TX - Teen Files Suit Against BATFE re:Handgun Sales To <21

[willbdavis]

xtry51: it doesn't mean it isn't a right. BUT, because it is not in the constitution, it very much DOES mean it isn't a constitutionally protected right. I'm not saying it shouldn't be. I'm just telling you how the Bill Of Rights works. I'm familiar with the 9th and 10th amendments.

 

[willbdavis]

Gonzo: "pursuit of hapiness" ain't in the constitution either, but I'm all for it. Of course, we all know the original three are life. liverty and property. POH was just Jefferson being a weeny.

 

[Gonzo]

Next you're probably going to tell me the three branches of government aren't the House, Senate, and President.

 

[willbdavis]

Sorry for stating the obvious. I'll try not to let it happen again.

 

[xtry51]

xtry51: it doesn't mean it isn't a right. BUT, because it is not in the constitution, it very much DOES mean it isn't a constitutionally protected right. I'm not saying it shouldn't be. I'm just telling you how the Bill Of Rights works. I'm familiar with the 9th and 10th amendments.

Um, The 9th and 10th specifically prevent the federal gov't from passing any laws regarding any laws on any other freedoms not listed and outside the scope of specifically called out duties. That was the intent. So exactly which one of us doesn't understand the bill of rights?

 

[willbdavis]

The federal government didn't pass any laws regarding consumption of alcohol. They strong-armed the states into raising the drinking age.

Again, I completely agree you have rights not enumerated in the constitution. But I maintain these are not protected by the Bill of Rights, or "consitutionally protected." At least they are not protected beyond the scope of the 10th amendment. Example, what if the federal government wants to trample one of your non-BOR rights using powers delegated to it?

Say the fed wants to use the interstate commerce clause to force you to buy health insurance. If you are of a religeon that forbids you from going to a doctor, you could claim a violation of your first amendment rights. But on what other basis could you claim that your consitutionally protected rights have been violated?

Sure, you could say the feds action goes beyond the intent of the interstate commerce clause. You could say the gov't has no business telling you to buy health insurance. But it isn't a violation of your constitutionally protected rights.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd like someone to explain this to me.

 

[xtry51]

Just because they can pass a law, doesn't mean it's constitutional. The ruling on SS as constitutional (where two judges flipped on an exact precedent case on railroad workers, after court packing threats from FDR) was based on the "general welfare" clause which basically nullified the entire constitution. Since that ruling politicians have been less constrained by the 9th and 10th amendments because they just claim "It's for the children!!!!".

 

[Gonzo]

The federal government didn't pass any laws regarding consumption of alcohol. They strong-armed the states into raising the drinking age.

Again, I completely agree you have rights not enumerated in the constitution. But I maintain these are not protected by the Bill of Rights, or "consitutionally protected." At least they are not protected beyond the scope of the 10th amendment. Example, what if the federal government wants to trample one of your non-BOR rights using powers delegated to it?

Say the fed wants to use the interstate commerce clause to force you to buy health insurance. If you are of a religeon that forbids you from going to a doctor, you could claim a violation of your first amendment rights. But on what other basis could you claim that your consitutionally protected rights have been violated?

Sure, you could say the feds action goes beyond the intent of the interstate commerce clause. You could say the gov't has no business telling you to buy health insurance. But it isn't a violation of your constitutionally protected rights.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd like someone to explain this to me.

I consider the repeal of prohibition a constitutional protection of my beer.

If yhey can mandate that you buy one thing, they can mandate that you buy anything. It is a violation because it is not outlined in the constitution as function of the federal gov't. They are overstepping their boundries, and setting a very bad precedent. And by very bad I mean evil. It's one thing to set limits on behavior for a societal good. It's quite another to force a behavior.

 

[willbdavis]

Heh. I don't know enough about prohibition and the susequent repeal. Personally, I favor no laws of this sort, period. Not on beer, not on drugs, etc. I'm not sure what arguments were made at the time regarding whether or not prohibition passed constitutional muster.

Anyway, these kinds of discussions are very interesting to me. They challenge me to question what I think I know.

Based on what I've read in the Federalist Papers I'm pretty sure the founding fathers were not libertarians, as much as we would wish they were. Nor were they strictly states' rights people either. As far as I can tell they saw all of these choices as trade-offs. They seemed prepared to give up some personal freedom to empower local, state and, ultimately, a federal government. That being said, I'm pretty sure the current state of affairs would shock and dismay the founding fathers.

