Federal court strikes down carry ban for 18-20 year olds in Texas

[steveTA84]

 

Should help with getting the 21YO law to by a gun here overturned....https://www.firearmspolicy.org/federal-judge-strikes-down-texas-ban-on-handgun-carry-by-young-adults

 

 

FORT WORTH, TX (August 25, 2022) – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced a victory in Andrews v. McCraw, its Second Amendment lawsuit that challenged a ban on handgun carry by young adults in the State of Texas. The judgment and injunction can be viewed at FPCLaw.org.

 

“The issue is whether prohibiting law-abiding 18-to-20-year-olds from carrying a handgun in public for self-defense is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” wrote Judge Mark Pittman in his Opinion. “Based on the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by Founding-Era history and tradition, the Court concludes that the Second Amendment protects against this prohibition. Texas’s statutory scheme must therefore be enjoined to the extent that law-abiding 18-to-20-year-olds are prohibited from applying for a license to carry a handgun.”

 

[Molly B.]

Another domino....

[mauserme]

Great to hear.

 

I moved it to the Judicial Forum so we can share it with more folks.

 

 

[Flynn]

Direct link to the ruling.  The Bruen "white glove slap" changed everything, it's starting but, there are so many more gun laws to knock down to restore the civil right.

 

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.355835/gov.uscourts.txnd.355835.74.0.pdf

[Euler]

On 8/25/2022 at 5:08 PM, steveTA84 said:

... https://www.firearmspolicy.org/federal-judge-strikes-down-texas-ban-on-handgun-carry-by-young-adults

...

 

I'm not sure what happened to the link embed in the OP, but here's a version that works:

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/federal-judge-strikes-down-texas-ban-on-handgun-carry-by-young-adults

 

The case was filed (and decided) in the Federal District Court of Northern Texas (docket), as such it only applies to Texas, but (as Molly says) it's a domino.

 

Order said:

...

The Court stays this injunction for 30 days, pending appeal.

...

Though Plaintiffs' interest in the vindication of their Constitutional rights suffers while the judgment is stayed, the stay is necessary to militate the possible negative effects of relying on the injunction while it is subject to appellate review and possible reversal.

...

 

I think the judge is a victim of autocorrect. "Militate" means to bring into effect. I don't think he's trying to bring negative effects into being. He probably meant "mitigate."

 

[MrTriple]

Wonderful ruling, and excellent news! It never made sense that 18-20 year olds were prohibited from carrying handguns (purchasing them, too).

[soundguy]

On 8/25/2022 at 5:58 PM, MrTriple said:

Wonderful ruling, and excellent news! It never made sense that 18-20 year olds were prohibited from carrying handguns (purchasing them, too).

… except that too many of the current crop of 18-20 year olds don’t seem to be able to handle the responsibility… at least without some sort of vetting. I’m sure you’re kids are OK. One of my nephews is not and should not ever be allowed to have guns, no matter how much I like him.

 

I came to enjoy guns when I was older. There was no way I could afford one at 18 and I wasn’t interested. I had other more important stuff to spend my hard earned cash on. I honestly am not sure every 18 year old qualifies to own a gun, no matter what The Constrution says. Its possible there should be some hoops to jump through. 

[Texasgrillchef]

Being from Texas, and having worked with several politicians on various laws in the state. This is what I can tell you is going on regarding strategy.

 

1. multiple similar 18-20yr old cases have been filed around the Nation in many different Circuit courts. This is done for two reasons. Too either get all circuits to agree, or more likely to happen a circuit court split. SCOTUS is more likely to grant cert for a case where a circuit court split has happened. CA5 gives us our positive side. CA9 will probably give us our negative.

 

2. while all the politicians including MCraw are very much Pro2A and actually support 18-20 years old carrying. In fact under certain circumstances they can be granted a LTC. They will appeal this case. why? Because one, unless a case is decided by SCOTUS it won’t become national law. Two, if we stop here. Texas LTC holders may loose reciprocity with some states over the fact we now would have to issue to 18-20 year olds. To stop that, we need it to go national.

