Posted on 09/30/2011 6:13:20 AM PDT by marktwain
One of two court cases that could have expanded gun rights if successful and had drawn national attention in the debate over the constitutional right to bear arms was dismissed today by a federal judge in Lubbock.
In a 17-page order, U.S. District Judge Samuel Cummings dismissed a challenge to a 32-year-old federal law barring handgun sales by licensed gun dealers to people under the age of 21.
“The Court is of the opinion that the ban does not run afoul of the Second Amendment to the Constitution,” the ruling states. “The right to bear arms is enjoyed only by those not disqualified from the exercise of the Second Amendment rights.
“It is within the purview of Congress, not the courts, to weigh the relative policy considerations and to make decisions as to the age of the customer to whom those licensed by the federal government may sell handguns and handgun ammunition.”
The lawsuit was one of two filed about a year ago by the National Rifle Association and plaintiffs who were between the ages of 18 and 21. They wanted to buy a handgun for self-protection, insisting that under other laws including military service, people are considered adults at age 18.
Proponents of the suit said it could have changed Texas law requiring applicants for a concealed handgun license to be at least 21 years old. Handgun-control groups had warned that lowering the age for owning a handgun would set a dangerous precedent.
The plaintiffs included Andrew Payne, 19, of Lubbock, who said in court filings that he visits shooting ranges with his father and wanted to own a handgun.
A second plaintiff was Rebekah Jennings, a 19-year-old competitive pistol shooter from Boerne, near San Antonio, who said the federal law prohibits her from owning a gun. She said it requires her to borrow a pistol from her father for practice and competition.
A third plaintiff was Brennan Harmon, 19, who stated in court filings that she lives alone in a San Antonio apartment near where “there have been shooting incidents.” Harmon currently owns a rifle and a shotgun, but not a handgun. “She finds the long guns insufficient for self-defense,” the filing states.
The NRA sued on behalf of gun dealers who claimed they should be allowed to sell to qualified 18-to-20 year-olds, and its members including a Pullman, Wash.,college student, Hawlie Fewkes. “She plans to live in an off-campus apartment next semester, and would like to purchase a new handgun to keep in that apartment for self-defense and for use in target shooting” but is unable to do so under the current law, a court filing states.
At issue in the case is the 1968 federal law that prohibits 18-to-20-year-olds from purchasing handguns from federally licensed dealers.
Spokesmen for the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the federal agency that regulates gun sales and licenses gun dealers, said they had not seen the decision and could not comment. NRA officials could not be reached late today.
The second case, still pending, was filed by a man named James D’Cruz, whom the NRA described at the time the suit was filed as “well-trained in the proper handling of firearms, including handguns” — in circumstances familiar to generations of Texas families.
“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 … (and) from his father,” the statement reads.
As a member of the Navy Junior Reserve Officer’s Training Corps in high school, he was a member of the group’s marksmanship team — where he received numerous awards .
There was no immediate word late today on the current status of that case.
Get more Legislative coverage inside the Virtual Capitol
This judge needs to be impeached.
Ping.
“People” under the age of 21 are not people after all ... otherwise, this amendment would apply to them. Maybe this judge is planning to validate culling of the species through post-birth abortions up to the age of 21.
“Harmon currently owns a rifle and a shotgun, but not a handgun. “She finds the long guns insufficient for self-defense,” the filing states. “
One word for ya, hon: Mossberg.
Colonel, USAFR
I look at it from the other end. If you're old enough to vote (most states have lowered the voting age to 18), serve in the military (also 18), and to legally use alcohol (also 18), then by damn, you should be able to own a handgun. Congress should REPEAL this BS rather than needing a court decision.
Indeed. When I took a thirty day leave from S. Korea to come back to the U.S.A., I could not legally drink in CA.
Old enough to die, but not old enough to drink [this was in 1975].
Since then of course, additional penumbras have been discovered emanating from our Constitution that had previously gone undetected. Thank God for feral judges, without whose powers of discernment we would still be suffering under the simple language of our Constitution our Founders intended.
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.