For myself, I like to think that I am "informed" by libertarian ideas. The more I engage in these discussions the more I realize how much I have to learn about real freedom, how accustomed I have become to being a surf.

 

[lupis42]

I'm not sure what arguments were made at the time regarding whether or not prohibition passed constitutional muster.

It passed muster under the 18th amendment..

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

The Fifth Circuit has Spoken

Decision handed down today by the Fifth Circuit affirming a lower court's holding that the federal ban on sales of handguns by FFLs to persons under 21 years of age is constitutional.

 

[cekim]

Decision handed down today by the Fifth Circuit affirming a lower court's holding that the federal ban on sales of handguns by FFLs to persons under 21 years of age is constitutional.

Wow, that's a steaming pile of an opinion from what I have read so far.

Basically seems to boil down to, "we've been infringing on your right for a while now, so we shall do it a while longer."

Aweseome!

EDIT: Replace "18-21yo" with previously aggrieved minority of your choice and it reads even more awesomely... "We need to limit the rights of "those people" because they are a threat to public safety."

 

[crazymjb]

Anyone know if a case like this is anywhere in the pipeline with regard to LTCs? Obviously Heller would apply to 18-year-olds so it is only a matter of time. The ATF set-up basically forces straw purchasing for those in states where people who can die overseas can own handguns (even if they can't have a beer).

Mike

 

[terraformer]

FYI: I read the decision earlier. There was an interesting point laid into the decision by one of the decision's authors (my money is on a young clerk... ) who made sure to, in multiple locations, stress that all of the historical evidence supporting the 18-21 yr old purchase ban occurred when age of majority was 21.

That would seem to be rather an important caveat to hang an appeal on... That said, I am not sure this will get cert on appeal. I suspect that SCOTUS will wait for a few more before tackling this issue. Not to mention the NRA's rather odd strategy of taking both a purchase and a carry case at the same time in the same circuit. I also think someone wasn't paying attention when they chose TX. Contrary to popular belief, CA5 is a fuddery and is not really 2A friendly (despite emerson). They would have been better off in CA 6, 8 or 10.

 

[terraformer]

Anyone know if a case like this is anywhere in the pipeline with regard to LTCs? Obviously Heller would apply to 18-year-olds so it is only a matter of time. The ATF set-up basically forces straw purchasing for those in states where people who can die overseas can own handguns (even if they can't have a beer).

Mike

Really? We don't even have a right to an LTC recognized here yet (don't think we aren't working on it...). We are starting from way back in our own endzone. Eventually we would tackle this but frankly with this loss I suspect the NRA will pepper cases around friendly circuits to get a split. We would be playing mop up in the first circuit on this issue by the time we got to it.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Anyone know if a case like this is anywhere in the pipeline with regard to LTCs? Obviously Heller would apply to 18-year-olds so it is only a matter of time. The ATF set-up basically forces straw purchasing for those in states where people who can die overseas can own handguns (even if they can't have a beer).

Mike

This case doesn't really set up a straw purchase situation. An 18-20yo can own and possess handguns. They can even purchase them, but not from an FFL. I'm not sure that if someone in Texas purchases a handgun from an FFL and then subsequently legally transfers that handgun to an 18-20yo, that the federal government would have a straw purchase case. The plaintiffs can legally possess and even purchase, they just can't do it from an FFL.

I thought about how this situation might apply in MA when this case and it's companion case against TX (over CHLs* for 18-20yos) were first filed. The Fifth Circuit's decision would work against us even though the facts are very different. Add to that the First Circuit's decision in Hightower and we'd have a pretty significant uphill climb.


*The companion case appeal will be heard by the Fifth Circuit in December. Here the plaintiffs challenge the ban on issuing CHL to most 18-20 year-old. Texas recognizes a right to carry a firearm in public, but only extends that right to people 18-20 years of age if they're in the military or veterans.

 

[winter]

Wait.. so when I bought my Glock 19 from a dealer, when I turned 18, it was illegal??? o.o

 

[crazymjb]

Really? We don't even have a right to an LTC recognized here yet (don't think we aren't working on it...). We are starting from way back in our own endzone. Eventually we would tackle this but frankly with this loss I suspect the NRA will pepper cases around friendly circuits to get a split. We would be playing mop up in the first circuit on this issue by the time we got to it.

