Nra challenges constitutionality of federal handgun ban for law abiding 18-20 yr olds
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Nra challenges constitutionality of federal handgun ban for law abiding 18-20 yr olds

  1. #1

    Nra challenges constitutionality of federal handgun ban for law abiding 18-20 yr 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.
    Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen's group. Four million members strong, NRA continues its mission to uphold Second Amendment rights and to advocate enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation's leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the military.

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  3. #2
    About time

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Cataw. Co. NC.
    Why doesn't the nra fight to protect veterans that have been diagnosed with PTSD from having their gun rights taken away, because they are considered to be Mentally Ill?

  5. Well I can see the merit in them fighting this.
    The democrats are trying every sly move in the book to drive in the thin-end of the wedge. Thank God you have an NRA that fights for your rights.

  6. #5
    I don't see why an 18 year old can't have a handgun. As an 18 year old you can buy an AR-15, a Shotgun, or any other type of Rifle. To me it makes no sense. My idea is if you are old enough to kill somebody in the Military, you should get ALL rights, allowed to buy beer and handguns (Just not at the sametime, though now that I think about it it would make liquor store robberies less frequent).

  7. #6
    handgonnetoter Guest
    I never did understand that law of not allowing anyone under 21 to purchase a handgun. It has been that way for as long as I can remember. I feel the law should be 19 years of age and up. I know, some of you will say whats the deal with one year? Well, I don't know too many high school Seniors who are 19. JMHO.

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Jackson, Michigan
    As far as I'm concerned, if at 18 you can be ordered to go die for your country, you should have all rights afforded an adult, be they buying a handgun, liquor, etc. No, not every 18 year old may be mature enough, but I would argue that a lot of people older than 18 aren't mature enough to even drive, let alone use a firearm.
    George Washington: “They may pass a law to issue paper money, but 20 laws will not make the people receive it. Paper money is founded upon fraud and knavery.”

  9. #8
    Back in the 70\'s many states lowered the drinking age from 21 to 18. Nothing but problems. Now the drinking age is back to 21.

    Here is my take. If you posses a military ID card, you should be allowed to drink, and carry a pistol. Not at the same time, but you get my meaning. Otherwise keep it 21 for both.

    These days, most 18yo\'s are still children.

    IMHO the nra is rattling its sword over this age issue.

  10. #9
    While i hate to say this, but they should fight for 18-20 year olds the right to have a beer if they want.

    It makes no since to let an 18 year old take a bullet for this country but they cant have a beer.

    Anyway its about time this stupid 21 years of age requred to purchase a hand gun. A gun is a gun. I bought plenty of rifles and shotguns when i turned 18. Hand guns are no different. Its time this country turned around all these stupid gun laws that do nothing but INFRINGE our 2nd amendment.

  11. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Loblaw View Post
    They are not prohibited from owning handguns, only from purchasing them at an FFL. (Private sales are legal) Federal law does not prohibit them from receiving them as gifts either. This is the real problem, they are allowed to own them, just not allowed to buy them from dealers. Do you understand the real problem now.
    Doesnt matter, its still and INFRINGMENT on their second ammendment rights.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Georgia Handgun laws for 18 year olds
    By braveheart483 in forum Georgia Discussion and Firearm News
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 10-10-2013, 01:32 AM
  2. The NRA Continues To Compromise On The Second Amendment
    By Bohemian in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 10-27-2010, 05:02 PM
  3. SAF, Calguns Foundation Challenges California Handgun Ban Scheme
    By lukem in forum California Discussion and Firearm News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-04-2009, 11:03 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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