-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
TX - Teen Files Suit Against BATFE re:Handgun Sales To <21
- Thread starter Kevlar
- Start date
I wish him the best of luck. Its nice to see someone from his generation standing up and not just rolling over and taking the BS like most of the rest of his generation are.
I think this one is a no-brainer 14thA case and will help pry the door open even wider. There are two suits, one challenging sales of guns to people under 21 and one against TX that's a right-to-carry.
That's great. If you're old enough to be handed a rifle and fight for your country on foreign soil, then you're old enough to carry a gun on native soil. I enlisted at 171/2 and we denied a job at a deli because you had to be 18 to use the deli slicer.
J
Jose
Attack! Attack! Attack!
I love it
I love it
So he can smoke, serve in the military, gamble, go to (some) strip joints but can't buy a handgun at those ages.....
Good for him. Next they need to lower the drinking age to 18. That will correct the "some" strip joints part.
Good for him. Next they need to lower the drinking age to 18. That will correct the "some" strip joints part.
MisterHappy
NES Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,408
- Likes
- 17,594
Booze, too....
IMO, "adult" meand that. >= 18, you should be able to exercise the full rights of an adult.
IMO, "adult" meand that. >= 18, you should be able to exercise the full rights of an adult.
stoneypete
NES Member
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2005
- Messages
- 3,855
- Likes
- 409
I agree. There is no magic age at which a person is responcible. Since you can pay taxes, die for your country, get married or potentially spend the rest of your life in jail for a crime, then you should not have to wait till 21 for a drink or a handgun.
Ted Kennedy, for example, never actually acted like an adult despite living for more than 60 years...
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
Last edited:
Turbocharged
NES Member
Excellent! I wish I had of thought of that!
I think it should noted that in MOST of the country you CAN have a handgun at 18, you can even buy one, just not at an FFL. Not defending the law..just saying
J
Jose
I think it should be noted that we are on a roll and any pushback on any anti gun law at any level is a good thing.
A lot of this sounds like echos of the arguments used back during the Vietnam War. In the old days a person was not considered to have achieved majority until he or she turned 21. You couldn't vote. You couldn't drink.
People argued successfully that if they were old enough to a) go to war and b) get married you were old enough to drink. Drinking ages across the country were reduced to 18 for the duration of the 1970's.
Amid claims that drunk driving, campus date rape and general mayhem was a result of the 18 year old drinking age, during the 1980's the Federal Government pushed the states into changing the drinking age back to 21. They used the threat of witholding federal highway funds if the states didn't comply. This caused some, such as Vermont, to threaten secession. But in the end all complied.
Drinking, however, is not a constitutionally protected right.
People argued successfully that if they were old enough to a) go to war and b) get married you were old enough to drink. Drinking ages across the country were reduced to 18 for the duration of the 1970's.
Amid claims that drunk driving, campus date rape and general mayhem was a result of the 18 year old drinking age, during the 1980's the Federal Government pushed the states into changing the drinking age back to 21. They used the threat of witholding federal highway funds if the states didn't comply. This caused some, such as Vermont, to threaten secession. But in the end all complied.
Drinking, however, is not a constitutionally protected right.
![[smile]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/001.gif "Smile [smile]")
xtry51
NES Member
Statements like this always scare me. The constitution does not list every right you have. It simply points out the ones most egregiously violated throughout history and tells the government what they can't do to the people. Just because it is not specifically mentioned in the constitution does NOT mean it's not a constitutionally protected right.
The two most ignored and unenforced lines in the constitution.
This was the case challenging GCA68. D'Cruz also had a right-to-carry case against Texas. I'm not sure where that stands.
Last edited:
Similar threads