Couldn't you kill two birds with one stone? Someone is denied an LTC as they are under the age of 21 and an LTC is the only way towards handgun ownership in the commonwealth. If the decision is this adult (18+) MUST be granted an LTC in order for the state to comply with Heller and McDonald would that not at the same time set precedent that any non-prohibited person in Massachusetts must be granted an LTC regardless of age as long as they are at least 18?

As someone who is not professionally versed in law it seems to me that this would be one of the more easy "wins" so to speak. Don't think I don't think Comm2A isn't doing a great job, I'm just curious.

I know this would not cover the issue of restrictions.

Mike

 

[terraformer]

Couldn't you kill two birds with one stone? Someone is denied an LTC as they are under the age of 21 and an LTC is the only way towards handgun ownership in the commonwealth. If the decision is this adult (18+) MUST be granted an LTC in order for the state to comply with Heller and McDonald would that not at the same time set precedent that any non-prohibited person in Massachusetts must be granted an LTC regardless of age as long as they are at least 18?

As someone who is not professionally versed in law it seems to me that this would be one of the more easy "wins" so to speak. Don't think I don't think Comm2A isn't doing a great job, I'm just curious.

I know this would not cover the issue of restrictions.

Mike

It's an easy case wrt standing and forcing the courts to rule on the merits but in the grand scheme of things, there is nothing about the restriction (meaning its a common one) or the circuit (meaning our case law) that makes MA a good place to fight this particular fight. Add in the resource issue of an org like Comm2A deciding what case is best to spend donor money on, this topic falls short behind a lot of issues that are far more detrimental to the bulk of firearms owners and which MA is a far better place to fight those fights. If SCOTUS rules on this issue we wou ld take a 18 yr old to court in a heartbeat, but like I said above, CA 6,8 or 10 is a better place for this fight initially.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Couldn't you kill two birds with one stone? Someone is denied an LTC as they are under the age of 21 and an LTC is the only way towards handgun ownership in the commonwealth. If the decision is this adult (18+) MUST be granted an LTC in order for the state to comply with Heller and McDonald would that not at the same time set precedent that any non-prohibited person in Massachusetts must be granted an LTC regardless of age as long as they are at least 18?

As someone who is not professionally versed in law it seems to me that this would be one of the more easy "wins" so to speak. Don't think I don't think Comm2A isn't doing a great job, I'm just curious.

I know this would not cover the issue of restrictions.

Mike

The "two birds with one stone" isn't as simple as it sounds. The courts do much better when they have to deal with single, narrowly focused issues. Throw in the kitchen sink and all you do is make the case more complicated and give the opposition more opportunities to come at you. One weak aspect of the case can wreck the whole thing.

ETA: Sometimes it's just the opposite in criminal cases. You throw in ever possible defense and hope the court bites on one of them.

 

[crazymjb]

It's an easy case wrt standing and forcing the courts to rule on the merits but in the grand scheme of things, there is nothing about the restriction (meaning its a common one) or the circuit (meaning our case law) that makes MA a good place to fight this particular fight. Add in the resource issue of an org like Comm2A deciding what case is best to spend donor money on, this topic falls short behind a lot of issues that are far more detrimental to the bulk of firearms owners and which MA is a far better place to fight those fights. If SCOTUS rules on this issue we wou ld take a 18 yr old to court in a heartbeat, but like I said above, CA 6,8 or 10 is a better place for this fight initially.

Thanks. That much makes sense.

Knuckle Dragger, with regard to the two birds with one stone argument, its not so much two separate issues as, correct me if I am wrong, if it is ruled that an 18 year old non-PP MUST be given an avenue to possess handguns in the home, the same would hold true for everyone older than him (or all other non PP adults) by default. The courts couldn't rule an 18 year old an adult, and those senior to him not adults.

When this decision ultimately comes down, presumably in another state, that an 18 year old is legally entitled to posses a handgun, what options does our wonderful state have to fight that? Can't they still play games with semantics requiring other lawsuits like Chicago has done?

