TexasCHLforum.com

Judge dismisses suit challenging Texas' concealed carry law

These libs really me! For some reason, if your 20 years old, your brain is complete mush, but on the day you turn 21, your brain SNAPS into form and can take on rational thought. And I love how they say that 18-20 year olds account for a large percentage of illegal weapons violations. Take this scenario for example:

The state issues tons of citations for lack of a front license plate. It then says vehicle drivers make up all the citations written for no front plates. BUT, then we repeal that law, and BAM, no more tickets for failure to display Front LP. Stupid media using dirty statistics.

</soapbox>

Without a specific cutoff, it would be impossible to manage.
We're not going to try to institute some kind of "maturity test".
I like the idea of excepting 18-20 yo's with military service, even though it causes problems with reciprocity.

So... What would you suggest as a better solution? Make the cutoff 18 instead of 21?
Not sure how I feel about that... I think I could argue both sides.

Well, playing devil's advocate here, let's look at the following paragraph from the article:

"We are pleased the court rejected the NRA's extreme claim that the Second Amendment means that we must allow armed teens on our streets," Vice said. The Brady Center, an intervenor in the lawsuit, had cited studies concluding that 18- to 20-year-olds often lack the same ability as adults to "govern impulsivity, judgment, planning for the future, and foresight of consequences." They are also within the age range of offenders with the highest rates of homicide and criminal gun possession, according to court filings.

This jackhole is saying that somehow, majically, 21 year olds are MUCH more responsible than 20 year, 364 day olds?! To me, I was no more responsible at 21 than I was at 18. If anything, I was more responsible and law abiding at 18, since I was just then going off to college and scared to screw anything up. Now I drive around daily with no license plate and often drive 5 over the Speed Limit, and occasionally even forget to turn on my lights while my wipers are functioning.

Then there's the fact that they're saying the NRA is being EXTREME here. I think not. You can legally be tried as an adult, be forced to serve your country via draft, yet you can't imbibe alcohol or purchase / carry a handgun legally. To me, the legal argument is fundamentally flawed at that point, and I would hope the NRA would take it a step up.

RoyGBiv wrote:So... What would you suggest as a better solution? Make the cutoff 18 instead of 21?
Not sure how I feel about that... I think I could argue both sides.

In addition to being old enough to serve (and possibly die for) your country in uniform (already addressed with current military exception), 18 is old enough to vote, old enough to be tried and convicted as an adult, old enough to enter into legal contracts, old enough to operate a motor vehicle (a much deadlier weapon than a firearm according to raw mortality statistics of total US deaths related to vehicles vs. related to firearms), etc .... in short, old enough to have all the rights and responsibilities of full citizenship, except for the A and F portions of the ATF

I honestly don't care what drivel the Bradys have to say about any of this. But the remarks attributed to the judge are telling, and not necessarily "wrong" in light of the current state of 2A (here's hoping this case and/or others is appealed to SCOTUS for a further expanding of precedence for 2A rights)

Based on Heller and McDonald, the judge's ruling that 2A does not protect our right to carry concealed is not "wrong" and is probably the correct ruling for a non "activist" judge to make. However, his earlier ruling - alluded to below - that Federal law prohibiting 18-20 year olds from buying a handgun fits within the scope of 2A as defined by Heller and McDonald is dead wrong and will hopefully be overturned. How can a legal citizen aged 18-20 excerise 2A rights "in the home" if they're prohibited from buying a handgun? This is the same basic principle as Wash DC and Chicago saying all residents of those cities also cannot buy/own handguns.

Perhaps we need to wait for the Fed prohibition on 18-20 year olds BUYING handguns to be overturned before we can realistically hope to grant 18-20 year olds the "privilege" to CARRY handguns.

In his decision, Cummings ruled that the Second Amendment — the right to bear arms — "does not confer a right that extends beyond the home." He noted that under current law, Texans can possess guns in their homes without a state license.

Cummings noted in his ruling that a 2008 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court underscored that the Second Amendment right to bear arms "was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

Texas' licensing law "does not burden the fundamental right to keep and bear arms," Cummings wrote.

The opinion suggests that the age issue raised in the case should be settled at the state Capitol — "either to petition the Texas Legislature for a change in state law or, on a national level, to rally for a constitutional amendment."

