NRA CHALLENGES CONSTITUTIONALITY OF FED. HANDGUN BAN FOR LAW ABIDING 18-20 YEAR OLDS

Going slightly off-topic- In this case they equate 18=adult by this:

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.

Going a step further, what would this do the the legal drinking age in this country?

h2u said:

Going a step further, what would this do the the legal drinking age in this country?

Click to expand...

There is no fundamental constitutional right to Jack Daniels.

alucard0822 said:

Nice, but the day they go all out for a lawsuit challenging the 86 MG ban is the day I will become a life member(currently I send them loot from time to time and maintain a pricey 2A task force membership).

Click to expand...

I would send them the deed to my house if they did that.

The way I see it, any victory for gun rights is a good one. So I am glad the NRA is doing something.

ezliving said:

There is no fundamental constitutional right to Jack Daniels.

Click to expand...

Wasn't the drinking age raised to 21 by each state, not the federal government, although they exerted such pressure that no state could resist? Those federal highway funds being withheld tend to make states more agreeable.

Trapper said:

So, if they are successful, wouldn't there be precedent set for fighting a state that did this as well? Since the 2A is a fundamental right, if a federal law is struck down as unconstitutional, wouldn't an identical state law be just as unconstitutional? It may take a case or two, but after that you'd see lower level courts throwing these out, right? (or am I urinating into a tornado?)

Click to expand...

Sounds about right, but we'll have to see the wording of the outcome of the case.

Nothing is ever black and white; the Heller cased showed us that....

ProShooter said:

Its a good time in America to be pro-gun.

Click to expand...

Reworded.
American is to be pro gun!

Spot77 said:

Wasn't the drinking age raised to 21 by each state, not the federal government, although they exerted such pressure that no state could resist? Those federal highway funds being withheld tend to make states more agreeable.

Click to expand...

When I was 18 (1976) Maryland was 18 for beer and wine, 21 for liquor. It went up to 21 for everything before I turned 21, but I was grandfathered in so I could still legally buy beer and wine.

Thank you, NRA. I think this is an important case for many reasons. Much like the SAF case in NC over emergency powers, a win here will place a serious dent in the ability of the government (at any level) to institute arbitrary restrictions on 2A.

This is much bigger than the 18-20 crowd - it could essentially strip much of the power the government has today in deciding who is able to bear arms. Expect a huge, hard fight and lots of heartburn from the government. The states will jump in on both sides (predictable split: see McDonald briefs).

I'm glad the NRA is taking it on and hope it was coordinated with the SAF (who almost surely had this on their roadmap). If they are coordinating and each playing teamed positions on the same side of the big chess board...I would be ecstatic. Between the two of them, lots of things could happen very, very quickly. It would take years off of the overall fight.

Spot77 said:

This will help 18-20 year olds in some states, but probably not Md. It looks like states will still have the authority to ban sales to 18-20 year olds.

Click to expand...

A law is a law regardless of who passed it. If it is unconstitutional on the Federal level, it is also unconstitutional on the State level. Of course, we're talking about incorporated rights like 2A here.

The civil rights era demonstrated that once won at the federal level, the states really have nothing to do but give up. Of course, many did not give up and we have a lot of history on how hard that fight became, both in courts and in public. But in the end, it was just a matter of time before the states were overruled. They lost their 'locality' and 10th amendment challenges in due course.

This would happen much quicker with 2A cases we win. We have a lot more lawyers and almost all of the legal precedent we need was already fought for and created way back the first time through. So back in the day they fought over the applicability of federal civil rights decisions at the local level - today that fight is over. We won.

States have no say over incorporated civil rights. The 10th does not trump anything.

Spot77 said:

... but we'll have to see the wording of the outcome of the case.

Nothing is ever black and white; the Heller cased showed us that....

Click to expand...

So true. Nothing written above or even in the Supreme Court says places like MD are going to play nice.

ezliving said:

There is no fundamental constitutional right to Jack Daniels.

Click to expand...

I would respectfully disagree since that is an inalienable right under the laws of both God and Nature to enjoy the bounty of the harvest and combine that bounty with good, clean water to provide sustenance for both body and soul.

Some would call that the pursuit of happiness.

