CA5 TX rules 18-20 yo allowed to Carry

[krucam]

NRA v McCraw was decided a few years back on whether 18-20s could purchase handguns. It was decided NOT. Today, referencing NRA v McCraw & Bruen, CA5 decided while you still can’t purchase one, you CAN carry a handgun. Progress…

https://thetexan.news/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Firearms-Policy-Coalition-v.-McCraw.pdf

 

[delaware_export]

So next, rehear/new case regarding 18-20 purchasing? Probably some stuff already moving in that directions, if I recall correctly

 

[HaveBlue]

That 18-20 yo restriction would make it very hard for an orphan to purchase a firearm.

 

[adit]

That 18-20 yo restriction would make it very hard for an orphan to purchase a firearm.

At 18 my parents were married and had a kid at 19.

 

[press1280]

NRA v McCraw was decided a few years back on whether 18-20s could purchase handguns. It was decided NOT. Today, referencing NRA v McCraw & Bruen, CA5 decided while you still can’t purchase one, you CAN carry a handgun. Progress…

https://thetexan.news/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Firearms-Policy-Coalition-v.-McCraw.pdf

The District Court here decided that Bruen effectively dissolved the 5th circuit cases involving 18-20 Y/O purchase and carry cases based on the fact they used the 2A two-step process.
So if other judges follow suit, all the bad decisions post Heller are now based on a dissolved legal theory, and thus are on shaky legal ground.

 

[Afrikeber]

At 17 you can serve in the military but cannot drink a beer in Maryland.

…..let alone enjoy your 2nd Ammendment.

 

[Texasgrillchef]

The District Court here decided that Bruen effectively dissolved the 5th circuit cases involving 18-20 Y/O purchase and carry cases based on the fact they used the 2A two-step process.
So if other judges follow suit, all the bad decisions post Heller are now based on a dissolved legal theory, and thus are on shaky legal ground.

If you start to look at several other cases around the Nation that various Justices are starting to rule on. Such as Miller v Bonta out of California, Bianchi v Frosh, Duncan v Bonta, and RMGO v Superior, Or Antonyuk v Bruen out of NY. Just a few examples. You will start to see that Many judges are already accepting the fact that the 2 Step approach no longer apply, and thus previous cases that relied on the 2 Step approach are no longer valid, and those cases have been abrogated and thus can no longer be used as precedent For any future cases.

The dominoes have started to fall. As more and more fall, there will be more and more case precedent. The more the better.

Now we just need to get SCOTUS to rule on the several cases sitting at their level on the Bump Stock issue.

 

[Allen65]

Now we just need to get SCOTUS to rule on the several cases sitting at their level on the Bump Stock issue.

To me, the mozt important part of the bump stock cases isn't the 2A nexus, it's the takings aspect. Does use of police powers to destroy vested interest in tangible personal property constitute a compensable taking under 4A ?

 

[Texasgrillchef]

To me, the mozt important part of the bump stock cases isn't the 2A nexus, it's the takings aspect. Does use of police powers to destroy vested interest in tangible personal property constitute a compensable taking under 4A ?

Currently… the bump stock issue with the ATF isnt being fought over the 2A or 4A reasons, but over Chevron Deference issues.

What that is meaning. Is we want legal criminal laws to be decided and passed by congress, not arbitrarily by a government bureau. If we can get the courts to do away with Chevron Deference then the ATF can’t pass or create or write new criminal code banning items like Bump Stocks, Triggers Braces etc…. Congress will have to do that.

However, once we overturn Chevron Deference. That doesn’t mean congress, or even states can’t come in and ban those items themselves.

Thats where step two comes into play with new cases fighting them on the 2A, 14A, and 4A reasons.