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

[jester]

Good for him! http://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/ ... 41/199405/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Cobra Medic]

Yep, I may try to make arrangements to actually go hear the arguments in this case. Anyone in the Lubbock area wanting to co-ordinate in this effort? I need to talk to my buddy who is an FFL as the NRA is looking for FFLs and people interested in getting a CHL/Handgun while they are under 21 for this effort.

Please keep us updated.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I find it interesting that the news reports and the NRA website only mention the suit against the federal government. Nobody is talking about James D'Cruz's NRA-backed suit against the State of Texas.

As I caught some flack for saying in another thread, I'm somewhat concerned that the lawsuit against the State of Texas may hamper efforts to pass a campus carry bill during the 2011 Texas Legislative Session.

You caught flack because of your unfounded claims that the NRA-backed suits were ill-advised. They are very well thought out and very well planned. They are a logical avenue to extend the Heller and McDonald decisions. You just don't like them because they don't deal with campus-carry. That wasn't your first journey into NRA bashing either; a curious attitude to take against the premier organization pushing campus-carry nationwide. And your other attack on the NRA had nothing whatsoever to do with campus-carry.

Do you care about anything other than campus-carry? Do you care about the 18, 19 and 20 year old college students that make up 3/4 of the student population? I wonder how many members of SCCC are under 21 years old? I wonder if they know you are willing to throw them under the bus?

Like it or not, if campus-carry passes, few if any students will be carrying on any given campus. Ironically, that's something you have argued yourself, as have other campus-carry supporters. However, there are many thousands of Texans between 18 and 20 years old that would benefit from the NRA-backed lawsuits. You would abandon these many thousands for the sake of a relative handful; I will not.

Again, I have supported campus-carry long before either you or SCCC came onto the political scene. I am an ardent supporter of campus-carry, but I am not willing to sacrifice other necessary legislation and court challenges just to pass campus-carry. Here is my top priority list for 2011, based upon the goal of providing the greatest benefit to the most people:

• Employer parking lots;
  Range protection;
  Remove deferred adjudications from the definition of "conviction;"
  Campus-carry.

What is your priority list for 2011?

For those who would argue that 18 is too young, I request that you proceed with caution. What's the difference between age 20 and 21? Why don't we set 25 years of age as the minimum age? As one person commented, that's the age where auto insurance companies give big premium reductions to male drivers. Opponents of the original CHL bill (SB60) argued that the general population (i.e. non-LEO's) were too irresponsible to carry guns. Let's not repeat that mistake.

Remember folks, we are dealing with a constitutional right, not a driver's license or the ability to drink alcohol, neither of which are rights protected by the constitution. The age of majority in Texas and most states is 18. Since Heller held the Second Amendment to be an individual right, current Texas and federal law deprives Texas citizens who have reached the age of majority of a constitutional right. This clearly violates not only the Second Amendment, but also the Fourteenth Amendment as it provides unequal protection under the law. Affirmative rulings in these two cases will also provide a basis for other challenges. As I said, the NRA-backed suits are very well planned.

Chas.

[rm9792]

Well put Mr. Cotton. I stand by my assertion that todays kids in general (with exception to RagRiz) are more immature than yesteryears, however we must take the good with the bad and grant them full adulthood in all apsects. Ragriz point about their beliefs can likely be tied to the crap Hollywood spews out. I meet plenty of adults that want to "register" their guns.

[Oldgringo]

Good point, Hoi.

During WW II, it was 18, 19 and 20 year olds who piloted the U.S. bombers and fighters in our war against the Boche. If the 18, 19-20 year olds of yesteryear could pilot a B-17 full of bombs to their target and back while fighting off hordes of Luftwaffe ME-109's; surely to goodness, today's 18, 19-20 year olds are responsible and mature enough to walk/ride around with a loaded handgun containing a dozen or so cartridges?

Have you met todays kids? in general they have been turned into spoiled helpless idiots by the govt and school system. The kids of WW2 were a lot more mature than todays batch. I have a good example here at the house. 13 yr old girl in advanced classes but cant do basic life stuff and falls up the stairs! I do agree that the law needs to draw a line in the sand on the age of majority, 18 or 21. I prefer 18 for previous posters reasons but still think they may not be ready in general.

Yes, I see them all over the place walking and driving in a zombie-like trance captivated by some magical little electronic device in their face. I agree with your concerns - pro and con.

This is not our father's Oldsmobile.

[Douva]

EDIT: I agree with Charles that this discussion has reached a point where it would be better kept out of the public forums.

[Charles L. Cotton]

You didn't answer my questions, especially the one about your priority list for 2011, and I'm sure I know why. However, the fact that you would want the NRA to postpone a lawsuit to defend the Second Amendment for all adults speaks volumes. The only issue you care about is campus-carry, to the exclusion of all others no matter how many Texans would benefit. That is far too narrow a focus for all but a handful of Texas gun owners.

