a handgun steals from them the Fundamental Right of Self-Defense as most often utilized.

    Additionally, most states laws and federal laws that I have researched have the "unorganized militia" membership starting at 18, so it should stand that this would be the age that ALL FIREARMS FROM ANY DEALER could be purchased.

  9. #9
    Regular Member NHCGRPR45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Chesterfield Township, MI
    Posts
    1,137
    well i don't really agree that 18 year olds are old enough to buy and/or drink booze then again its just my opinion, i however do agree that they should be able to buy haundguns. contradiction you say? you bet! i would much rather have an armed 18 year old than a drunk one. oh and they should be able to ammo for there gun also, lets not forget that little technicallity!!

    but i shall not be the one to force my views on anyone!

  10. #10
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756
    My personal opinion...

    Old enough to join the military and fight for the country equals old enough to enjoy ALL the rights and privileges of a citizen. Anything else is hypocrisy.

    Period!
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran Glock9mmOldStyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Taylor, Wayne County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,047

    Thumbs up +1

    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    My personal opinion...

    Old enough to join the military and fight for the country equals old enough to enjoy ALL the rights and privileges of a citizen. Anything else is hypocrisy.

    Period!
    +1

    Well said Sir!

  12. #12
    Regular Member RenegadeMarine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Fraser, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    80
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    My personal opinion...

    Old enough to join the military and fight for the country equals old enough to enjoy ALL the rights and privileges of a citizen. Anything else is hypocrisy.

    Period!
    Absolutely!! No if's, and's, or but's about it!! People have been saying this for years, but obviously the government thinks they know whats best for us! It is ridiculous that you can go to war and risk life and limb(and possibly lose one), just to come home and be told that you cannot drink a beer or buy a handgun and carry one concealed! Name:  BS1.gif
Views: 399
Size:  10.7 KB

  13. #13
    Regular Member Yooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Houghton County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by RenegadeMarine View Post
    Absolutely!! No if's, and's, or but's about it!! People have been saying this for years, but obviously the government thinks they know whats best for us! It is ridiculous that you can go to war and risk life and limb(and possibly lose one), just to come home and be told that you cannot drink a beer or buy a handgun and carry one concealed! Name:  BS1.gif
Views: 399
Size:  10.7 KB
    People are getting worked up because they don't want 18-20 year olds to have handguns. They don't realize that in most states, the can already own them, they just have to buy them from a private party vs a FFL. So really, they're arguing that they'd rather a person acquire a handgun through a private party transfer (gift or purchase), rather than through a FFL which would require a background check.

    Oh, BTW, many states allow persons under 21 to drink alcohol, unfortunately, Michigan is not one of them.

  14. #14
    Regular Member TheQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts
    3,448
    Quote Originally Posted by Yooper View Post
    Oh, BTW, many states allow persons under 21 to drink alcohol, unfortunately, Michigan is not one of them.
    It is kosher in WI and TX, when a parent is present and consenting -- just to name 2.

  15. #15
    Regular Member lil_freak_66's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Mason, Michigan
    Posts
    1,811
    Not like people under 21 dont drink anyways eh?
    I read somewhere that 90% of people whom drink and smoke,started at an age before they were legally allowed to do so.

    Id be all for 18+ being able to buy handguns from dealers,and lowering the drinking age to 18,just raise the penalties for drinking related crimes.
    not a lawyer, dont take anything i say as legal advice.


  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    I would support a 1 beer = 1 year DUI program.

Posting Permissions

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