NRA Files Suit Against BATFE - Under 21 Handgun Sales

[strickj]

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((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.

NRA-ILA :: NRA CHALLENGES CONSTITUTIONALITY OF FEDERAL HANDGUN BAN FOR LAW ABIDING 18-20 YEAR OLDS Edited September 10, 2010 by strickj

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Glad to see that. If you are old enough to serve

your country you ought to be able to carry a

weapon as a civilian.

[Guest ArmyVeteran37214]

Glad to see that. If you are old enough to serve

your country you ought to be able to carry a

weapon as a civilian.

[Red9MM]

Roger That!

When I read this one of my first thoughts was this is a good and right thing to do for our younger brothers and sisters.

Many of our kids go to college at 18 and live off campus. Often in higher crime areas without the right to posess or carry a pistol to defend themselves with.

My next thought was about the differences there would be, if this were successful, between the age to purchase & possess handguns and the age for purchasing drinking alcohol, 21 here in TN and most states.

I can hear this argument starting now "I can buy a gun but can't buy beer?"

However as the NRA points out "the right to bear arms" is constitutionally protected and has been expanded now since the McDonald decision.

The "privilege" to drink is not.

[Fallguy]

Yep considering in several states it is legal for 18-20 to buy a handgun in a private sale and to posses it...and even carry it some states....only makes sense that a FFL should be able to sell to them as well.

[strickj]

If the NRA wins this case on the grounds of the age restriction being un-constitutional, then wouldn't that also allow under 18 to buy as well?

[BryanP]

If the NRA wins this case on the grounds of the age restriction being un-constitutional, then wouldn't that also allow under 18 to buy as well?

Not really. Minors are restricted from many things.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

If the NRA wins this case on the grounds of the age restriction being un-constitutional, then wouldn't that also allow under 18 to buy as well?

I don't think it would affect anything else. Just square the ATF regs with what's considered the age of majority(adulthood).

[Guest crotalus01]

It would only make the law make sense. Currently it is perfectly legal for an 18 year old to buy, own and in some states (NOT TN) carry a handgun. They just cant buy it from a FFL holder. Meaning (for you denser types) they can legally buy a used handgun in state from a private seller who does not have a FFL.

Given that, it is ridiculous that they cant walk into a gunshop and buy new.

[DaveTN]

They may get the Feds to drop the federal minimum age requirement for FFL’s; but states will still set the age.

I joined the military at 17 during Vietnam; but I couldn’t legally buy a beer during my entire 4 year enlistment. That was 40 years ago and things are still the same. That really has nothing to do with this… but I don’t think it will change.

[Fallguy]

They may get the Feds to drop the federal minimum age requirement for FFL’s; but states will still set the age.

I joined the military at 17 during Vietnam; but I couldn’t legally buy a beer during my entire 4 year enlistment. That was 40 years ago and things are still the same. That really has nothing to do with this… but I don’t think it will change.

You're probably right....but that is as it should be.

As far as the beer.....first rounds on me when we can.

[K191145]

Yep considering in several states it is legal for 18-20 to buy a handgun in a private sale and to posses it...and even carry it some states....only makes sense that a FFL should be able to sell to them as well.

That may be something to bring up in the TN State House and Senate.

[wstrnrdr]