As for your attack on the NRA, below is an excerpt from your diatribe against the most powerful and successful civil rights organization in the world. (The entire thread was moved to the Moderator's Forum because of numerous rule violations.) It had nothing to do with campus-carry; it was expressing your support of the NYC mosque. Why on earth would a former spokesman for a political campaign get involved in this issue? In your attack on the NRA, you also falsely stated Just two months after the NRA defended its acceptance of an exemption to H.R. 5175 -- the "Disclose Act" currently before Congress . . . The NRA did not accept H.R. 5175 and the full history of the NRA's involvement or lack thereof has been posted. Nevertheless, you attacked the strongest supporter of campus-carry in the country with false allegations over a mosque. I see enough NRA-bashing from organizations whose sole purpose for existence is to condemn the NRA and make money doing so. I would never have expected this from a former SCCC spokesman.

Just two months after the NRA defended its acceptance of an exemption to H.R. 5175—the “Disclose Act” currently before Congress—stating, “The NRA is a non-partisan, single-issue organization made up of millions of individual members dedicated to the protection of the Second Amendment. We do not represent the interests of other organizations. That’s their responsibility,” the NRA is dedicating resources both to opposing the “Ground Zero mosque” and to endorsing the Glenn Beck/Sarah Palin “Restoring Honor Rally,” two issues that have nothing to do with the Second Amendment.

This hypocrisy does not sit well with non-partisan, libertarian-minded individuals like me who typically support the NRA. We find it incongruous for National Rifle Association spokespersons to claim that the Bill of Rights is absolute and then, in the same hour of talk radio, oppose the First Amendment rights of a religious organization that happens to be rooted in a faith different from that of the NRA's base.

Who carried the load for campus-carry in 2009? Who faded the political heat for putting long-time pro-gun Senators and House Members on the spot for supporting highly emotional legislation? It was the NRA and TSRA and it will be so again in 2011. Why on earth would you publicly condemn the NRA-backed lawsuits? I'm not saying there isn't some merit to your concern, but potentially alienating the only organization that has a chance of passing campus-carry is, to use your terms, ill-advised. If your goal is to get the NRA to abandon much needed legislation and make campus-carry its sole high priority legislation and litigation, then you will fail and you may fatally wound campus-carry in the process.

Chas.

I find it interesting that the news reports and the NRA website only mention the suit against the federal government. Nobody is talking about James D'Cruz's NRA-backed suit against the State of Texas.

As I caught some flack for saying in another thread, I'm somewhat concerned that the lawsuit against the State of Texas may hamper efforts to pass a campus carry bill during the 2011 Texas Legislative Session.

You caught flack because of your unfounded claims that the NRA-backed suits were ill-advised. They are very well thought out and very well planned. They are a logical avenue to extend the Heller and McDonald decisions. You just don't like them because they don't deal with campus-carry. That wasn't your first journey into NRA bashing either; a curious attitude to take against the premier organization pushing campus-carry nationwide. And your other attack on the NRA had nothing whatsoever to do with campus-carry.

Do you care about anything other than campus-carry? Do you care about the 18, 19 and 20 year old college students that make up 3/4 of the student population? I wonder how many members of SCCC are under 21 years old? I wonder if they know you are willing to throw them under the bus?

Like it or not, if campus-carry passes, few if any students will be carrying on any given campus. Ironically, that's something you have argued yourself, as have other campus-carry supporters. However, there are many thousands of Texans between 18 and 20 years old that would benefit from the NRA-backed lawsuits. You would abandon these many thousands for the sake of a relative handful; I will not.

Again, I have supported campus-carry long before either you or SCCC came onto the political scene. I am an ardent supporter of campus-carry, but I am not willing to sacrifice other necessary legislation and court challenges just to pass campus-carry. Here is my top priority list for 2011, based upon the goal of providing the greatest benefit to the most people:

• Employer parking lots;
  Range protection;
  Remove deferred adjudications from the definition of "conviction;"
  Campus-carry.

What is your priority list for 2011?

For those who would argue that 18 is too young, I request that you proceed with caution. What's the difference between age 20 and 21? Why don't we set 25 years of age as the minimum age? As one person commented, that's the age where auto insurance companies give big premium reductions to male drivers. Opponents of the original CHL bill (SB60) argued that the general population (i.e. non-LEO's) were too irresponsible to carry guns. Let's not repeat that mistake.

Remember folks, we are dealing with a constitutional right, not a driver's license or the ability to drink alcohol, neither of which are rights protected by the constitution. The age of majority in Texas and most states is 18. Since Heller held the Second Amendment to be an individual right, current Texas and federal law deprives Texas citizens who have reached the age of majority of a constitutional right. This clearly violates not only the Second Amendment, but also the Fourteenth Amendment as it provides unequal protection under the law. Affirmative rulings in these two cases will also provide a basis for other challenges. As I said, the NRA-backed suits are very well planned.

