Re: In Harrison's home state - NRA sues to invalidate the Federal law prohibiting 18-21 yr olds FFL handgun purchase

On Sep 9, 10:51 pm, JohnJohnsn <TopCop1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


FOX 34 follow the progress of this suit as it develops

Not a credible news source. Try again.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUBBOCK DIVISION

JAMES D’CRUZ,

Plaintiff,

v.  

ATF.

Actually, the NRA says it's behind this frivolous lawsuit:

[begin frivolity]

NRA CHALLENGES CONSTITUTIONALITY OF FEDERAL HANDGUN BAN FOR LAW
ABIDING 18-20 YEAR OLDS

Wednesday, September 08, 2010

Fairfax, Va. -- The NRA is challenging federal laws that prohibit law-
abiding Americans eighteen through twenty years of age from legally
purchasing a handgun through a federally licensed firearm dealer. The
case was filed Tuesday evening 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.

"In Heller and McDonald, the U.S. Supreme Court clearly stated that
the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental, individual right to
keep and bear arms for all law-abiding Americans," said Chris W. Cox,
executive director of NRA's Institute for Legislative Action. "That
right is not limited only to Americans twenty-one years of age and
older. Indeed, throughout our nation's history, adults beginning at
age eighteen have served in the military and fought for this country
with honor. But while the Supreme Court has consistently made clear
that the federal government cannot ban or unduly restrict sales of
items protected by the Constitution, the federal government continues
to prohibit these adults from purchasing handguns from federally
licensed dealers, which represent the largest and most accessible
means of purchasing handguns."

The suit asserts: "At eighteen years of age, law-abiding citizens in
this country are considered adults for almost all purposes and
certainly for the purposes of the exercise of fundamental
constitutional rights. Indeed, at eighteen, citizens are eligible (and
male citizens could be conscripted) to serve in the military-to fight
and die by arms for the country. Yet, Section 922(b)(1) prohibits law-
abiding adults in this age group from lawfully purchasing -- from the
most prevalent and readily available source -- what the Supreme Court
has called "the quintessential self-defense weapon" and "the most
popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home."

The plaintiff, Mr. D'Cruz, is well-trained in the proper handling and
use of firearms, including handguns. His initial training was with his
grandfather, a World War II veteran, who wanted his grandchildren to
understand the proper and safe techniques for use and storage of
firearms. Mr. D'Cruz received further training from his father and as
a member of the Navy Junior Reserve Officer's Training Corps, where he
achieved the rank of Lieutenant Junior Grade. During his junior and
senior years of high school, Mr. D'Cruz was a member of the JROTC's
marksmanship team, and as member of that team has competed in regional
and national marksmanship competitions. Mr. D'Cruz received numerous
awards, including a first place medal for marksmanship, in a regional
competition. Mr. D'Cruz also received a Foreign Legion unit award for
marksmanship.

The case is D'Cruz v. BATFE.

[end frivolity]

First, that stuff about the kid's training and expertise is anecdotal
and impossible to apply to 18-21 yr olds at large.

Second, handguns are not denied to 18 yr olds forever - just for a few
years as they mature a little. In military service 18 yr olds are
indoctrinated to kill on command. In civilian life killing another
person could be unacceptable and possibly criminal.

Third, the Texas Legislature refused to pass a law permitting 21 yr
olds from carrying handguns on college campuses. It's just a bad
idea.

Fourth, having a right to keep and carry a weapon was never unlimited:

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second
Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through
the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts rou
tinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and
carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever
and for whatever purpose. [...] Although we do not undertake an
exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the
Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be
taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the
possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or
laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places
such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing
conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms.26

"26 We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only
as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive."

District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008)

I believe it would be wise to raise the age for drinking alcohol,
driving cars, and eligibility for military service to at least 21
years. Leave the age for carrying handguns at 21 - that doesn't
apply to long guns, and if there's really a serious threat to
somebody's life they can get an exemption, and jail time if they lie
about it.

Was there anything else the NRfuckinA had to say today, Johnny? Be
sure to cite them when you post their propaganda.

Next.

--


NRACLAPTRAP

.

Relevant Pages