Last September, Cummings dismissed a lawsuit filed by the NRA challenging the constitutionality of a federal law prohibiting the sale of handguns to people younger than 21.

A-R wrote:I honestly don't care what drivel the Bradys have to say about any of this. But the remarks attributed to the judge are telling, and not necessarily "wrong" in light of the current state of 2A (here's hoping this case and/or others is appealed to SCOTUS for a further expanding of precedence for 2A rights)

Based on Heller and McDonald, the judge's ruling that 2A does not protect our right to carry concealed is not "wrong" and is probably the correct ruling for a non "activist" judge to make. However, his earlier ruling - alluded to below - that Federal law prohibiting 18-20 year olds from buying a handgun fits within the scope of 2A as defined by Heller and McDonald is dead wrong and will hopefully be overturned. How can a legal citizen aged 18-20 excerise 2A rights "in the home" if they're prohibited from buying a handgun? This is the same basic principle as Wash DC and Chicago saying all residents of those cities also cannot buy/own handguns.

Perhaps we need to wait for the Fed prohibition on 18-20 year olds BUYING handguns to be overturned before we can realistically hope to grant 18-20 year olds the "privilege" to CARRY handguns.

In his decision, Cummings ruled that the Second Amendment — the right to bear arms — "does not confer a right that extends beyond the home."

Cummings is going against precedent there.... in Dred Scott v Sanford the court said that if freed slaves were allowed to become citizens they would be able to "keep and carry arms wherever they went", (note that it says "went", not "lived") implying that US citizens already had such a right.

(Yeah, that's a stretch, I know... but it'd be close enough for TV lawyers, so maybe I can change my sig line now )

In his decision, Cummings ruled that the Second Amendment — the right to bear arms — "does not confer a right that extends beyond the home."

U.S. District Judge Sam Cummings, appointed by Reagan
He is mistaken through his lack of knowledge.

3rd Amendment's "consent" isn't genuine but is "duress" if a family member is kidnapped outside the home and ransomed in order to force/obtain "consent" to quarter soldiers at your home ...

Therefore, for "Consent" to be ensured in the 3rd, the 2nd by necessity must extend beyond the home.

He is mistaken through his lack of knowledge.

The 2 categories of persons in the two Amendments below are color coded for his convenience should he ever desire to learn history and understand the mistrust of Standing Armies we had immediately surrounding the Revolution and the relation of the Third Amendment to the Second Amendment, which were written about 45 minutes apart...

Third Amendment
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in manner to be prescribed by law.

Second Amendment
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

"being necessary" means it was recognized that a military was needed as "a necessary evil"
We'd rather not need one, they are costly, but it is needed for defense against invaders. However, if it turns on us, like the British troops did when we belonged to them ... That's the relationship of the Second and Third Amendments.

(Perhaps the History Professors in the classes he took just showed movies, and didn't comprehend the rationale for the original writings. )

I kinda know what my relatives wrote ...

In his decision, Cummings ruled that the Second Amendment — the right to bear arms — "does not confer a right that extends beyond the home."

So, I can't speak my mind outside of my home? I can't be secure in my person, house, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, outside of my home? (Never mind the word houses is in the 4th Amendment). I can be compelled to testify against myself outside my home? I can be put into double jeopardy outside my home? Are these enough examples of how moronic that judge's words really are? I hope the NRA uses this one to set that judge straight on how rights actually work...they should extend anywhere a free citizen is at, with only the most specific and minor of exceptions in as few an instances as possible...(example: not carrying a loaded concealed weapon into a prison).

Did he strike down the rule that allows some 18-20 year olds to get a CHL while denying the same to many citizens?

Lambda Force wrote:Did he strike down the rule that allows some 18-20 year olds to get a CHL while denying the same to many citizens?

Nothing was struck down members of the military who are 18 through 20 can still get a CHL. This is actually a good ruling for us considering how the previous portion of this case was ruled. Now we can appeal both rulings and get somewhere in the appellete courts and hopefully make it to the supreme court on both issues.

If we had won this ruling without winning the previous one (overturning the federal law that prohibits FFLs from selling to under 21 adults) then the ATF would most likely have dropped recognition of CHLs as an alternative to the brady check.