NRA Gets Its Lawsuit On
The NRA is challenging federal laws that prohibit law-abiding Americans eighteen through twenty years of age from legally purchasing a handgun through a federally licensed firearm dealer. The case was filed Tuesday evening in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas Lubbock Division. James D’Cruz of Lubbock, TX is the plaintiff in this case.
September 8th, 2010 at 10:50 am
Hey, I didn’t know the NRA ever filed 2nd Amendment lawsuits! I thought the NRA just took credit for Alan Gura’s lawsuit wins!
September 8th, 2010 at 11:01 am
I didn’t realize Alan argued Due Process at the Supreme Court. Seems to me he put all his eggs in the P or I basket and got mocked by Justices Scalia and Roberts. It was NRA’s Due Process argument that prevailed, not Gura’s CATO argument.
September 8th, 2010 at 11:01 am
AWESOME! It’s about time the NRA took on a REAL challenge. When I was 18, I had to get my dad to buy me a handgun. I was a US Marine, and I had several far more lethal rifles and shotguns I could use if I wanted to kill someone, but I couldn’t buy a handgun. I got back from Iraq, I was 20, I had traveled around the world, fought in a war, voted in two national elections, and I couldn’t own a handgun, or have a beer.
September 8th, 2010 at 11:37 am
ITS ABOUT DAMN TIME! I am a FIRM believer in that if one can be drafted, fight and die foor thier country, then they should be able to buy a pistol, carry a pistol or drink a damn beer!
September 8th, 2010 at 11:38 am
tom, you didn’t read the brief then.
September 8th, 2010 at 11:53 am
Was not the majority of his brief on P or I? I think there were a handful of pages on Due Process.
September 8th, 2010 at 1:34 pm
Tom,
If a lawyer _needed_ more than “a handful of pages” to make a Due Process argument after Heller they needed to reexamine their career choices.
P&I was the argument that needed the convincing support. In any event, the pages of evidence for P&I also applied to SDP, he just had to change the ending.
September 8th, 2010 at 1:56 pm
tom, just because Gura made the PI argument doesn’t mean the NRA is all that squared away. You don’t make just one argument when you take your case to court. Gura just took the harder of the two arguments. That doesn’t mean that he thought it was the winning one.
September 8th, 2010 at 5:28 pm
Tom, so we went from “all the eggs” to “majority” …
Please, spare us. Gura got it done.
September 8th, 2010 at 6:03 pm
I read Clarence Thomas’ concurring opinion, supporting P&I, and I recommend it to you.
His analysis is one of the most logical, most clearly-referenced, most irrefutable arguments I have ever read in a Supreme Court decision.
That the others would not vote to overturn the past century’s growth of federal power is not to say Clarence, or Gura, was wrong; it is to say the others had not the courage to face the truth.
September 8th, 2010 at 8:59 pm
I hope NRA prevails with this suit…but even if they do, it will be up to TSRA to lobby the Texas Ledge to change the CHL regulations to allow 18 yr olds to CCW;
Otherwise 18-20 year olds would next be in the odd position of being able to purchase handguns but being legally *unable* to get a permit to conceal until reaching age 21…on the other hand, the current age limits make it easier to argue for expanding CHLs to include campus carry…since only seniors, staff, and grad students and non-traditional age students would be thus impacted. But dropping it to 18 might unfortunately breathe new life into the “irresponsible drunken college students!11!” canard of the antis…and possibly serve to keep everyone on state campuses still legally disarmed as they are now (excepting CHL bearing citizens not affiliated with the campus simply passing through it but without entering into any physical buildings).
September 8th, 2010 at 10:37 pm
While the NRA doesn’t say so in the press release, they filed TWO lawsuits today. The first, D’Cruz v. BATFE et al challenges Sec. 922(b)(1).
The second, D’Cruz v. McCraw, challenges the Texas Penal code that doesn’t allow 18-20 year olds to have a concealed carry permit unless that are or have been members of the military.
Both suits have the same lawyers and use much the same wording.
September 8th, 2010 at 10:53 pm
As MaTT G. said, but one step farther: How many 18 years have served, got wounded badly enough that, at the age of 20 are stuck in a wheelchair forever, yet have to wait a year to buy a handgun? Wonder how many would be shot by the SWAT team if they strapped an old Paratrooper M1 Carbine to the frame of the chair and went into town? But it’s okay for them to mugged and shoved into the road so the Brady Bunch can feel good about disarming the People.
September 9th, 2010 at 8:06 am
This isn’t about who can buy a beer, or who can carry on campus, or any of that. This is about a Federal law that denies a Constitutional RIGHT to 12 million US citizens.
If there were a law that denied any other right, such as free speech, freedom to worship, or to have a trial by jury to 18-21 year olds, there would be no question that the court would strike it down. So why is the right to keep and bear arms any different?