FOLLOWING THE POSTS HERE, I DONT' UNDERTAND HOW THE STATE OF TN OR MOST OTHERS CAN OR WANT TO RESTRICT THESE AGE GROUPS. MY DAUGHTER AND SOON BOTH WERE CONFIDENT WELL TAUGHT IN HANDLING AND USING HAND GUNS AS WELL AS LONG GUNS AT AGE 18. mY DAUGHRTER IS CURRENTLY AT BASIC/ AIT SINGLE UNIT TRAINING (MP). FIND IT HARD TO UNDERSTAND HOW STATES CAN TRAIN THEIR SOLDIERS IN INSURRECTION/CROWD CONTROL, CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE, LOOTING ETC AND SEND THEM INTO AREAS OF DISASTER, RIOT ETC.THEY CAN BE ARMED AND PROTECT CITIZENS OF THIS STATE AT 18-19 YEARS OF AGE, AND FACE ARMED COMBAT IN IRAQI AND AFGANI THEATRES. BUT YET THEY CAN NOT CARRY THE SAME GUN THEY HAVE BEEN TRAINED WITH AND USED IN ACTUAL COMBAT TO PROTECT THEMSELVES ON THEIR HOME STREETS. HAVE READ SEVERAL CASES WHERE YOUNG COMBAT RETURNEES WERE KILLED OR SERIOUSLY HURT ON THEIR HOME FRONTS. TO ME THE CONSTITUTION BARS NO AGE , HISTORY SEEMS TO BEAR THAT THE MILITIAS IT REFERRED TO WERE MADE UP OF MALES WHO WERE OFTEN UNDER THE AGE OF 18. THE STATE IT SEEMS CAN TRUST THE YOUNG TO CARRY AND PROTECT THE CITIZENERY BUT NOT CARRY AND PROTECT THEMSELVES AND THEIR LOVED ONES.

[Fallguy]

I'd have to take time to check....but I want to say most of thestates that allow carry by 18 year olds are those states where OC without a permit is legal. Actually some states allow carry even by those under 18.

As far as the sell of handguns to those under 21, that is not up to states.

Talking about military service, TX is one state that in general restricts carry to those 21 and over, but does make exceptions for active duty military....

My main thing is, it should be to each state, then we can make the effort to make any changes to TN law that needs to be made.

From OpenCarry.org - A Right Unexercised is a Right Lost!

[DaveTN]

My main thing is, it should be to each state, then we can make the effort to make any changes to TN law that needs to be made.

That’s the way it is now. Tennessee allows the sale of firearms to 18 year olds. It is Federal law governing the FFL’s that restrict it to 21; and there is nothing the state can do to change that.

[Varmint]

The laws must have been different where you were at the time. You could buy a beer here your second year in. It didnt change to 21 until the early 80's.

(Sorry, replying to Dave. This "Tapatalk" thing is still new fo me. Missed the quote button.)

[TN-popo]

The laws must have been different where you were at the time. You could buy a beer here your second year in. It didnt change to 21 until the early 80's.

(Sorry, replying to Dave. This "Tapatalk" thing is still new fo me. Missed the quote button.)

That's what I was going to say. Wisconsin was 18 at that time, too.

[Fallguy]

That’s the way it is now. Tennessee allows the sale of firearms to 18 year olds. It is Federal law governing the FFL’s that restrict it to 21; and there is nothing the state can do to change that.

True, I guess what I mean is that the Federal government shouldn't have anything to do with it in the first place. Sellers should not need a Federal license to sell a product.

Edited September 19, 2010 by Fallguy

[DaveTN]

True, I guess what I mean is that the Federal government shouldn't have anything to do with it in the first place. Sellers should not need a Federal license to sell a product.

Well, I think one thing we can all agree on is that we can do without the ATF or any other Federal agency being involved in firearm sales. But I doubt you and I will live to see that.

(I changed your statement to what I think you meant.)

[Fallguy]

Well, I think one thing we can all agree on is that we can do without the ATF or any other Federal agency being involved in firearm sales. But I doubt you and I will live to see that.

(I changed your statement to what I think you meant.)

I agree on both points...(unfortunately on the second)

I don't think the commerce clause was ever indented to allow the Feds to control an item from production and then forever on....

thanks for the correction (have gone back now)....mind is starting to go I guess....lol

[StPatrick]

I don't think the commerce clause was ever indented to allow the Feds to control an item from production and then forever on....

That's why we have all these super-smart judges tasked with figuring out what that clause means today...it's just coincedence that they keep finding "rights" for the state while actively limiting those of the private citizenry.

To sum it up in one word: Kelo.

[Oh Shoot]

NM

Edited September 20, 2010 by OhShoot