Lubbock Federal Court to hear handguns for 18-20 year olds.

[ScottDLS]

Did a little checking, and the "Brady Bunch" pulled the amicus brief. Seems it was all over the place like an ADD kid in a toy store. The funny thing is, they then filed the exact same brief in a lawsuit in Noo Yawk.

Now, The ATF wants to throw out the lawsuit because the ATF claims that D'cruz is only forbidden from buying a gun from a federally-licensed gun dealer. Further, D'cruz is "free to obtain handguns in a variety of legal ways and from a variety of legal sources." (As of December 23rd)

Really?

Can't wait to see what the judge does. Trying to find the case on the court web site, but it's not available.

So did they say in what ways he could legally purchase a handgun?

Well... Purchase from another resident of Texas who is not a FFL dealer. Receive as a gift from a resident of Texas. Obtain the use of a handgun on loan from another person. I'm not a huge fan of using the courts to legislate. They should be a last resort. We've got to get control of our legislatures and executives.

That said, don't support the age being 21. I think the Feds should follow the states and allow purchase from FFL at the age of majority set by the states. This unlimited power of the federal government must be checked. The MADD mothers got us a uniform 21 yr old drinking age in the '80's, albeit enforced by withholding highway funds, not by federal fiat. I was resentful of it as I was serving in the military at the time and was under 21, for a while.

Now we have federal insurance requirements, can't build an electric plant, can't carry a gun near a school, can't sell cookies or pizza at a school...etc. without begging Uncle Sam. At least we got rid of 55mph speed limit...implemented by Nixon...Thanks Newt for getting rid of...And Clinton was on the record opposing giving the speed limits back to the states...but he wasn't going to veto it.

[baldeagle]

One thing in the brief caught my eye. "It would severely hinder decades-long federal efforts to stem the acquisition of firearms by gangs whose 18-year-old members would have new access to the vast handgun inventories of gun shops." Really? They want to hang their legal hats on that argument? I suppose they think the judge will completely forget that you have to pass a federal background check before you can purchase a firearm? If I were a judge, I would suggest that they might want to reconsider including that argument in their brief if they want me to take them seriously.

[Jasonw560]

I don't think that being able to by from a FFL is the only issue here. What good is a handgun if you can't use legally use it? Lowering the age to 18 to get a handgun would do two things: 1) increase revenue for the state, because that would mean that many more people getting their CHLs, and 2) increase the effectiveness of the campus carry, because more responsible students would be asserting their 2A rights, and making sure the campus is safe.

I don't like having to use the court to legislate things, either. It should be the last resort, yes. But, sometimes, with the obliviots, you have to regulate things like common sense. That's why we have this texting while driving legislation coming down this next session.