NRA asks SCotUS to review legal age to sell handguns

[PegLeg45]

NRA asks SCotUS to review legal age to sell handguns.

New plea for gun rights
UPDATED   

The petition, with the lower court opinions attached, is now available, and can be read here (It is a large file):
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/NRA-petition-13-137.pdf
 


The National Rifle Association and two individuals under the age of twenty-one have asked the Supreme Court to strike down a federal law that bans licensed gun dealers from selling handguns to minors.  A federal appeals court upheld that law, ruling that Congress was justified in believing that easy commercial access to pistols for teenagers leads to violent crime.

The new case, NRA v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (docket 13-137), raises one of the broadest challenges to a gun control law to reach the Court in the five years since the Second Amendment was interpreted to protect a personal right to have a gun, at least for self-defense.


Under a law that dates to 1968, Congress imposed a series of limitations on access to guns for anyone under the age of twenty-one.  The only restriction specifically at issue in the new case is a ban on purchasing a handgun from a federally licensed gun dealer, for anyone who is eighteen, nineteen, or twenty years old.

The law does not ban those in that age group from obtaining guns, or even from obtaining handguns.   They may get such a weapon from their parents or a guardian, and may even buy a handgun in a private sale.  They may also buy  a rifle or shotgun from a licensed dealer.  What is banned altogether is the purchase of a handgun from a dealer — the source that the NRA told the Court is “the most common” and “most logical.”

The NRA and two nineteen-year-olds who joined in the challenge filed their petition after the Fifth Circuit Court had split eight to seven in refusing to reconsider the ban that had been upheld by a unanimous three-judge Circuit panel.  In upholding Congress’s power to single out a specific group in society for curbing its gun rights, the panel had raised doubts about whether young adults between the ages of eighteen to twenty are protected by the Second Amendment.

----------------

More at link:

http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/07/new-plea-for-gun-rights/

Alabama AG files brief, joined by twenty-one states:

Alabama supports NRA challenge seeking to lift ban on handgun sales to 18-20 year-olds

Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange filed a brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a National Rifle Association challenge to a federal law that bans licensed gun dealers from selling handguns to 18, 19 and 20-year-olds.

“The right to bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment is fundamental and sacred,” Strange said in a statement issued today.

Twenty-one states joined in Alabama’s brief, according to Strange’s office.

Eighteen-to-twenty-year-olds are not forbidden from possessing or using handguns. However, a 1968 federal law prohibits licensed firearms dealers from selling handguns to people under 21 years of age.

“Adults who are 18, 19, and 20 honorably defend our country when it is at war. These same Americans should be able to defend themselves and their families when they are at home. Yet Congress has chosen to preclude the States from fostering their citizens’ freedom in this way,” the state brief asserts.

The NRA and two 19-year-olds sued the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in 2010 over the age restriction. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the restriction last year.

The NRA has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.

The Fifth Circuit, in upholding the law, noted the amount of violent crime committed by young adults.

“Overall, the government has marshaled evidence showing that Congress was focused on a particular problem: young persons under 21, who are immature and prone to violence, easily accessing handguns, which facilitate violent crime…,” judges for the Fifth Circuit wrote.


http://blog.al.com/wire/2013/09/alabama_supports_nra_challenge.html

[tombogan03884]

FTA :
" young persons under 21, who are immature and prone to violence, easily accessing handguns, which facilitate violent crime"

Dumb asses don't seem to realize that group includes about half our military.

[GeorgeCook]

FTA :
" young persons under 21, who are immature and prone to violence, easily accessing handguns, which facilitate violent crime"

Dumb asses don't seem to realize that group includes about half our military.

Yep, they're good enough to go run around the streets of Baghdad, Kabul, and maybe, Damascus with an automatic weapon and die using that weapon, but can't buy a handgun here because they aren't of age.

Absolute bullsh!t.

[JC5123]

I've always thought that if you enlist, and once you have been through basic, you have full rights as an adult. 18yo and active duty military? Good to go to bars, buy guns, everything that is legal for a person over 21.

[dipisc]

Hi;

     Have to agree with JC5123, when I was 17 and in the Corps - I was drinking in the local bars and military organizational posts. Back then we had a lot of WW2 and Korean Vets that explained how things were going to be done. If I or friends stepped out of line - we were out and the "old" guy's would have contacted our CO's.

     A Person out of Boot Camp is more Mature that his/her stay at home counterpart. I still got 2 classmates that were living home with Mom and Dad if they are still alive?  1 is living off Parents money and the other has not been promoted past Dishwasher. We graduated 40+ years ago !

[Sponsor]

[Solus]

Agree with both JC and dipisc...

I have always said I was born in Chicago, raised in Hamilton, OH and grew up in Fort Knox.

Joined the Army when I was 18 and and was stationed overseas with no restrictions on drinking.  Came home at age 20 to get married and spent time on our honeymoon in New York state. 

I was outraged that I could not be served alcohol in that state (or any state would have been just as bad)

Comically, my wife, who was 6 months younger than me, could be served...was told state law read that a woman under 21 could be served if accompanied by her husband...go figure.
 

[santahog]

It needs to be "all one way" or "all the other". Anything less is truly double minded..
If I had to choose, I'd set it all at 21 rather than 17 or 18, myself. It would give them a chance to better appreciate what they had, once in..
(I could never, in good conscience, tell a kid today to "join the service". Not with the way they're treating the military and veterans the way they are..)