As an update, the SCOTUS declined to grant cert on any of the three firearm-related cases in Friday's conference.
As I posted above, I didn't really expect them to grant either of these NRA cases, but it just makes it even harder to divine what they're really thinking.
This Court is cautious: one step at a time. Asking if 18 year olds can carry before determining what "bear" means is a bridge too far. Let's wait until Drake is presented for cert, presumably in April. Peruta, I'm hopeful, made cert for Drake considerably more likely.Originally Posted by TheRoland
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...,3225948.story
Good story on the SCOTUS decisions on NRA vs. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and NRA vs. McCraw.
NRA v BATF affirms that a FFL may not sell a handgun to a 18-20 yearold per the 1968 Federal law.
I agree with the decision. The vast majority of 18-20 yearolds that I know are not ready emotionally. The only exception I would grant would be to those who serve a combat/LEO role in the military. If this were unconstitutional, then it would also be unconstitutional for States to ban 18-20 yearolds from drinking alcohol because there is a fundamental right to purchase alcohol, per the 21st Amendment. Also, not sure why the NRA is wasting their time on this: States may allow 18-20 yearolds to purchase handguns from private citizens. It is also legal for States to allow the possession of handguns by 18-20 yearolds, and even concealed or open-carry (although few seem to allow it).
In NRA v McGraw it allowed a Texas law to stand that 18-20 year-olds may legally be restricted from carrying a concealed handgun. Texas grants the exception for anyone in the armed forces or who served honorably. Again, I agree since I don't think the vast majority of people that age have the emotional maturity. And, again, it would then be unconstitutional to ban 18-20 yearolds from drinking alcohol if they rules on concealed carry for 18-20.
The NRA lawyers should be focusing on other things that will have a bigger impact: 1) Storing your handgun legally in your personal vehicle when parked at work, commerical garages, and anyplace except those the Federal or State Gov't considers high security. 2) National Concealed Carry or Reciprocity; 3) Reducing penalties for violating State Gun laws for technical infractions of gun laws (ones not involving serious felonies). A good example is the Felony for possessing a high cap magazine in some states. That should be a misdemeanor, for instance. 4) Reducing restrictions on interstate travel via public transportation. There are so many areas where the NRA lawyers could be more productive and really help the concealed carry population.
Cody
That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state;
But they're old enough to vote. Isn't that just as serious/important as gun ownership?
Yet an 18 year old can spill their blood and guts in an Afghan village, all while carrying government issued arms.
Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk
You know. You really are an enigma to me. You are obviously a knowledgable shooter and well respected by the members of this forum yet you sometimes say things that make me wonder what planet you are from.
The first was your statements after Sandy Hook that Dianne Feinstein could be a person that we could reason with and get on "our side". Now this. Ability to vote, operate a motor vehicle, and yes - die in some crap hole on the other side of the planet not withstanding; you do know there are whole swaths of land in this country where those under 21 routinely use and have unfettered access to firearms on a daily basis without shooting up the place or themselves? Occasionally these minors even protect themselves and their families from harm.
You certainly have a different perspective than most shooters I know.
Last edited by Suvorov; 03-01-2014 at 01:46 PM.
Optimists study English; pessimists study Chinese; and realists learn to use a Kalashnikov.
The consequences of a bad vote are not nearly as serious as the consequences of a bad decision to shoot.
Cody
That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state;
Fred, in my posting I specifically mentioned that there should be an exception for those who serve in the military. US Congress could probably grant an exception to the 1968 gun law that regulates the FFL's and make an exception for active-duty or veterans. I would support that. And, I bet SCOTUS would as well.
Cody
That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state;
I apologize if I don't follow prescribed party-line viewpoints....no wait, sorry, I just remembered it is a highly valued principle of Free Thought and Free Expression here in the United States. No two people are alike, even identical twins. I like the fact that we can have a civil discussion here on this forum. I would also like it if we refrained from personal characterizations and focus on the issues at hand.
I am sure there is a significant percentage of the population between 18-20 that are emotionally mature enough...I will grant you 30%, although I think it is lower than that. Unfortunately laws, especially Federal Laws, are general in their application and thus must be applied to the general population. As I said in my post I support active-duty and veterans exceptions. Congress would have to change the law, and I would support that and I think SCOTUS would agree. Same thing for States. I have raised three kids in the suburbs, much like the majority of the nation and my State. None of my kids showed the maturity to handle a handgun or to drink alcohol. (Although my daughter would have been fine with drinking, not so with my two sons.)
Anyone raising kids is trying to give them the best possible education and keep them safe the longest we can. My life history has taught me that the age restrictions on handguns and alcohol are reasonable and practical and keep our kids safer. That is not a constitutional argument, but a parental one.
Cody
That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state;
Indiana residents get their CCWs at 18 and don't seem to have problems. Maybe we're a lot more mature than Virginians.
Here we believe that if someone's old enough to jump out of a flaming C-47 into the flak-torn midnight sky over Normandy with a BAR strapped to 'em, they can probably be trusted to carry a Kel-Tec to the grocery store.
Reply With Quote