Skip to comments.Oral Hearings In Jennings v. BATFE Were Held Yesterday (handgun age restrictions)
Posted on 07/11/2012 12:11:49 PM PDT by marktwain
The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments yesterday in the NRA's appeal of Jennings et al v. BATFE. This case, originally known as D'Cruz v. BATFE, challenges the Federal law that bars 18-20 year olds from purchasing handguns at retail from a licensed firearms dealer.
This case was heard originally in the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas before Judge Sam Cummings. He ruled for the BATFE and the NRA appealed a few days later. Judge Cummings found that the rights of 18-20 year olds were not violated as they could always buy a handgun privately and that it was within the purview of Congress to set the age at which someone could purchase a firearm from a dealer.
The NRA released this on the case:
Fairfax, Va. Oral arguments occurred today in the United Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in the case of Jennings v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, in which the National Rifle Association is appealing a decision by a federal court in Texas which held that the Second Amendment doesnt protect the right of young adults to buy firearms from federally licensed dealers.
The NRA has been engaged in this ongoing fight -- not just in Congress and in state legislatures, but also in the courts -- for the right of all law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms. All Americans deserve for their Second Amendment rights to be fully respected. If the law says you're old enough to fight for your country, it should allow 18-20 year old adults to purchase and own a handgun for any lawful purpose," Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRAs Institute for Legislative Action.
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued the ruling that is being appealed. The plaintiffs are a group of law-abiding 18- to 20-year old adults who are challenging the federal ban on dealer sales of handguns to persons under 21, who are treated as adults for virtually every other purpose under the law. The lower court wrongly compared the ban to other restrictions the Supreme Court has said would be presumptively lawful, such as the ban on sales to convicted felons.
The NRA filed a brief on behalf of these law-abiding young adults pointing out that nearly a decade before the U.S. Supreme Court decided District of Columbia v. Heller, the Fifth Circuit itself had held (in the 2001 case of United States v. Emerson) that Second Amendment claims should be decided based on the amendments history and text. The history of the Founding era makes clear that 18-year-olds were considered adults for purposes of the right to keep and bear arms; for example, the Militia Act of 1792 required 18-year-olds to be enrolled in the militia and to arm themselves accordingly.
A parallel case, challenging the state of Texas age limit of 21 for issuance of concealed handgun licenses, is also pending in the Fifth Circuit.
The oral hearings can be heard here. Arguing for the NRA was Charles Cooper and for the United State was Anisha Sasheen Dasgupta.
The case was heard before Judges Carolyn King (appointed by Jimmy Carter), Catherina Haynes (appointed by George W. Bush), and Edward Prado (appointed by George W. Bush).
You're new here aren't you? Well here is a tip for you citizen, do NOT question your betters. They know what's best for and it would be wise of you to cheerfully comply. Now please get back to work and pay your taxes.
This does raise an interesting legal question. That is, for some things, the feds can set the legal age, but for other things, legal age is reserved as a state power.
But which are which, and why? Some interesting twists and turns.
The National Minimum Drinking Age Act (1984). Under the Federal Aid Highway Act, a state with a minimum age below 21 would be subjected to a ten percent decrease in its annual federal highway apportionment.
(This sounds really pertinent right now given the SCOTUS decision about the federal government compelling the states to increase Medicaid, or have their Medicaid funding cut off. However, in the case South Dakota v. Dole, in the majority opinion authored by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the power of Congress to withhold federal funds in pursuit of national policies, such as the drinking age, was upheld, which is just the opposite of the Roberts decision.)
Meanwhile, the age of consent for sex is clearly a state prerogative, and there is wide variation among states.
The feds might use this particular argument to say that “while it is legal for 18-21 year olds to buy from a FFL dealer, it is illegal for an FFL dealer to *sell* to them. This gives them a legal out, because the courts would agree that the feds can regulate the business of FFL dealers.
If you enter the military with parental consent at age 17 are you allowed to train with small arms and the bigger stuff or do have to wait around picking your nose until you are 18?
From personal experience, you can have all this fun at 17. It doesn't become as much fun when you realize machine guns are heavier than they look on teevee. It becomes even less fun because though you happily received your driver's license the year prior, you get to walk long differences while carrying those heavy things.
From personal experience, you can have all this fun at 17. It doesn't become as much fun when you realize machine guns are heavier than they look on teevee. It becomes even less fun because though you happily received your driver's license the year prior, you get to walk long distances while carrying those heavy things.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.