 

Therefore Texas will appeal. If Either side loses, an En Banc hearing will be requested. Granted or not. The losing side will still file for cert. Because again without a SCOTUS decision it won’t go nationwide.

 

Texas also will NOT be “mooting” the case next year during our legislative session . Again because we all want it to go to SCOTUS so it forces the decision nationwide.

 

Hopefully while it can’t be used as precedent. Hopefully this case will be used as reference for the other similar cases in the various federal district courts and courts of appeal.

[Flynn]

On 8/25/2022 at 9:59 PM, soundguy said:

… except that too many of the current crop of 18-20 year olds don’t seem to be able to handle the responsibility…

 

Replace 18-20 with any other numbers and it would still be a reasonable truth.  Nothing magical happens on a persons 21st birthday that makes them responsible, if those 18-20 are not responsible enough to own a firearm chances are good most won't be at 21 either, in fact based on my experience many turn into far less responsible people once the ability to legally purchase alcohol at will happens.

 

I have said it many times, if they are old enought to vote, old enough to live on their own, old enough to enter contracts, old enough to drive a several ton vehicle on the streets, and old enough to be sent off to war than their 2nd rights should not be denied to them at home.  The entire concept of rights is that we have to except some will abuse them, it's just a truth of existance.

 

Quote

There was no way I could afford one at 18 and I wasn’t interested. 

 

I was rolling in the dough at 18, fresh out of school, I had a full time job and a part time job, working 60-70 hours a week at well above minium wage, bought my first firearm shortly after turning 18 and have not stopped.

[Texasgrillchef]

On 8/25/2022 at 9:59 PM, soundguy said:

… except that too many of the current crop of 18-20 year olds don’t seem to be able to handle the responsibility… at least without some sort of vetting. I’m sure you’re kids are OK. One of my nephews is not and should not ever be allowed to have guns, no matter how much I like him.

 

I came to enjoy guns when I was older. There was no way I could afford one at 18 and I wasn’t interested. I had other more important stuff to spend my hard earned cash on. I honestly am not sure every 18 year old qualifies to own a gun, no matter what The Constrution says. Its possible there should be some hoops to jump through. 

We give them guns in the army. Many go into the army with all sorts of issues, including legal ones. 
 

The thing is… if you can die for your country at 18, if you can fight for your country at 18, then you should be able to have all the rights too.

 

BTW. Our revolution was fought with many 16 year olds in the militia and the regular army. why is it a 16yo in 1776 was mature enough then, and one now isn’t? It’s how they were raised.

 

If we don’t expect a 18 yo to act and be responsible they won’t. If we do they will.

Thats on us as a society, not on them.

[Texasgrillchef]

On 8/25/2022 at 5:45 PM, Euler said:

 

I'm not sure what happened to the link embed in the OP, but here's a version that works:

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/federal-judge-strikes-down-texas-ban-on-handgun-carry-by-young-adults

 

The case was filed (and decided) in the Federal District Court of Northern Texas (docket), as such it only applies to Texas, but (as Molly says) it's a domino.

 

 

I think the judge is a victim of autocorrect. "Militate" means to bring into effect. I don't think he's trying to bring negative effects into being. He probably meant "mitigate."

 

Yes if there were to stand unappealed, it would only be effective for Texas. However, it will be appealed. If the 3 judge panel upholds the district opinion and the En Banc panel does as well. It will then effect all the states in the 5th circuit.

 

The point though is for it to go to SCOTUS to get a national ruling.

 

[soundguy]

On 8/25/2022 at 11:14 PM, Texasgrillchef said:

We give them guns in the army. Many go into the army with all sorts of issues, including legal ones. 
 

The thing is… if you can die for your country at 18, if you can fight for your country at 18, then you should be able to have all the rights too.

 

Yeah... there are current statistics that say 71% of the 17-21 crowd are ineligible to join the military. I'm guessing fewer than that remaining 29% actually do. When there was a draft... and you could not vote until you were 21... the "die for your country" argument was more valid. Today, not so much. When we were fighting for the vote at 18 and hoping not to be sent to Viet Nam, it was way different. I had a draft number but no one was called my year or the year before. I missed it all by a year or two but it was still a huge philosophical concern growing up. For the record, I'd have volunteered and hoped for the best rather than escaping to Canada. It was a concern.