I think any case that puts a finger in the eye of the anti's is a good one. I never understood that one could fight and die for their country but not be allowed other privileges associated with being an adult. That goes for beer and such too.

We use to be a society that relished its gun heritage. The anti's took away that one little piece at a time. The NRA and the SAF are taking us back one peice at a time. Its all good to me. I wish them well.

As for the highway funds being used, it is a shame that the states have to kiss the fed's collective butts to get the money back that came from the states in the first place. It is just insane. It would make more sense to me for the feds to take less of our money and the states take more then we know the money stays here. If the feds didn't prop up some of the nanny states as they do, this would be a greatly different country. However, the feds, especially the congress and President love having all this power and will likely never willingly give it up. Besides, its good to be the king!


Vic

I always liked the idea of buying a handgun then getting boozed up at 21.

alucard0822 said:

Nice, but the day they go all out for a lawsuit challenging the 86 MG ban is the day I will become a life member(currently I send them loot from time to time and maintain a pricey 2A task force membership).

Click to expand...

+1

If they get that overturned, just the < 1986 part at least, I would be a happy boy. I don't care if we have to go through the rest of the NFA crap, but it would bring down the price to have newer guns available.

ezliving said:

There is no fundamental constitutional right to Jack Daniels.

Click to expand...

there is no specifically enumerated right in the constitution, that doesnt mean it doesnt exist, or isnt protected under the 9th.

in fact i think the specific repeal of the 18th amendment demonstrates that such a right does exist.

Didn't the NRA back the MG ban? IMHO, ownership of an M-4 is more in line with the spirit of the 2A than the ownership of a shotgun. The founders meant for the people to possess weapons appropriate for military service. We need it to revoke the power of a tyrannical government.

alucard0822 said:

Nice, but the day they go all out for a lawsuit challenging the 86 MG ban is the day I will become a life member(currently I send them loot from time to time and maintain a pricey 2A task force membership).

Click to expand...

This. I love machine guns.

The case name is no longer "D'Cruz v. BATFE", it is filed in TX Northern District as "D'Cruz v. McCraw", just fyi...

As promised upon my return from travel, documents uploaded to the Internet Archive...only items 1 (Complaint), 2 (Disclosure Statement) and 6 (Summons) for now. Those items on the docket will be available shortly at:
http://ia360705.us.archive.org/14/i...d.199405/gov.uscourts.txnd.199405.docket.html

Busy night...check my 2A Case summary (link in my Sig) later...

kalister1 said:

When I was 18 (1976) Maryland was 18 for beer and wine, 21 for liquor. It went up to 21 for everything before I turned 21, but I was grandfathered in so I could still legally buy beer and wine.

Click to expand...

WTF I was 18 and legal in 82. The drinking age changed July 1st 1982. 17 days after my birthday. Boy were my friends pissed.

teratos said:

Didn't the NRA back the MG ban? IMHO, ownership of an M-4 is more in line with the spirit of the 2A than the ownership of a shotgun. The founders meant for the people to possess weapons appropriate for military service. We need it to revoke the power of a tyrannical government.

Click to expand...

Yes, implicitly though. They rolled over after it was snuck into FOPA. When the bill was in conference, the MG ban survived and thus passed the Senate in the conference report. The NRA did nothing to strip it and in fact likely supported it to get rid of some aspects of the '68 GCA. Sadly, FOPA did little to fix the problems with the GCA. Yeah, you could sort of buy long guns interstate, and you could ship ammunition over state lines (I like that) but on the whole, it failed.

States like NJ and NY routinely prosecute and persecute people traveling through the aforementioned for "illegal handgun possession." Despite the defense of FOPA, some have been convicted.

Spot77 said:

This will help 18-20 year olds in some states, but probably not Md. It looks like states will still have the authority to ban sales to 18-20 year olds.

Click to expand...

That's actually not true. A positive ruling against the BATFE will also strike down all of the state laws on this subject as well.

Remember that Justice Alito in McDonald made it clear: The individual rights protected in the second amendment against the federal government is the same with 14th amendment cases against states involving 2A. All case law is now backwards and forwards compatible with each other. This goes to SCOTUS, and we win, 18 year olds will be able to buy handguns.