• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fifth Circuit Upholds Ban on Gun Sales to People Under 21

AdamT

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2011
Messages
17,773
Reaction score
5,746
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Thought this would be of interest to the gun rights activits. The first reaction I'm sure will be, "this is why we need to elect Mitt Romney." Well ... note that the opinion's author was a George W. Bush appointee....

And the 5th Circuit is one of the most conservative Courts in the country.

An appeals court on Thursday upheld a federal law that prohibits people under the age of 21 from purchasing handguns from dealers, rejecting the first challenge to the age rule since the Supreme Court recognized an individual’s right to keep and bear arms.

In a 3-0 ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the age restriction, which dates back to 1968, was “consistent with a longstanding tradition of targeting select groups’ ability to access and to use arms for the sake of public safety.”

The National Rifle Association filed a lawsuit challenging the ban in 2010, two years after the Supreme Court ruled in D.C. v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm. Eighteen-to-twenty-year-olds may possess and use handguns, receive them as gifts and buy them from private owners. But licensed firearm dealers are prohibited from selling such weapons to those under the age of 21.
Judge Edward Prado, who authored the 41-page opinion, said the law had its roots in Foundering-Era restrictions on the possession of weapons by children, the mentally ill and loyalists.

“It appears that when the fledgling republic adopted the Second Amendment, an expectation of sensible gun safety
regulation was woven into the tapestry of the guarantee,” wrote Judge Prado, an appointee of President George W. Bush.

Fifth Circuit Upholds Ban on Gun Sales to People Under 21 - Law Blog - WSJ
 
The law makes no sense at all. Straw purchases are illegal as in buying a gun for someone else at any age. "Straw purchases are a felony violation of the Gun Control Act of 1968 for both the straw purchaser (who can also be charged with lying on Federal Form 4473) and the ultimate possessor." So every time a father buys a weapon for say his son from a licenced dealer, it is a felony. The Federal laws on straw purchases does not distinguish between people who are purchasing on behalf of a family member, friend for a gift etc of age who legally can purchase or possess a firearm, and one who is not.

Guns laws in this country make absolutely no sense at all.
 
Thought this would be of interest to the gun rights activits. The first reaction I'm sure will be, "this is why we need to elect Mitt Romney." Well ... note that the opinion's author was a George W. Bush appointee....

And the 5th Circuit is one of the most conservative Courts in the country.

The only people claiming that are party-tards and other retards who don't know how to google Mitt Romney Massachusetts and the 2nd amendment.
Romney is about as pro-2nd amendment as Obama is.Which means both of them wipe their ass with the 2nd amendment.

Hopefully the supreme court will rule that such bans are unconstitutional.
 
Thought this would be of interest to the gun rights activits. The first reaction I'm sure will be, "this is why we need to elect Mitt Romney." Well ... note that the opinion's author was a George W. Bush appointee....

And the 5th Circuit is one of the most conservative Courts in the country.

Man can serve his country at 18, but can't buy a gun. The sad part is how giddy you are about disarming people and infringing on the 2nd Amendment. Militia age is 18-45.
 
Man can serve his country at 18, but can't buy a gun. The sad part is how giddy you are about disarming people and infringing on the 2nd Amendment. Militia age is 18-45.

Not only can he serve his country, but his country will arm him with weapons, that are far, far deadlier than your average handgun.
 
Man can serve his country at 18, but can't buy a gun. The sad part is how giddy you are about disarming people and infringing on the 2nd Amendment. Militia age is 18-45.

Can you please quote the "giddy" part of my post? I didn't even express an opinion on the decision, because I haven't had time to read it.
 
Man can serve his country at 18, but can't buy a gun. The sad part is how giddy you are about disarming people and infringing on the 2nd Amendment. Militia age is 18-45.

You could say the same thing about alcohol. A man can serve his country at 18 but he can't go into a bar and order a drink.
 
You could say the same thing about alcohol. A man can serve his country at 18 but he can't go into a bar and order a drink.

This is why the drinking age should be lowered.A 18 year old can serve his country in war(enlisted age minimum is 17 but you can't be deployed), smoke and vote.
 
Can you please quote the "giddy" part of my post? I didn't even express an opinion on the decision, because I haven't had time to read it.

Your prediction of our political responses, just indicates how you feel about this. Also the lack of your own disappointment over a decision that obviously contradicts the 2nd Amendment. That's one thing I never understand about the Left, you'd think big govt left would want to follow the Constitution to the letter to make sure we have the best govt possible. But no, it's the small govt types that promote adherence to the Constitution. Here we are with an obvious ruling against the 2nd Amend, and all the matters to you is how your opponents will respond; **** the Constitution.
 
