Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-09-2012, 3:52 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,494
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default Oral argument in NRA v. McCraw (under 21 carry in TX)

Oral argument was held December 3rd in Texas in NRA's case challenging Texas' ban on the right to carry for those 18-20.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgR..._12-3-2012.wma

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

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-09-2012, 4:35 PM
SilverBulletZ06 SilverBulletZ06 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 222
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I thought this was ruled on? Was that the district prior?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-09-2012, 4:52 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,494
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverBulletZ06 View Post
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.

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-09-2012, 5:30 PM
jorgyusa jorgyusa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 158
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-09-2012, 7:00 PM
GaryV's Avatar
GaryV GaryV is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 886
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-09-2012, 7:51 PM
nicki's Avatar
nicki nicki is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,152
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default other prorities

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.

Nicki
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-10-2012, 5:24 AM
Al Norris Al Norris is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Idaho
Posts: 386
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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:

Quote:
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.
__________________
Listings of the Current 2A Cases, over at the Firing Line.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-10-2012, 6:37 AM
SilverBulletZ06 SilverBulletZ06 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 222
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Ohh god. This is embarrassing. While the argument would be strong, the presentation was absolutely flat.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:26 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.