 

Perhaps the cutoff should be that those who enlist in the voluntary military are eligible to have guns at 18 and those who do not cannot... until they are 26? I honestly do not know how to improve this. That some could volunteer and possibly give their lives and all should be able to have guns just does not cut it anymore.

[Flynn]

On 8/26/2022 at 12:25 AM, soundguy said:

Yeah... there are current statistics that say 71% of the 17-21 crowd are ineligible to join the military. I'm guessing fewer than that remaining 29% actually do. When there was a draft... and you could not vote until you were 21... the "die for your country" argument was more valid. Today, not so much.

 

So you believe rights should be limited because people are not physically fit, lack a proper level of education and don't meet appearance standards?  Because that is why a vast majority of those 71% are not eligible for military service, the others with criminal histories liklely are already prohibited from exercising their 2nd.  So I'm not seeing how it's not applicable today unless you believe refusal of rights should be based on the same things that cause rejection of military service, like being handicapped or out of shape or having a tattoo in the wrong place or didn't complete high school as it was a disqualification up until just a few months ago.

 

Quote

Perhaps the cutoff should be that those who enlist in the voluntary military are eligible to have guns at 18 and those who do not cannot... until they are 26? I honestly do not know how to improve this. 

 

I'm personally tired of the 2nd being treated as a second class right that requires government permission in excess of every other right, if you believe those qualifications are appropriate should they not also be applied to say voting?  If you are not mature enough to own a firearm isn't it easy to argue that you are also certainly not mature enough to vote for people that can literally start wars that have the potential to kill millions and have the power to govern the population?

[Euler]

On 8/26/2022 at 12:09 AM, Texasgrillchef said:

...

Therefore Texas will appeal. ...

 

It's the job of any attorney to represent his client zealously. The Texas state attorney general's client is the state of Texas, which has a law prohibiting handgun carry by people under 21. So the Texas state attorney general's job is to defend the law, even if he disagrees with it.

 

For example, Illinois has Judicial Second Amendment Case Discussion > Powell v IL - Racial impact of gun violence, in which Kwame Raoul has to argue that Illinois doesn't need any more gun control than it already has. It can be a bizarre ride.

[Bubbacs]

On 8/25/2022 at 11:14 PM, Texasgrillchef said:

We give them guns in the army. Many go into the army with all sorts of issues, including legal ones. 
 

The thing is… if you can die for your country at 18, if you can fight for your country at 18, then you should be able to have all the rights too.

 

BTW. Our revolution was fought with many 16 year olds in the militia and the regular army. why is it a 16yo in 1776 was mature enough then, and one now isn’t? It’s how they were raised.

 

If we don’t expect a 18 yo to act and be responsible they won’t. If we do they will.

Thats on us as a society, not on them.

And this time only ten posts in.  Giving weapons to military types isn’t like (in most cases) giving them to those walking around the mall.

The revolution and those 16 year olds were way ahead of “our society’s” guys!  By 16 most had already handled a weapon many  times.

Work a farm, walking miles, most if not all trim n healthy.  Not too many smoking the Devils Lettuce every day either.

As for expecting an 18 year old to act responsible, look around. 11 year olds are killing people, what will we be getting at 18?

We could fight for our country and yes even dye if need be.  But we were still restricted to drinking “On Base”.

And unless it’s changed since ‘78 we were not allowed to take them off base.  In theatre yes, but not around town.

All for the ruling, great news for another gun issue in another state.  

 

[bmyers]

I'm glad to see this ruling. Yet, as others noted, I know of a few young men/women in that age group this aren't mature enough for such a responsibility. With that being said, I don't believe they are mature enough to vote or make 'adult' decisions.

 

Yet, at whatever age we decide a person will be a legal adult, 18, 21, 31, etc. that person should be entitled to all the rights of an adult. In addition, the individual will be held accountable as an adult. 