The only people claiming that are party-tards and other retards

It's not that I'm offended or anything.

But is it entirely nessecary for you to label every single type of person you disagree with as a "tard" in one form or another.
 
It's not that I'm offended or anything.

But is it entirely nessecary for you to label every single type of person you disagree with as a "tard" in one form or another.

Considering the fact Romney's record is just as or more abysmal than Obama's regarding the 2nd amendment only a tard would say "this is why we need to elect Mitt Romney." Because anyone actually intelligent and honest would agree that when it comes to the 2nd amendment Romney is no better and that 2nd amendment supporters have just as much to fear from Romney as they would Obama regarding the 2nd amendment. Both men would sign another Brady Bill or one that was much worse than the Brady bill if they didn't have to worry about negative political consequences. People should quit assuming that just because someone is a republican that they are conservative, care about the constitution,or that the people they appoint care about the constitution.
 
Last edited:
Can I get an Amen to that brothers and sisters AMMENNN
 
That's one thing I never understand about the Left, you'd think big govt left would want to follow the Constitution to the letter to make sure we have the best govt possible.

If “big government” obeyed the Constitution, it wouldn't be nearly so big. Those on the left do not want the Constitution obeyed, because doing so limits government, and they do not want government to be as limited as the Constitution demands.
 
The law makes no sense at all. Straw purchases are illegal as in buying a gun for someone else at any age. "Straw purchases are a felony violation of the Gun Control Act of 1968 for both the straw purchaser (who can also be charged with lying on Federal Form 4473) and the ultimate possessor." So every time a father buys a weapon for say his son from a licenced dealer, it is a felony. The Federal laws on straw purchases does not distinguish between people who are purchasing on behalf of a family member, friend for a gift etc of age who legally can purchase or possess a firearm, and one who is not.

Guns laws in this country make absolutely no sense at all.

"Gift" purchases would bypass the usual background checks. Should I be able to buy a gun as a "gift" for my four-time-felon cousin?

If “big government” obeyed the Constitution, it wouldn't be nearly so big. Those on the left do not want the Constitution obeyed, because doing so limits government, and they do not want government to be as limited as the Constitution demands.

If you're really so against "big government," you should stop voting Republican.
 
Your prediction of our political responses, just indicates how you feel about this. Also the lack of your own disappointment over a decision that obviously contradicts the 2nd Amendment. That's one thing I never understand about the Left, you'd think big govt left would want to follow the Constitution to the letter to make sure we have the best govt possible. But no, it's the small govt types that promote adherence to the Constitution. Here we are with an obvious ruling against the 2nd Amend, and all the matters to you is how your opponents will respond; **** the Constitution.

Nah, to honest I don't give a **** about the decision one way or the other. On reflection I'm glad that the court recognized that states have the right to legislate reasonable safety restrictions, notwithstanding the 2d Amendment right. It's consistent with Heller. Hard for a conservative to argue against this, as the court relied on original intent in making its decision.

And of course I'm glad it was a Bush appointee and not a Dem appointee as otherwise the whole discussion would be a silly attack on liberals.
 
I'm kinda torn on this issue.

On the one hand, it is more than a little silly that an 18yo can join the military and be issued a selective fire autorifle and (for instance) set to guard the entrance to a military facility... can vote, marry, contract and smoke... but cannot drink or buy a handgun. YET the 18yo can buy a rifle or shotgun, which is far deadlier than any handgun... just not so readily concealable (actually there are some shotguns and carbines that are quite concealable with a little forethought and efforts...:shrug: )

OTOH studies in recent years have revealed that the human brain doesn't fully develop in all ways until about 21 or 22... especially the impulse-control part.

BUT then again, the single biggest killer of teenagers by far isn't guns... it is CARS. Yet denying them a driver's licence would make it hard for them to have a job, at least in areas like mine where public transportation is non-existent.


I started shooting at age 5, had a shotgun at age 12, and a pistol at age 15. I've never shot an innocent person either by accident or on purpose. My son has grown up around guns as I did and could recite the Three Rules of safe gunhandling verbatim long before he needed to shave.

OTOH I know 18yo's I'd hate to see with a gun.

On the other, other hand, it isn't like getting a pistol via illegal sources is at all difficult if the young person had ill intent.


:shrug:

Sometimes I think we just need to fricking make up our minds whether adulthood is at 18 or 21 and quit splitting it.
 
Nah, to honest I don't give a **** about the decision one way or the other. On reflection I'm glad that the court recognized that states have the right to legislate reasonable safety restrictions, notwithstanding the 2d Amendment right. It's consistent with Heller. Hard for a conservative to argue against this, as the court relied on original intent in making its decision.

