18yr old - handgun purchase!!

Taken from Jeff Pittman's 2A News MSFOA
------------------
Federal gun suit

Remember the suit filed in Texas by the 18 year old, challenging the Constitutionality of the federal ban of gun sales to 18-20 year olds? The case, D'Cruz v. BATFE, states: "At eighteen years of age, law-abiding citizens in this country are considered adults for almost all purposes and certainly for the purposes of the exercise of fundamental constitutional rights. Indeed, at eighteen, citizens are eligible (and male citizens could be conscripted) to serve in the military - to fight and die by arms for the country. Yet, Section 922(b)(1) [of the U.S. Code] prohibits law-abiding adults in this age group from lawfully purchasing - from the most prevalent and readily available source - what the Supreme Court has called [in the Heller case] "the quintessential self-defense weapon" and "the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home."

Guess what? The federal judge hearing the case is none other than Sam Cummings. Cummings is the author of the Fifth Federal Circuit's "Emerson" decision, wherein he destroyed the previous Supreme Court's "Miller" decision and stated that the federal statute [18 USC 922(g)(] in question in the Emerson case was unconstitutional and that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms.

This may be a fun case to watch

I hope it turns out well. Granted not all individuals at 18 are mature enough to possess a handgun, but there is no difference between that and a longgun. And many adults aren't that mature either

i agree completely!!!!!!

u old enough to die for uncle...u old enough...but i don't make up these stupid laws...so I guess it don't matter what I think ....does it

msredneck wrote:u old enough to die for uncle...u old enough...

thats always been my theory as well....but you know....what would i know....i was only just in that catagory just over a year ago(under 21 that is).

Well, if it's a constitutional right, why would 18 be a magic number?

Is a 12 year old not entitled to his constitutional rights?

Isn't that the argument that right to lifers use to protest abortion---that an embryo has constitutional rights?

I'm just saying that when the government starts making rules, it always boxes itself into a corner.

Maybe I'm a Libertarian after all!!!

jakeg823 wrote:I hope it turns out well. Granted not all individuals at 18 are mature enough to possess a handgun, but there is no difference between that and a longgun. And many adults aren't that mature either

+++++1


I think 18-20s should be able to take a "course" (unless they were in the military) to PROVE they are RESPONSIBLE enough to posses any firearm.

And YES...... There are MANY adults out there who have NO BUSINESS anywhere near a firearm due to their LACK of proper "firearm education".

.

msredneck wrote:u old enough to die for uncle...u old enough...but i don't make up these stupid laws...so I guess it don't matter what I think ....does it

Yeah, I've sent my number but they must have misplaced it cause I don't get no calls either. Wonder what they would say to a 19 y.o. MP or Master at Arms on the town with a 92 strapped to him?

I just read the Heller case for the first time and man the dissenting opinions are unbelievable:

No one has a right to own a firearm, period.

No one has the right to own a firearm for the purpose of hunting or other shooting sports.

The 2nd Amendment does not protect anyones rights, it is there solely for the purpose of an Armed Militia and militia members should not be allowed to keep firearms in thier homes but in storage.

The original meaning of the Constitution no longer applies. The Constitution cannot be interpreted by its original meaning. "Blindly following the presumed meaning of constitutional provisions formulated in reaction to past conditions and attitudes that have long since changed does not, in the end, effectuate the original understanding. Nor is it very likely to be an effective means of dealing with contemporary problems. Justice Scalia's brand of originalism is dysfunctional, an instance of cultural lag whereby the meaning of the Constitution is left dormant while the world changes around it"

Then, after the ruling all the DC government does is change its restrictions and the people still cant own semi-auto handguns or rifles that are bottom magazine fed because under their law they fall into the Machine Gun category.

No tactical rifles either (Which I guess would be the same thing as bottom magazine fed weapons restrictions)

These anti gun nuts are scary people to want to interpret the Constitution as they see fit. They are dangerous.

Apparently the Heller case didnt accomplish much and didnt really affect the DC prohibitions much as reads this passage:

Initial reaction has deemed the Heller ruling to be of great significance, though it remains too soon to tell what the long term effects may be.[99] Sanford Levinson has written that he is inclined to believe that the Heller will be relatively insignificant to the practice of law in the long run but that it will have significance to other groups interested in cultural literacy and constitutional designers.[99] Both Levinson and Mark Tushnet have speculated that it is quite unlikely that the case will be studied as part of casebooks of future law schools.[99] As was predicted[100], a large surge of court cases was seen in lower federal courts in the aftermath of the 2008 ruling. Over 80 cases have been filed seeking to overturn existing gun laws.[101] And, with remarkable consistency, the existing gun laws have been repeatedly upheld as being constitutional with the net effect being that very little has changed as result of the ruling.[

Yeah, after thinking about it I agree with Doug. They could make the test so hard no one could pass it and have gun control by default.

True. As much as I'd like to believe in the system.....I don't!

Yeah, you want mandatory training and have to pass a test before your freedom of speech or religion or right to assemble or petition the government can be exercised?

Mandatory training and passing a test for gun ownership is a slippery slope...

slippery slope indeed...

Like requiring anyone over the age of 70 to pass a drivers test every 5 years?...Nah we could not do that...

or maybe have an electronic device that jams all cell phone calls while a person is driving....Nah....

Or try this one.....flat tax....say 15%.....who's to say it would not go to a flat 100%.

Damn regulators make the rules for everyone else to obey...drive me nutts

Sorry for the rant...aint had enough coffee yet this am.

Back on topic...I'm surprised that MS doesn't require some basic type of firearms training before issuing its permit......I can see that changing in the future

U should have to be 21 to get into the US military and die for uncle...There.....problem solved

Ha government mandated training and licensing to own handguns? Take a look at the drivers licensing system. Government regulation and training at its best! BAN CARS!

The government has no business regulating in any shape, form, or fashion that which is a fundamental right not given but merely recognized by the constitution. Should a person seek training? Absolutely. I shoot at least 100 rounds a week out of my carry weapon and usually a lot more and usually about an hour of dry fire practice a day. Do I want the government telling me how to go about it? Not a chance.

Doug Bowser wrote:The way I understand it, in Mississippi, a Parent can buy a handgun and give it to an 18 year old. It is the Family's choice who gets a handgun before the age of 21. They still can't get a permit but they can carry the handgun in the vehicle.

There are also Federal and MS State Laws against people under 21 buying handgun ammunition.

Doug

Yep.

And while we're at it...21 for the drinking age is

jakeg823 wrote:

Yep.

And while we're at it...21 for the drinking age is

You got that right! It ought to be at least 40.

Leopardcurdog wrote:

jakeg823 wrote:

Yep.

And while we're at it...21 for the drinking age is

You got that right! It ought to be at least 40.

I happen to agree on that one....but

As always...having laws is one thing...enforcing them is quite another...

does anyone know when this will go to court?
i have looked some, but cannot find any information.