NRA to challenge age limits on buying handguns

[Razgriz]

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsRel ... x?ID=14212" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Please excuse the language here, but all other words in the english language fail to express my feelings about the fact that this case is happening: _______ YES!!
Reasons:
1) If it succeeds, The legal age limit will be lowered to 18, meaning more responcible, younger shooters.
2) If it succeeds, It opens the door for CCW and CHL age requirements to be lowered to 18 as well.

And for those of you who saw my first post, you know That this will affect when I can get my CHL, as long as it doesn't take until June 2012. I have to say, I did not see this one coming, way to go NRA.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Both suits have already been filed.

Chas.

[Douva]

EDIT: I agree with Charles that this discussion has reached a point where it would be better kept out of the public forums.

[Oldgringo]

Hmmm? My first thoughts are that this is a "sleeping dog" that should've been let lie?

[Charles L. Cotton]

Charles, I notice that the NRA is only touting the suit against the federal government (seeking to lower the minimum age to BUY a gun), not the suit against the State of Texas (seeking to lower the minimum age to obtain a CHL). Does that mean that only the suit against the federal government has the NRA's backing?

No, the NRA is backing both suits and both are being publicized.

I ask because the suit against the state of Texas seems ill-advised. Unlike recent lawsuits where gun rights advocates have sued municipalities and universities, seeking COMPLIANCE with state law, this suit actually seeks to overturn a portion of what is a very popular, very pro-gun state law. Texas has a very gun-friendly legislature, and the change sought by this lawsuit is the type of change that could, conceivably, be accomplished through legislative action. It seems to me that this suit might rub some legislators the wrong way by creating the impression that the plaintiff is trying to circumvent the legislative process.

I disagree. The suit against the state is part of an effort to attack age restrictions for people who have reached the age of majority. This attack is being made at both the state and federal level under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. There's nothing ill-advised about this very well planned approach.

If the court were to find in favor of the case against the state, what would the ramifications be? Would that require ALL states to adopt shall-issue licensing for all qualified individuals over the age of 18? Would it only apply to states that already issue concealed handgun licenses? In all honestly, this seems like a poorly thought out attempt to get a federal court to rule that the incorporation of the Second Amendment guarantees the right to CARRY a gun. I can't help but think that there are more suitable cases that could be used to fight that battle.

Again, you could not be more wrong.

I'm somewhat concerned that the case against the state may be a thorn in the side of those of us fighting for campus carry here in Texas. If we're arguing, "This bill only applies to civilians over the age of 21 and military personnel over the age of 18, who possess concealed handgun licenses," it's going to be easy for opponents to come back and claim, "But there is currently an NRA-backed lawsuit that would force the state to lower that age limit to 18 for EVERYBODY." That makes it sound like we're talking out of both sides of our mouths.

You know I and the NRA strongly support campus-carry; our efforts attest to that fact. However, you are suggesting that it is more important for a relative handful of college students to be able to protect themselves while on campus than for us to expand the Heller decision and allow everyone between age 18 and 20 to protect themselves everywhere in this State. You will lose that argument with 99% of Texans, me included. I strongly suggest that you not alienate campus-carry's strongest supporters and you are well on your way to doing so.

On a side note, if the plaintiff wants to carry for self-defense, he needs to just say that he wants to carry for self-defense--most thinking people realize that crime can occur ANYWHERE. The claim (made by his lawyer on Wednesday's episode of Cam & Company) that he sometimes shops at a Wal-Mart in a bad part of Lubbock, Texas, is utter nonsense. There are four Wal-Mart's in the city of Lubbock, and if you visit any of them at two in the morning, you're more likely to find 105-lb. college girls shopping in their pajamas than dangerous thugs looking for trouble.

Your argument is groundless and has nothing to do with the legal principles in the case. Again, I cannot over-emphasize the importance of you not continuing to take the positions you are prone to take, unless you want to harm the campus-carry movement yourself. Campus-carry is very important, but it's not more important than the Second Amendment and expanding Heller Plus, you are simply dead wrong on these suits hurting the campus-carry movement.

Chas.

[Oldgringo]

Hmmm? My first thoughts are that this is a "sleeping dog" that should've been let lie?

Well, if Charles says it's okay, it's okay with me.

SALUT!

EDIT:

During WW II, it was 19 and 20 year olds who piloted the the U.S. bombers and fighters in our war against the Boche. If the 19-20 year olds of yesteryear could pilot a B-17 full of bombs to their target and back while fighting off hordes of Luftwaffe ME-109's, surely today's 19-20 year olds can walk around with a loaded handgun containing a dozen or so cartridges?