 

With great power comes great responsibility-Damocles

[steveTA84]

And now we see why we have some of the gun laws that we do. Forget what the constitution says and what it means and who gets rights, we need hoops to jump through! I don’t even necessarily disagree that 18-20 year olds are (not all) immature. Doesn’t change the fact that they are adults by law and should be granted the same rights, unless you raise the adult age across the board for everything, including the age to vote.
 

Stop giving in to gun grabbers and their “logic”. It only leads to more restrictions (unconstitutional) and we should all know their true goal by now....

[steveTA84]

On 8/26/2022 at 7:04 AM, bmyers said:

I'm glad to see this ruling. Yet, as others noted, I know of a few young men/women in that age group this aren't mature enough for such a responsibility. With that being said, I don't believe they are mature enough to vote or make 'adult' decisions.

 

Yet, at whatever age we decide a person will be a legal adult, 18, 21, 31, etc. that person should be entitled to all the rights of an adult. In addition, the individual will be held accountable as an adult. 

 

With great power comes great responsibility-Damocles

This 

[RoyB]

Being a father of 19-27 years olds, I would be worried seeing some of their friends purchasing and carrying a firearm.  The general maturity of kids today seem to be happening later in life.  

 

Yes, at 18 you can go to war and die for your country.  Those kids are not the ones in question.  They likely have a little more maturity & self control compared to the ones staying home playing video games all day.   There's a reason drinking age was changed to 21.  Kids under 21 make poor decisions.  They lack cognitive reasoning.  21 isn't a magic number, but from my experience, around 20 is the age that kids start using their brains.

[soundguy]

On 8/26/2022 at 1:00 AM, Flynn said:

So you believe rights should be limited because people are not physically fit, lack a proper level of education and don't meet appearance standards?

 

Not at all... it's because I think they are children.

 

 

 

[steveTA84]

On 8/26/2022 at 7:42 AM, RoyB said:

Kids under 21 make poor decisions.  They lack cognitive reasoning.  21 isn't a magic number, but from my experience, around 20 is the age that kids start using their brains.

Don’t disagree. But that’s not what the law states. At 18, you are a legal adult and entitled to all rights (drinking isn’t a right). I’d fully support changing the legal age for an adult to 21 for all rights. There’s a reason why military recruiters target 18 year olds at high schools. 

[steveTA84]

On 8/26/2022 at 8:14 AM, soundguy said:

 

Not at all... it's because I think they are children.

 

 

 

Not in the eyes of the law. That’s an opinion. Opinions (oh noooos those guns are scary and mags that hold more than 10 rounds, ban them) are what got us into this whole gun control mess to begin with. 

[RECarry]

At age 15, "children" can begin the process of learning to drive mechanized machines of death. There is training and supervision of course, the quality of which is TBD, but if we're not banning "children" from driving then society has accepted that some will go joy riding and have accidents. Society has not even insisted on driver training to equip new drivers with skills for driving in snow or how to change a tire. But guns, OMG!

 

[RoyB]

On 8/26/2022 at 8:17 AM, steveTA84 said:

Don’t disagree. But that’s not what the law states. At 18, you are a legal adult and entitled to all rights (drinking isn’t a right). I’d fully support changing the legal age for an adult to 21 for all rights. There’s a reason why military recruiters target 18 year olds at high schools. 

I get it. Just speaking from person experience.  18 is a good age to recruit because after highschool the chances of recruiting someone is probably significantly lower.  Once they go into college or start a job, I doubt going to war and possible death seems like the better option.

 

 

On 8/26/2022 at 8:21 AM, RECarry said:

At age 15, "children" can begin the process of learning to drive mechanized machines of death. There is training and supervision of course, the quality of which is TBD, but if we're not banning "children" from driving then society has accepted that some will go joy riding and have accidents. Society has not even insisted on driver training to equip new drivers with skills for driving in snow or how to change a tire. But guns, OMG!

 

 

Our drivers ed had a sprinkler system and a RWD station wagon.  We were taught the mechanics of fishtailing and correcting the vehicle.  Today they don't even teach kids how to parallel park.

[MrTriple]

Some schools don't even teach cursive anymore.

 

"Please sign on the dotted line, sir."

 

"Uh, sign? Like, what does that mean?"

