TexasCHLforum.com

Defendants and all their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and other persons who are in active concert or participation with them are hereby ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from enforcing Texas’s statutory scheme against law-abiding 18-to-20-year-olds based solely on their age.

3. This injunction is hereby STAYED for thirty days, or pending appeal, for the duration of the appellate process.

Paladin wrote: ↑Thu Aug 25, 2022 4:21 pm

Defendants and all their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and other persons who are in active concert or participation with them are hereby ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from enforcing Texas’s statutory scheme against law-abiding 18-to-20-year-olds based solely on their age.

3. This injunction is hereby STAYED for thirty days, or pending appeal, for the duration of the appellate process.

Looks like at least 30 days until it goes into effect.

Glad to see the Bruen is having a real effect

Tex1961 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 25, 2022 8:32 pm Does this allow anyone under 21 to be able to purchase a firearm as well, or just carry.

Boxerrider wrote: ↑Fri Aug 26, 2022 6:32 am Somebody please correct me if I get part of this wrong.
This was a state case about preventing people 18-20 from legally carrying. In Texas, 18-20 year-olds can buy a handgun from an individual.
No handgun sales to people under 21 is a federal law, which applies to dealers. I think there are cases concerning this in the works, although I can't cite one off the top of my head.

Mike S wrote: ↑Fri Aug 26, 2022 7:48 am

Boxerrider wrote: ↑Fri Aug 26, 2022 6:32 am Somebody please correct me if I get part of this wrong.
This was a state case about preventing people 18-20 from legally carrying. In Texas, 18-20 year-olds can buy a handgun from an individual.
No handgun sales to people under 21 is a federal law, which applies to dealers. I think there are cases concerning this in the works, although I can't cite one off the top of my head.

I'm not a lawyer, nor an FFL. My understanding is that it's a Federal law that prevents an 18-20 yo from purchasing a handgun from an FFL, not a Texas law. If I recall correctly, the Federal law doesn't prohibit an 18-20 yo from individual/private purchases not involving an FFL. I'm pulling this out of my "fourth point of contact", so if I'm incorrect someone please cite what the Federal & State laws are & I'll gladly delete this to avoid misinformation...

AF-Odin wrote: ↑Fri Aug 26, 2022 7:49 am I see a number of active duty Soldiers and a few Guard members in my LTC classes who are 19 and 20. LTC law in Texas allows active, reserve component, and honorably discharged vets over 18 and under 21 to receive a LTC. In most cases, the individual was gifted a handgun by a parent, and some were bought through private sales. Will be interesting to watch this case as it unfolds.

srothstein wrote: ↑Fri Aug 26, 2022 8:06 am

Mike S wrote: ↑Fri Aug 26, 2022 7:48 am

Boxerrider wrote: ↑Fri Aug 26, 2022 6:32 am Somebody please correct me if I get part of this wrong.
This was a state case about preventing people 18-20 from legally carrying. In Texas, 18-20 year-olds can buy a handgun from an individual.
No handgun sales to people under 21 is a federal law, which applies to dealers. I think there are cases concerning this in the works, although I can't cite one off the top of my head.

I'm not a lawyer, nor an FFL. My understanding is that it's a Federal law that prevents an 18-20 yo from purchasing a handgun from an FFL, not a Texas law. If I recall correctly, the Federal law doesn't prohibit an 18-20 yo from individual/private purchases not involving an FFL. I'm pulling this out of my "fourth point of contact", so if I'm incorrect someone please cite what the Federal & State laws are & I'll gladly delete this to avoid misinformation...

Both of you are correct. This was a challenge to the state law only and not the federal law. It is federal law that covers purchasing from a dealer. I was trying to guess whether Paxton would appeal it or not. He has a duty to defend state laws in court, so he might have to appeal it at least to the 5th Circuit. But with both Abbott and Paxton being pro-gun, they could just accept the ruling and say "we tried'.

But it is not a legal precedent until it gets to the appeals court. I think, from what I have heard of the ruling, that the 5th Circuit will uphold it. That is always a gamble though. Anyway, now we have a better strategic reason for appealing it. Yes, there are cases going through the system on the federal purchase law. The 4th Circuit overturned the purchase ban last year, but I do not know the current status of that case. The 5th Circuit, several years back upheld the sales ban. The Bruen decision may change that based on its guideline of how to handle 2A challenges. If the 5th Circuit up holds this case, it is legal precedent and would be usable to fight the sale ban too. This means an appeal might be in our favor in the long run, though there is a risk to it.