mauserme Posted September 8, 2010 at 06:07 PM Share Posted September 8, 2010 at 06:07 PM http://www.nraila.or...s.aspx?ID=14212 NRA CHALLENGES CONSTITUTIONALITY OF FEDERAL HANDGUN BAN FOR LAW ABIDING 18-20 YEAR OLDSWednesday, September 08, 2010Fairfax, Va. -- 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. "In Heller and McDonald, the U.S. Supreme Court clearly stated that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms for all law-abiding Americans," said Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA's Institute for Legislative Action. "That right is not limited only to Americans twenty-one years of age and older. Indeed, throughout our nation's history, adults beginning at age eighteen have served in the military and fought for this country with honor. But while the Supreme Court has consistently made clear that the federal government cannot ban or unduly restrict sales of items protected by the Constitution, the federal government continues to prohibit these adults from purchasing handguns from federally licensed dealers, which represent the largest and most accessible means of purchasing handguns." The suit asserts: "At eighteen years of age, law-abiding citizens in this country are considered adults for almost all purposes and certainly for the purposes of the exercise of fundamental constitutional rights. Indeed, at eighteen, citizens are eligible (and male citizens could be conscripted) to serve in the military-to fight and die by arms for the country. Yet, Section 922((1) prohibits law-abiding adults in this age group from lawfully purchasing -- from the most prevalent and readily available source -- what the Supreme Court has called "the quintessential self-defense weapon" and "the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home." The plaintiff, Mr. D'Cruz, is well-trained in the proper handling and use of firearms, including handguns. 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. Mr. D'Cruz received further training from his father and as a member of the Navy Junior Reserve Officer's Training Corps, where he achieved the rank of Lieutenant Junior Grade. During his junior and senior years of high school, Mr. D'Cruz was a member of the JROTC's marksmanship team, and as member of that team has competed in regional and national marksmanship competitions. Mr. D'Cruz received numerous awards, including a first place medal for marksmanship, in a regional competition. Mr. D'Cruz also received a Foreign Legion unit award for marksmanship. The case is D'Cruz v. BATFE. Link to oddly formatted complaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howard Roark Posted September 29, 2010 at 05:19 AM Share Posted September 29, 2010 at 05:19 AM Seems good: 18 year old citizens can vote. Can serve in the military. Why not trust them to have guns? BATFE, not so much trust for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigJim Posted September 29, 2010 at 06:31 PM Share Posted September 29, 2010 at 06:31 PM If an 18 year old joins the military aren't they given guns? In fact don't 18 year olds get to shoot fully automatic firearms, launch rockets, throw grenades, fire canons and howitzers? Seems to me that if you can trust an 18 year old with military weapons you can trust him with a handgun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ol'Coach Posted September 30, 2010 at 01:15 AM Share Posted September 30, 2010 at 01:15 AM In that 18-21 group, some are, no doubt, already far beyond some of us in knowledge and "maturity" (read as, common sense.)Others, let's just say, not so much! But, I reckon that's true in any age group, isn't it? So, why not! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Federal Farmer Posted November 15, 2010 at 08:36 PM Share Posted November 15, 2010 at 08:36 PM There is also James d'Cruz v McCraw, et. al. that is challenging Texas law prohibiting carry permits for 18-20 year olds. Both suits discussed here with links: http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/2010/09/nra-files-suits-challenging-handgun.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted November 29, 2010 at 08:00 PM Author Share Posted November 29, 2010 at 08:00 PM The Brady Campaign and Mothers Against Teen Violence have file an amici brief in D'Cruz v McCraw. It, and other pertinent documents, are attached.D\'Cruz v McCraw Brady Center et al Amici Brief 11-17-10.pdfD\'Cruz v McCraw Answer to Amended Complaint 11-23-10.pdfD\'Cruz v McCraw Amended Complaint 10-20-10.pdfD\'Cruz v McCraw Complaint 9-8-10.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzzard Posted November 29, 2010 at 08:20 PM Share Posted November 29, 2010 at 08:20 PM If an 18 year old joins the military aren't they given guns? In fact don't 18 year olds get to shoot fully automatic firearms, launch rockets, throw grenades, fire canons and howitzers? Seems to me that if you can trust an 18 year old with military weapons you can trust him with a handgun. Whoa! Whoa! There's way too much common sense being thrown around here!! You're gonna cause some liberal's aneurysm to burst! