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

[ezliving]

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

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=14212

 

[MikeTF]

If 18 year olds can be drafted (yes I'm showing my age) to fight and die for our country, why shouldn't they be allowed to own handguns and 'regulated' firearms?

 

[Norton]

Methinks they're learning a lesson from the SAF.......

 

[hvymax]

Methinks they're learning a lesson from the SAF.......

Feeling the pressure.They can't afford to be left behind for the dustbin of history even if they do eventually have to go back to education as a primary mission.

 

[joppaj]

Glad they're getting proactive (finally) but is this really a top priotity or just low hanging fruit?

 

[ProShooter]

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

 

[Trapper]

Glad they're getting proactive (finally) but is this really a top priotity or just low hanging fruit?

I too am glad they are engaging. While it may turn out to be low-hanging fruit, I believe it is important fruit.

From the NRAs perspective, it may be a way to get all of the 18-20 year old veterans returning from the middle east, and the college students who have a clue (granted they are rare) to support the organization.

While it may just be a ploy to energize a younger base, I'm glad they're doing it.

 

[joppaj]

Fair 'nuff Trapper, I can't disagree with that logic and hadn't considered it.

 

[ezliving]

It appears that the NRA grew a pair.

Or they may have heard that donations increase when 2A lawsuits are filed against the government.

 

[jjbduke2004]

It appears that the NRA grew a pair.

Or they may have heard that donations increase when 2A lawsuits are filed against the government.

It worked for SAF, I joined as a life member when they sued Maryland.

 

[Spot77]

I too am glad they are engaging. While it may turn out to be low-hanging fruit, I believe it is important fruit.

From the NRAs perspective, it may be a way to get all of the 18-20 year old veterans returning from the middle east, and the college students who have a clue (granted they are rare) to support the organization.

While it may just be a ploy to energize a younger base, I'm glad they're doing it.

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.

 

[Fodder4Thought]

Methinks they're learning a lesson from the SAF.......

So it would seem. I just hope that their approach is as well thought out and that their counsel is as skilled as their SAF counterparts.

 

[Fodder4Thought]

Glad they're getting proactive (finally) but is this really a top priotity or just low hanging fruit?

Low hanging fruit is nothing to sneeze at - I can't think of a better way to build inertia than by grabbing as much of it as is available.

I neither claim to be a lawyer nor to understand the workings of what's going on, just that a large number of small successes can be very helpful before moving on to higher fruit.

 

[krucam]

This is great news from the NRA. There are at least 19 cases out there pending and each and every one will help chip away the onerous laws laid down over the last 4+ decades. This is truly a great time for the 2A community...

Keep up your support for those fighting the fight (MSI, SAF, NRA, etc...).

Complaint is available here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/37107009/D-Cruz-v-BATFE-Complaint

This is in part a shot at the GCA of 1968 as well. GCA, 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(29)(A), states:

handgun means “a firearm which has a short stock and is designed to
be held and fired by the use of a single hand.” Federal law
provides under 18 U.S.C. 922(b)(1), that if the firearm to be
transferred is “other than a rifle or shotgun,” the purchaser
must be 21 years of age or older.

I'll dig up more this weekend...stuck in Cheyenne WY through Friday...right across the street (Interstate) from FE Warren AFB, home of one of the greatest firepower shows on the planet...

 

[Trapper]

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.

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?)

 

[Oreo]

Low hanging fruit or not, it's still fruit and as far as the NRA is concerned, it's about damn time they get in this fight. This is a good thing and I support it fully.

I think you'd have to take on the federal law before you go after state laws. So to that end, let the NRA plan their work & work their plan just like the SAF. MD state laws may not be immediately impacted but this snowball is gaining size & momentum. MD's laws will be brought into compliance eventually. It's just a matter of time.

 

[zombiehunter]

awesome. about time.

 

[Huckleberry]

NRA, Damned if they do and damned if they don't!

This case might not look like much but it will help reinforce the 2A as an individual right and not a collective right. Plus ending the disenfranchisement of 18 to 20 yos who are allowed by law to serve as members of the militia.

 

[alucard0822]

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).

 

[Chaunsey]

i think most people dont see this as a really big issue to fight for considering the issues that still face us.

however if i might bring up a perspective, perhaps the idea behind this case is to create a safe testbed for the level of scrutiny in our new found protections of our rights.

this is kind of a good safe case to test the boundaries with, cause if they win, they will have established a certain precedent for the level of scrutiny, not a home run, but it pushes us forward a little so that in future cases people can look to it as a sort of measuring stick.

if they lose, then its no huge loss, whereas iof you lose a case while arguing something important like right to carry, then its a tragic blow that could permanently hurt our cause.

if they lose this case, worst case is that the age restrictions remain in place, which again, most people dont care all that much about.

now i dont speak for the NRA, this only speculation on my part, and id like to hear some of your opinions on this idea, but its just an angle i thought they might be looking at this from.