Chas.

Charles, the NRA could have pushed this type of lawsuit at a time (i.e., a year from now) or place (i.e., a state in which campus carry isn't a viable issue) where it wouldn't have mattered as much that such a lawsuit effectively negates two of our strongest arguments in defense of campus carry ("we're not talking about letting a bunch of freshmen right out of high school carry guns on campus," and "this will only arm a segment of the Texas population that has a proven track record of safe, lawful concealed carry").

The NRA also could have notified SCCC--the grassroots arm of the campus carry movement--that such a bill was being filed. Or, at the very least, you could have notified us AFTER it was filed. If I hadn't been listening to Cam & Company a few nights ago when D'Cruz's attorney mentioned the lawsuit against the State of Texas (as a an afterthought at the end of an interview about the lawsuit against the BATFE), we likely still wouldn't know about it. And since the lawsuit against the state isn't mentioned on the NRA website and hasn't yet garnered media attention, SCCC might not have learned that the NRA is trying to force the state to lower the minimum age to obtain a CHL, until a reporter surprised one of our representatives with a question about the lawsuit or an unsympathetic legislator used it to rebut one of our witnesses during a committee hearing.

At the very least, you could have responded to my politely-worded concerns with a bit of professional courtesy. Instead, you responded with one of your patented "you couldn't be more wrong" rebuttals and made it very clear that you don't appreciate me questioning the infallibility of the NRA.

You're absolutely correct that there have been a couple of other occasions when I've been critical of the NRA. If you do a little digging, you'll also find instances where I've been critical of SCCC. I know it may not be politically prudent, but I tend to call 'em as I see 'em. However, despite the fact that I don't toe the NRA line, I'm not an NRA opponent, and there have been a number of occasions when I've publicly defended the NRA.

The 18- to 20-year-old members of SCCC realize, as do I, that if we keep moving the goal line further away, we're going to keep coming up short. We met enough resistance last session, just trying to secure the right to carry on campus for a segment of the collegiate population that already has the right to carry outside of campus. If we go into the 2011 session trying to secure the right to carry on campus for a segment of the collegiate population that has, until now, been deemed to young and immature to carry outside of campus, our odds will be slightly worse than those faced by the defenders of the Alamo.

[Razgriz]

Well put Mr. Cotton. I stand by my assertion that todays kids in general (with exception to RagRiz) are more immature than yesteryears, however we must take the good with the bad and grant them full adulthood in all apsects. Ragriz point about their beliefs can likely be tied to the crap Hollywood spews out. I meet plenty of adults that want to "register" their guns.

C'mon, my names not that hard, Is it? But yes, I've been doing my little part to try and get every person I know to understand what the laws are, and what they can do, to the best of my ability. Our side can only benefit from an educated populous, while the other side would rather have the "useful idiots", as referred to by either Stalin or Marx, can't remember (someone check this if you could).

[rm9792]

My apologies to the butchering of your name, proofreading is fundamental.

[Purplehood]

Every generation is convinced that the next one is immature and not capable of doing what the latest and greatest generation did. With that logic I am quite surprised that the human-race has not disappearred from the face of the earth.
What goes down the drain are individual cultures, not the generations within them.
I have always advocated the idea that anyone that can serve in war should be able to enjoy all of the legal benefits of being an adult.

[magillapd]

I personally am fine with the age limit of 21 for handguns, or under if Active military. As for campus carry, I support this, with this in mind. Age 21 rule still in effect, CHL holders shall be allowed to carry. This would be for the older students or Adult students. It would be great if the employees could carry if they had CHL.

[OldCurlyWolf]

Have you met todays kids? in general they have been turned into spoiled helpless idiots by the govt and school system. The kids of WW2 were a lot more mature than todays batch. I have a good example here at the house. 13 yr old girl in advanced classes but cant do basic life stuff and falls up the stairs! I do agree that the law needs to draw a line in the sand on the age of majority, 18 or 21. I prefer 18 for previous posters reasons but still think they may not be ready in general.

13 year old girls (and boys) commonly fall UP stairs (and down them also). The ages 12-15 are considered to be the "Gawky" (clumsy) years.

[chartreuse]

Our side can only benefit from an educated populous, while the other side would rather have the "useful idiots", as referred to by either Stalin or Marx, can't remember (someone check this if you could).

V.I. Lenin, iirc.

[Tamie]

I personally am fine with the age limit of 21 for handguns, or under if Active military. As for campus carry, I support this, with this in mind. Age 21 rule still in effect, CHL holders shall be allowed to carry. This would be for the older students or Adult students. It would be great if the employees could carry if they had CHL.

I support the same age for everyone (not convicted of a crime) regardless of their job, skin color, religion, etc.

[A-R]

Austin Statesman ran a front-page news story today about the 18-20 year old handgun buying/carrying court cases:

http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-pol ... 73668.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;