What are the BIG legal issues that need to be hashed out in MA? Storage and regular access in the home I would say is one of the largest of them. The Assault Weapons Ban and reasonable restriction will likely be tackled in Cali before Mass. License restriction is another big one, but I don't think that one is as easy as some of the others, especially as there is nothing currently tying 2A to on body carry outside the home.

Mike

 

[terraformer]

Thanks. That much makes sense.

Knuckle Dragger, with regard to the two birds with one stone argument, its not so much two separate issues as, correct me if I am wrong, if it is ruled that an 18 year old non-PP MUST be given an avenue to possess handguns in the home, the same would hold true for everyone older than him (or all other non PP adults) by default. The courts couldn't rule an 18 year old an adult, and those senior to him not adults.

When this decision ultimately comes down, presumably in another state, that an 18 year old is legally entitled to posses a handgun, what options does our wonderful state have to fight that? Can't they still play games with semantics requiring other lawsuits like Chicago has done?

What are the BIG legal issues that need to be hashed out in MA? Storage and regular access in the home I would say is one of the largest of them. The Assault Weapons Ban and reasonable restriction will likely be tackled in Cali before Mass. License restriction is another big one, but I don't think that one is as easy as some of the others, especially as there is nothing currently tying 2A to on body carry outside the home.

Mike

So honest judges would take the opinion that if 18 yr olds can possess than all others should too, but we aren't betting on those. I fully expect the Chicago reaction to be here.

I think your presumption that CA would be a battle ground in AWB is partly correct. Cook County IL is ground zero on that right now. MA is ground zero on storage by far. We have put significant emphasis on that issue with our criminal cases. See also the amicus we submitted when a case got fast tracked to the SJC recently around cases we were nursing.

As for licensing, MA is ground zero on that point too. More than I think the national orgs really appreciate yet. But we do and we will have something to say about that sooner rather than later.

There are more but that's abut as much I will be discussing tonight.

 

[jar]

"Two birds with one stone" is the exact opposite of the right way to approach federal civil rights litigation. The more issues involved, the more options to derail the case. The ideal is one single very narrow issue.

 

[cekim]

"Two birds with one stone" is the exact opposite of the right way to approach federal civil rights litigation. The more issues involved, the more options to derail the case. The ideal is one single very narrow issue.

Indeed, the courts don't care if it takes 100 years to "make things right."

I understand the legal principle at work here to avoid solving all problems with the same hammer, but it is frustrating and unjust. The better solution is to make it too painful to write these laws in the first place.

 

[lupis42]

Indeed, the courts don't care if it takes 100 years to "make things right."

I understand the legal principle at work here to avoid solving all problems with the same hammer, but it is frustrating and unjust. The better solution is to make it too painful to write these laws in the first place.

It's always harder to fix these things than it was to break them. Think of it as getting the pee back out of the pool.

 

[gzt]

Booze, too....

IMO, "adult" meand that. >= 18, you should be able to exercise the full rights of an adult.

Obviously one can not, however one can serve in US military and be killed. What is wrong with this picture ??

 

[cekim]

It's always harder to fix these things than it was to break them. Think of it as getting the pee back out of the pool.

The analogy would fit better with very loose stool, but yes...

 

[Swamp_Yankee]

IMHO, 21 should be the age of legal maturity. Period. Drinking, firearms, military service, voting, etc. But whether you pick 18 or 21, it should be consistent across the board. If you are an adult, you are an adult. I just think most 18 year olds are morons and the proportion of people that are still morons at 21 is much less...

 

[cekim]

IMHO, 21 should be the age of legal maturity. Period. Drinking, firearms, military service, voting, etc. But whether you pick 18 or 21, it should be consistent across the board. If you are an adult, you are an adult. I just think most 18 year olds are morons and the proportion of people that are still morons at 21 is much less...

I think "maturity" has been delayed by various aspects of our society, not what an 18yo is capable of.

I've run into plenty of people twice that age who are still idiots.

 

[Rderderian]

IMHO, 21 should be the age of legal maturity. Period. Drinking, firearms, military service, voting, etc. But whether you pick 18 or 21, it should be consistent across the board. If you are an adult, you are an adult. I just think most 18 year olds are morons and the proportion of people that are still morons at 21 is much less...

The reason most kids mature from 18 to 21 is because there given freedoms and are expected to f up and learn from mistakes.