View Full Version : Oral argument in NRA v. McCraw (under 21 carry in TX)

12-09-2012, 3:52 PM
Oral argument was held December 3rd in Texas in NRA's case challenging Texas' ban on the right to carry for those 18-20.


(Apologies for windows media, but that's the court's default here.)


12-09-2012, 4:35 PM
I thought this was ruled on? Was that the district prior?

12-09-2012, 4:52 PM
I thought this was ruled on? Was that the district prior?

NRA-ILA chose to file twin cases on under 21. One was NRA v BATF in Texas challenging the Federal law that bars 20 year olds from buying handguns. They lost that one. Now, with that loss in place, they have to argue carry for 18/19/20 year olds.


12-09-2012, 5:30 PM
Can't understand why they thought these were priority cases to file. I don't see how they could establish an important precedent to build upon. To me, it seems like the downside of a 2nd amendment loss in court outweighs what could be gained with a win. Why do it?

12-09-2012, 7:00 PM
Ugh. The judges were very antagonistic to the whole concept of carry as a right, and this lawyer wasn't as good as Clement or Gura. Painful to listen to. He spent all his time trying to argue strict scrutiny when what the judges needed was to be convinced that carry was even a right deserving of any protection at all.

12-09-2012, 7:51 PM
Maybe I may be a voice of one, but here is my take.

1. Shouldn't we get carry as a right first.
2. Shouldn't we focus on defining and limiting the scope of no carry sensitive zones first.

Yes I know 18 y/o individuals can vote and serve in the military, but wasn't it the feds that forced the states to raise the drinking age to 21.

This case is pre mature IMHO because we haven't solidified the right to carry yet for people over 21.

I will reserve snark comments.


Al Norris
12-10-2012, 5:24 AM
Nicki, you are not alone.

I wrote the following, last May, over at TFL:

The real problem here is that the Right to Keep has been ruled upon. We have yet to have the Circuits, much less the Supreme Court. agree that the Right to Bear means bear in public spaces.

That's what all of Gura's carry cases are about.

Not so the NRA. They have jumped the gun with this case. After all, Texas agrees that there is a right to bear in public spaces, but that right can be regulated. They choose to regulate by having no open carry and a licensing scheme for concealed carry.

Where they disagree is on the age of majority and they have made a very strong showing for regulating that age. As far as the 14th amendment is concerned, the historical age is on their side... Unless you take into account how the 14th reads, as amended. Huh? You didn't know it was amended?

Clause 2, section 2 of amendment 14 (as amended) reads:

But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male OR FEMALE (19th amendment) inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one EIGHTEEN (26th amendment) years of age, and citizens of the United States, ...

I would have argued that with the 19th and 26th amendments the gender and age requirements of the 14th were effectively rewritten.

There is also Supreme Court precedent (Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) - Capitol Punishment can not be used on minors/juveniles/infants - those under 18 years) that could have been used to bolster the age of majority argument.

Then the argument becomes that some form of carry must be available to the adult citizens of Texas.

The NRA did none of these things at district court. They can not now bring this up. It is a new argument and not one briefed at the lower court.

12-10-2012, 6:37 AM
Ohh god. This is embarrassing. While the argument would be strong, the presentation was absolutely flat.