In stark contrast to the amount of attention given to the DC vs. Heller and McDonald vs. Chicago cases by mainstream media, a new NRA lawsuit appears to have so far slipped by unnoticed. The case is D'Cruz vs. BATFE, and the basic premise of the suit deals with the Federal requirement that owners of handguns be at least 21 years of age. The lawsuit was filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Lubbock Division on September 7, 2010.
According to the suit, Mr. D'Cruz is under the age of 21, but he would like to be able to legally own a handgun. He has extensive firearms training, far beyond what would normally be required by the state of Texas. Yet because he has not reached the “mature” age of 21, he is unable to legally obtain “permission” to own what was described by the US Supreme Court as the “quintessential self-defense weapon.”
Law abiding US citizens are able to own rifles at the age of 18. Those same citizens are also old enough to join the military and die for our freedom, or join many police and fire departments and die in the line of duty protecting fellow citizens at home. Why should those same citizens be denied their right to own a handgun until they turn 21?
We are not talking about the actual carrying of weapons in this case. Rather, the case deals with the simple act of legal ownership. The fundamental question: Since the Heller and McDonald cases affirmed the right of firearms ownership to all citizens, how can an arbitrary minimum age limit of 21 hold up to a Constitutional challenge?
This is another lawsuit that has the potential to fundamentally change the landscape for firearm owners. Since this is only at the District Court level, it's not something that will immediately make a change for everyone. But as we've seen with Heller and McDonald, it certainly sets the stage for bigger and better things to come.
Comments
Yes I was old enough to join the army and go to Vietnam when I was 17 but owning a handgun and having a CCW; no. A 18, 19 and 20 year old is too young. If you will remember, when we was in the military we never had immediate contact or control of over our guns (weapons). They were in the armory and unless there was a specific reason to have, we didn't. And then under strict supervision of an NCO. I truly believe in the 2nd Amendment but there are thousands that would like to burn the Constitution, many of whom are in political office, lets not give them the matches to start the fire.
I have to disagree with Vet. I believe that anyone old enough to serve, either in the military or law enforcement/fire services should be old enough to own a handgun. They can own rifles and shotguns and these are no less lethal. I bought my first handgun at 19, from a private seller. In my one encounter with a LEO, there was never a question asked. There are quite a few 18 to 20 year olds out there that are more mature than a lot of 21+ people.
I would love to see this go to SCOTUS before Obama has a chance to add any more anti 2A judges. I think it would have a chance to make some much needed changes in GCA68.
The article is wrong as there is no legal minimum age to own a handgun or rifle. These are merely the ages to buy the weapon from a licensed dealer. Anyone could have bought the gun and given it to him as a present and he could own it quite legally.
In Iowa, there is indeed a minimum age requirement for ownership of a handgun. Section 724.22, subsections 4 and 5, list the only exceptions to the "nobody under 21" rule in Iowa. #4 deals with military and law enforcement, and #5 deals with minors between 14 & 21 while under "direct supervision" of a parent, spouse, guardian, or instructor over 21.
Point being... if you're 18, you should not be subjected to the "under 21" rule. You're old enough to die for your country, or die for you fellow citizens. It is a double standard that needs to be erased.
Sean
I agree with most of these others. Around here if you are a part time cop you must furnish your own pistol. Hard to do if you are 18. Either way if youre out there every day with a gun patrolling our streets and protecting the town then cannot protect your own life at home thats not right.
Vet says 18 is too young. Some say 21 is too young. You can do a lot of growing up between 18 and 21 but some never seem to learn responsibility. They have no less a right as an American to defend themselves. Lower it to 18. You can vote, you can fight and die half a world away but can get gunned down at home? Nope, not good.
I think that the right to bear arms as it was intended by our forefathers boils down to the right to protect your property. When the second amendment was written most of what we now call the United States was Native American Land that white people gave to other white people and said here is your property, now you can bear a firearm and defend it. Does this kid file as head of house hold and actually have property to defend? Oh and I'm white and I'm very sorry if I offended anyone.
I am 20 years old, I own an AK47 that is fold up and concealable, it is way stronger than a handgun 2686fps . Why can I have this and not a simple handgun? stupid blacks robbing and carrying guns from the rap music they listen to, thats why. im not racist btw just looking at the real truth
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!