And of course I'm glad it was a Bush appointee and not a Dem appointee as otherwise the whole discussion would be a silly attack on liberals.

Hardly considering the militia age was considered 18-45. Plenty of Republican appointees have turned about to be liberal. Reagan had that happen plenty. So there is no guarantee.
 
I'm kinda torn on this issue.

On the one hand, it is more than a little silly that an 18yo can join the military and be issued a selective fire autorifle and (for instance) set to guard the entrance to a military facility... can vote, marry, contract and smoke... but cannot drink or buy a handgun. YET the 18yo can buy a rifle or shotgun, which is far deadlier than any handgun... just not so readily concealable (actually there are some shotguns and carbines that are quite concealable with a little forethought and efforts...:shrug: )

OTOH studies in recent years have revealed that the human brain doesn't fully develop in all ways until about 21 or 22... especially the impulse-control part.

BUT then again, the single biggest killer of teenagers by far isn't guns... it is CARS. Yet denying them a driver's licence would make it hard for them to have a job, at least in areas like mine where public transportation is non-existent.


I started shooting at age 5, had a shotgun at age 12, and a pistol at age 15. I've never shot an innocent person either by accident or on purpose. My son has grown up around guns as I did and could recite the Three Rules of safe gunhandling verbatim long before he needed to shave.

OTOH I know 18yo's I'd hate to see with a gun.

On the other, other hand, it isn't like getting a pistol via illegal sources is at all difficult if the young person had ill intent.


:shrug:

Sometimes I think we just need to fricking make up our minds whether adulthood is at 18 or 21 and quit splitting it.

Your arguments against are emotional, re-read them. ;)
 
Your arguments against are emotional, re-read them. ;)


Um, no, not really.


Studies on brain development: Science.

Some 18yo's I'd hate to see armed: personal and rational evaluation as someone who teaches people to shoot... including teaching children to shoot.


You could call the latter "personal opinion"... but not "emotional".
 
Um, no, not really.


Studies on brain development: Science.

Some 18yo's I'd hate to see armed: personal and rational evaluation as someone who teaches people to shoot... including teaching children to shoot.


You could call the latter "personal opinion"... but not "emotional".

Lots of people have no brains in their twenties, so maybe we should raise the age to 30. :lol: Don't take offense.
 
Lots of people have no brains in their twenties, so maybe we should raise the age to 30. :lol: Don't take offense.


Slippery slope. I didn't say anything about raising the age to 30.

However, I DO think there ought to be a legal age for buying a handgun.... right? Can't let 8yo's walk into the gunshop and plunk down the cash for a POS HiPoint 9, right?

Any age we set will be somewhat arbitrary.

18 makes a certain amount of sense, as this is the age of legal responsibility, and the right to freely contract, marry, enlist, etc.

21 also makes a certain amount of sense, as this is approximately the point when scientific studies say the brain is near to full development.

All I did was lay out a few points regarding each of those possible choices... didn't say I was firmly in support of A or B, in fact I said I was undecided.
 
Lots of people have no brains in their twenties, so maybe we should raise the age to 30. :lol: Don't take offense.

You could well have stopped at "Lots of people have no brains" and left off all that other stuff.
 
Slippery slope. I didn't say anything about raising the age to 30.

However, I DO think there ought to be a legal age for buying a handgun.... right? Can't let 8yo's walk into the gunshop and plunk down the cash for a POS HiPoint 9, right?

Any age we set will be somewhat arbitrary.

18 makes a certain amount of sense, as this is the age of legal responsibility, and the right to freely contract, marry, enlist, etc.

21 also makes a certain amount of sense, as this is approximately the point when scientific studies say the brain is near to full development.

All I did was lay out a few points regarding each of those possible choices... didn't say I was firmly in support of A or B, in fact I said I was undecided.

Go your sense of humor turned off today, Goshin? :shrug:
 
Go your sense of humor turned off today, Goshin? :shrug:

Meh. The partisan hackery around here is nose-deep and rising, and it's been getting to me a bit lately. Not talking about your reply, here, I mean in general.
 
Thought this would be of interest to the gun rights activits. The first reaction I'm sure will be, "this is why we need to elect Mitt Romney." Well ... note that the opinion's author was a George W. Bush appointee....

And the 5th Circuit is one of the most conservative Courts in the country.

The title of the thread is untrue and misleading.

Long gun sales from FFL to 18 year olds is completely legal. In some states Individuals selling handguns to those believed to be non-criminal under the age of 18 is legal as well.
 
Back
Top Bottom