NRA Challenges Constitutionality Of Federal Handgun Ban For Law Abiding 18-20 Year-Olds

[shadowrider]

Friday, September 10, 2010


The NRA is challenging federal laws that prohibit law-abiding Americans 18-20 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 21 years of age and older. Indeed, throughout our nation's history, adults beginning at age 18 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 18 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 18, 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."

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=6020

[customerserviceguy]

1. You could make the same point about the possession of alcohol

I remember the phrase, "Old enough to die for your country, old enough to enjoy a beer before you do die," and it was persuasive. That is, until the MADD mothers and other fundies started tying highway money to raising the drinking age.

[Euromutt]

5. Frankly, I agree

Admittedly, I emigrated here from a country where the legal purchasing age is 16 for beer, wine, and anything with less than 20% ABV, and 18 for hard liquor. Oh, and the legal driving age is 18, so you have two years to get sozzled while you can't drive.

And yeah, it's a classic line in if not the movie Full Metal Jacket, then the book it was based on, The Short-Timers, in which Joker says to Cowboy (after they've made it through a firefight with the NVA) "I'll buy you a beer when we get back to the World" and Cowboy replies "Cool; you'll have to wait until I'm 21 before I can drink it, though."

And MADD honestly can suck my dick. The organization started off with the right idea: opposing drunk driving, but once they'd achieved as much success as they were going to in that area, they moved on to opposing having drinking and driving taking place in the same zip code, even if none of the people drinking were driving and vice-versa. It's classic case of an organization losing sight of its original objectives, and the continued existence of the organization becoming the new objective (in other words, the means becoming the end).

Admittedly, the age of majority may be somewhat arbitrary, but when at that age, we entrust an individual with the right to vote (and thus influence the political process) and the freedom to choose to pledge his life to the service of the polity (by serving in the armed forces, and possibly getting maimed or killed as a result), then it is completely fucking ludicrous that we do not trust that same individual with the freedom to drink a beer.

[SteveM]

13. And the same point was made when the voting age was lowered to 18

by constitutional amendment.

[krispos42]

18. I understand that the argument for the 21 years old thing...

...was that the human brain was still developing until a person's early 20's, and alcohol consumption in that state would cause brain damage. So it was sort of a developmental issue.

That's my understanding, at least.


Frankly, I don't see why we can't lower the drinking age for active-duty military personnel to 18. Simply show a military ID and you can order a drink at your local bar if you're 18-20.

[pipoman]

20. Yep

the only thing the 21 yr rule on military bases achieve is pre-21 young enlisted violations which effect punishment and record mars for young people who have made a very binding commitment...it sucks...excessive drinking otoh can't be tolerated

[msongs]

2. 4 year olds have an RKBA right as well according to the 2nd amendment nt

[shadowrider]

3. -- snort -- You've provided me with my daily chuckle, yet again n/t

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shadowrider]

6. The hits just keep on comin, don't they? n/t

[PavePusher]

7. Your deceased equine....

It is quite mushy and icky now.

Put. The stick. Down.

[SteveM]

14. F-r-r-r-r-RAP! Rap! "What was that? An Evinrude bogging down in the hydrilla?"

[proteus_lives]

17. Old dependable.

[Hoopla Phil]

8. I was wondering how long it would take post McDonald till this challenge was made.

I don't think the Feds have a leg to stand on.

[X_Digger]

9. Especially since we're talking about a right, not a privilege like consuming alcohol. n/t

[LAGC]

10. Prohibition based on age status is stupid.

Many European countries have no such minimum age limit on alcohol consumption and don't have nearly the problem we have with underage abuse of alcohol.

Go figure.

[safeinOhio]

11. Exceptions make the rule

I would think the law, in this case would be up to congress. Even the words in the challenge leave room for doubt, "considered adults for almost all purposes" Then there are the laws on being able to run for president or congress based on ages above 18 and 21. I think they would have a better chance going to elected officials rather than this court.

[oneshooter]

12. Of course you also believe in registration. n/t

[SteveM]

15. The proposed law seems limited to sales by FFL, the rationale for federal action...

The federally-based gun-control laws we have apply to FFLs, and not private transactions. This has been the door by which national-scale laws can enter. Of course, that applies to ANY gun law, perhaps this one as well.

[Hoopla Phil]

19. There can be no constitutional discrimination based on age. The only exception

as you noted is the age limits for congress or president. Of course the constitution specifically addresses this - not "laws".

[spin]

16. An 18 year old can buy a 12 gauge shotgun in Florida ...

and it's a lot more lethal than a handgun.

[pipoman]

21. Appears a sound argument

of coarse it means nothing until we hear the .gov response.