[steveTA84]

On 8/26/2022 at 9:48 AM, RoyB said:

I get it. Just speaking from person experience.  18 is a good age to recruit because after highschool the chances of recruiting someone is probably significantly lower.  Once they go into college or start a job, I doubt going to war and possible death seems like the better option.

agreed 

[illinois_buckeye]

In my mind, if you are old enough to potentially be drafted, old enough to vote, you are old enough to own a gun, even drink or smoke.  Now that said, I do not drink or smoke, I speak as a Christian who typically leans conservative, but if the law says you are an adult, you should be an adult period.  If that number needs to be changed, fine change it to 22 across the board for example.  The 2nd ammendment is not a 2nd class right.  

 

However, it should be remembered that probably back in the revolutionary war days, many times people probably grew up in more rural environments, so boys likely grew up shooting/hunting a good portion of the time to have food and to survive.  Today is different.  I say if perhaps what needs to happen, do something along the lines of teach a course in schools in everyone's sophomore or junior year.  Make it a requirement for graduation, about gun safety.  

 

I know I'm going to sound overly conservative as well, but as someone who is into computers and video games, on video games for example, some of the newer ones are way too far out there.  I am in my 40's and have played video games since I was a kid.  As someone who likes video games that have action, some of the newer ones with the excess amounts of blood, gore, profanity are too far over the top in my mind.  Keep in mind I have played a lot of these games, and some of the ones the last few years I won't play.  Some of them just glorify killing and blood way too much.  I realize there is supposed to be artistic freedom and I get that, but maybe on the ratings there should be incentives for parents not to buy the most violent ones for their 12 year old kids for example who may not understand and are impressionable.  Not sure where you draw the line, but there has to be a balance, as some people seem to not value human life anymore which is sad for our society.  

[Tip]

An adult is an adult — PERIOD.

 

There are tons of examples of folks (of ALL ages) incapable of being “responsible” adults. Doesn’t change the fact that they are indeed adults. If you are an adult you are (and should be) entitled to all the rights and privileges of being an adult — until such time as you surrender some of those through your adjudicated actions.

[Jeffrey]

Crazy can happen at any age.  Constitutional rights begin at inception.  

[Texasgrillchef]

On 8/26/2022 at 1:03 AM, Euler said:

 

It's the job of any attorney to represent his client zealously. The Texas state attorney general's client is the state of Texas, which has a law prohibiting handgun carry by people under 21. So the Texas state attorney general's job is to defend the law, even if he disagrees with it.

 

For example, Illinois has Judicial Second Amendment Case Discussion > Powell v IL - Racial impact of gun violence, in which Kwame Raoul has to argue that Illinois doesn't need any more gun control than it already has. It can be a bizarre ride.

I don’t disagree with you. But are you actually telling me, that these State AG’s always fight to the best of their abilities? I can promise you that many intentionally leave holes opened, to give the plantings opportunity. There are times a state AG will drop a case, or allow a case to be dismissed.

 

Take a look at at Wrenn v D.C. Wrenn won the case, but D.C. was pressured by NY, CA, and NJ NOT to file an appeal with SCOTUS for fear SCOTUS would take the case and rule against them. Suffice it to say NY ended up being the Scapegoat there and lost it for everyone anyways. A win for us though.

 

Texas AG isn’t required to file an appeal. However, anyone who realizes how things work, realize that the best thing to do for either side is an appeal. An appeal helps both sides. Even we don’t want this case to end at the district level. This is part of the problem with our court and Justice system. The best system in the world. Yet there isn’t really a satisfactory fix. This case will go to SCOTUS and at least get a petition for cert filed. SCOTUS may not grant (at least for this case) but it will get there.

 

The only things that are not certain are the following. How the 3 judge panel will rule, if an En Banc hearing will be grants, if an En Banc hearing is granted how they will rule, and if SCOTUS will grant. I suspect that the 5th circuit won’t grant a En Banc hearing. If Texas is the one filing a petition for cert with SCOTUS I doubt it will be granted.

 

I suspect if SCOTUS grants a petition for cert on the 18-20yo issue. It will be for a circuit that rules against 18-20yo. This is exactly why we need circuit split.