Even in Texas... Poor judicial ruling in 18-20 pistol permitting.

[SilverBulletZ06]

http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-politics/judge-dismisses-suit-challenging-texas-concealed-carry-law-2113082.html

So obviously this is going to be appealed, but what happens if 2A case grants 2A rights outside the home? All of these cases based upon supposition and ignorance of facts are going to be flushed down the toilet.

[wildhawker]

The only fact that matter is that the Second Amendment protects the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Heller is being purposefully ignored and misread to thread a needle. We don't craft cases for district courts, but for circuits and the SCOTUS.

5 is the only number that matters.

-Brandon

[GettoPhilosopher]

The only fact that matter is that the Second Amendment protects the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Heller is being purposefully ignored and misread to thread a needle. We don't craft cases for district courts, but for circuits and the SCOTUS.

5 is the only number that matters.

-Brandon

I agree, but I think you and I both can see the frustration. Yeah, it's chess not checkers, yeah, it takes a long time, but damnit it'd be nice to stop hearing "there is no right to keep and bear outside the home".

I wonder how they fought the Revolution without leaving their houses?

[meaty-btz]

We continue to seek relief from a court whose seated members are outright hostile (even in a "2a friendly state"). Our legistlators are also outright hostile as well. So we expect what kind of relief? Even from SCOTUS who's 5 are arguably disinterested in disrupting things so can be said to have no interest in ruling outside the home (or they would have in the first place)...

I doubt we will see the relief we seek before the end of this next decade, even IF they rule in our favour at SCOTUS you are looking at years of continued litigation at the lower courts that would require rising to at least back to the Circuits and would more than likely require yet another run from that new round of ligation to once again rise to SCOTUS before it stuck. A process that I would expect to take 10 years by our current speed. We are actually getting faster relief through the legislature in states where we took control of the electorate.

At the same time I understand why even in Texas they are resistant to giving rights to 18 year olds in a country that has spent the better part of several decades ensuring that our teens and young adults stay children for longer rather than demanding and raising them into adulthood at a more natural (biological) age. Today's 18 year olds really are children incapable of being given the same responsibility that just 50 years ago could be given to children of 10-12 years of age. It isnt even biology, it is our culture.

[GettoPhilosopher]

We continue to seek relief from a court whose seated members are outright hostile (even in a "2a friendly state"). Our legistlators are also outright hostile as well. So we expect what kind of relief? Even from SCOTUS who's 5 are arguably disinterested in disrupting things so can be said to have no interest in ruling outside the home (or they would have in the first place)...

I doubt we will see the relief we seek before the end of this next decade, even IF they rule in our favour at SCOTUS you are looking at years of continued litigation at the lower courts that would require rising to at least back to the Circuits and would more than likely require yet another run from that new round of ligation to once again rise to SCOTUS before it stuck. A process that I would expect to take 10 years by our current speed. We are actually getting faster relief through the legislature in states where we took control of the electorate.

At the same time I understand why even in Texas they are resistant to giving rights to 18 year olds in a country that has spent the better part of several decades ensuring that our teens and young adults stay children for longer rather than demanding and raising them into adulthood at a more natural (biological) age. Today's 18 year olds really are children incapable of being given the same responsibility that just 50 years ago could be given to children of 10-12 years of age.

I agree on most all of your points. I hate the "you're not an adult till you're 30" crap. I moved out at 17, and have been working my *** off on my own ever since.

The problem with our legislative successes is that they're still just privileges. As long as the courts are still hostile, then our legislative successes are just one bad vote away from being failures.

[meaty-btz]

I agree on most all of your points. I hate the "you're not an adult till you're 30" crap. I moved out at 17, and have been working my *** off on my own ever since.

The problem with our legislative successes is that they're still just privileges. As long as the courts are still hostile, then our legislative successes are just one bad vote away from being failures.

Correct. I think we need to remember that our enemy is Statism, not just Progressivism. I think we often forget that. Many conservative judges are indeed very Statist and will vote against us in many ways. That also means our opposition presents a larger ideological front than we give it credit for.

[BobB35]

Is this the same Judge Cummins from the Emerson case? If so, wow what a difference a decade make.....going from groundbreaking 2A legislation to threading the needle on convoluted interpretation in 10 short years.

I know this is probably not the place, but has anyone started a thread about the possible outcome if there is no ruling for the right to bear outside the home? There is a lot of talk about how it is a slam dunk, but circuit after circuit doesn't seem to think so. I would think by now someone somewhere would have ruled the other way to get a circuit split. Without it SCOTUS can continue to refuse cert and let the ambiguity stand.

[vincewarde]

This is going to go to the 5th Circuit, which I believe was the first in the nation to recognize the 2nd Amendment as protecting a personal right. Couldn't ask for a better shot at overturning it.

That said, it's an interesting question. Clearly, the rights of minors can be restricted. The constitution doesn't define the age of majority. In most states, it's 18 - but you have to be 21 to drink. I don't know if this has ever been litigated - and there is no constitutional right to drink. Still, I wonder if that forms a precedent in regards to firearms?

On the other hand the military issues much more dangerous weapons to people under 21 and sends them into combat.

So, I don't see this as central to the ongoing battle over 2nd Amendment rights, but it is a significant case.

[dustoff31]

On the other hand the military issues much more dangerous weapons to people under 21 and sends them into combat.

A point which TX state law takes into account. Current service members and vets under 21 may posess/carry handguns.

I think this sort of reinforces meaty-btz point.

At the same time I understand why even in Texas they are resistant to giving rights to 18 year olds in a country that has spent the better part of several decades ensuring that our teens and young adults stay children for longer rather than demanding and raising them into adulthood at a more natural (biological) age. Today's 18 year olds really are children incapable of being given the same responsibility that just 50 years ago could be given to children of 10-12 years of age. It isnt even biology, it is our culture.

[meaty-btz]

A point which TX state law takes into account. Current service members and vets under 21 may posess/carry handguns.

I think this sort of reinforces meaty-btz point.

Indeed it does.

[hoffmang]

The actual opinion is here: http://www.archive.org/download/gov....99405.82.0.pdf

The court actually held they didn't have standing which makes the 2A holding superflous, but still there.

-Gene

[Rossi357]

This reads like a copy paste from all he other lower court cases. No carry outside the home till SCOTUS rules on it.

[Crom]

The district courts are doing their jobs, even though they're probably all wrong. They are bound by case law or a lack of it. Heller only goes so far. I'm looking forward to the appeal.

[SilverBulletZ06]

The actual opinion is here: http://www.archive.org/download/gov....99405.82.0.pdf

The court actually held they didn't have standing which makes the 2A holding superflous, but still there.

-Gene

Still doesn't make sense. I thought there was a decision that stated one need not jump through hoops if the end result is already known. If any of these 18-20 y/o's applied they would be turned down because of age and the court knows this!

[CHS]

Rational basis strikes again!

The district courts are doing their jobs, even though they're probably all wrong. They are bound by case law or a lack of it. Heller only goes so far. I'm looking forward to the appeal.

Heller never said that the 2A only applies to inside the home. Where in case law does it state that the 2A only applies to inside the home?