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Federal Farmer Posted November 29, 2010 at 08:45 PM Share Posted November 29, 2010 at 08:45 PM If an 18 year old joins the military aren't they given guns? In fact don't 18 year olds get to shoot fully automatic firearms, launch rockets, throw grenades, fire canons and howitzers? Seems to me that if you can trust an 18 year old with military weapons you can trust him with a handgun. Whoa! Whoa! There's way too much common sense being thrown around here!! You're gonna cause some liberal's aneurysm to burst! Whoa...canons? Really? lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarandFan Posted December 6, 2010 at 12:19 AM Share Posted December 6, 2010 at 12:19 AM I've heard many folks bring up this "if they are old enough for the military ..." argument. That 18 year olds can join the military and use military weapons under rather strict supervision isn't the most compelling argument here ... The most compelling argument is that 18 year olds are subject to all the same enumerated rights protections as are other adults ... and that 18 is generally considered "adulthood" for legal reasons regarding liability (ie. 18 years is generally the age at which one can be tried as an adult). In come cases, earlier than 18 ... but by 18, for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ol'Coach Posted December 8, 2010 at 03:56 PM Share Posted December 8, 2010 at 03:56 PM I've heard many folks bring up this "if they are old enough for the military ..." argument. That 18 year olds can join the military and use military weapons under rather strict supervision isn't the most compelling argument here ... The most compelling argument is that 18 year olds are subject to all the same enumerated rights protections as are other adults ... and that 18 is generally considered "adulthood" for legal reasons regarding liability (ie. 18 years is generally the age at which one can be tried as an adult). In come cases, earlier than 18 ... but by 18, for sure. ...and can legally enter into a contract, which, I suppose, is technically why one can enter the military. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted December 8, 2010 at 04:20 PM Author Share Posted December 8, 2010 at 04:20 PM http://www.kcbd.com/....asp?S=13628532 Lubbock teen drops some but not all Texas officials from gun lawsuitPosted: Dec 07, 2010 5:57 AM CST Updated: December 7, 2010 7:35 AM EST' By James Clark LUBBOCK, TX (KCBD) - A Lubbock teenager agrees to dismiss certain people from his lawsuit against the state of Texas. James D'Cruz and the National Rifle Association are suing Texas in Lubbock federal court. On Friday D'Cruz agreed to drop Texas Public Safety Commission Board members from his lawsuit. The Texas DPS Director Steven McCraw is still, however, named in the lawsuit. D'Cruz claims it's unconstitutional for Texas to prohibit concealed carry permits for persons between the ages of 18 through 20. The case has made national news several times. Just a few days ago the Washington Post wrote an editorial critical of D'Cruz and the NRA for suing Texas. Copyright 2010 KCBD NewsChannel 11. All rights reserved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigma Posted December 8, 2010 at 04:42 PM Share Posted December 8, 2010 at 04:42 PM I wish the plantiff had a better record Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Federal Farmer Posted December 8, 2010 at 06:25 PM Share Posted December 8, 2010 at 06:25 PM I wish the plantiff had a better record The Brady's are going out of their way to smear this guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarandFan Posted December 8, 2010 at 07:27 PM Share Posted December 8, 2010 at 07:27 PM Indeed ... saying that he "looks like a school shooter" just outright nasty of them! Ugly. It's amazing how some folks can be smeared up, down and sideways and that's somehow fine, while others seem completely immune. Personally, I am glad I'm not James D'Cruz. The haters are going to ream him a new one. And they will probably get away with all manner of vile, prejudiced, and discriminatory pronouncements about the young man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richp Posted December 8, 2010 at 08:33 PM Share Posted December 8, 2010 at 08:33 PM Hi, There is a lesson here, however. Things you post on the internet -- regardless of the venue or medium -- are important. And they say things about you that can impact your life in important ways. FWIW. Rich Phillips Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarandFan Posted December 8, 2010 at 08:41 PM Share Posted December 8, 2010 at 08:41 PM Excellent point, Mr. Phillips. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted November 2, 2011 at 06:46 PM Author Share Posted November 2, 2011 at 06:46 PM I should have been updating this thread along the way. In February, 2011 the case was renamed Jennings v BATFE after James d'Cruz moved to Florida with his parents mooting the initial suit. Motions were filed on both sides and Defandant's motion for summary judgement was eventually granted. This thread should probably be unlocked now...Jennings v BATFE Complaint 2-11-2011.pdfJennings v BATFE Order Granting Defendants MSJ 9-29-2011.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted November 2, 2011 at 09:19 PM Author Share Posted November 2, 2011 at 09:19 PM In d'Cruz v McCraw, there was a bench trial 8/15/2011. I don't see any results from that yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.