Texas banning guns-Chicago Ok'ing guns outside the home?

This is a discussion on Texas banning guns-Chicago Ok'ing guns outside the home? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Arguing technicalities of the Texas case is like arguing over a single hair on a fat cat (bearing thousands of similar hairs) that is stalking ...

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 41
Like Tree16Likes

Thread: Texas banning guns-Chicago Ok'ing guns outside the home?

  1. #16
    Member Array Eaglebeak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Republic Of Texas
    Posts
    367
    Arguing technicalities of the Texas case is like arguing over a single hair on a fat cat (bearing thousands of similar hairs) that is stalking all of our freedoms as its prey while continuing to grow larger and more dangerous each day.

    For the past 40 years, we've stood by helplessly as the fundamental Constitutional governance of this country by "majority rule via the ballot box" continues being eroded to virtual insignificance. The fundamental premise of "government of the people, for the people, and by the people" has slowly become a running joke because what becomes law is now up to the sole discretion of a liberal judicial system regardless of "majority rule".

    Texas, Arizona, Oklahoma and a number of other states have passed laws by overwhelming popular vote from millions of citizens - only to have their "majority rule" blocked and nullified by a single federal judge who's personal and twisted interpretation declares the law "unconstitutional" whether it is or not. Then, by "judicial order", the decision of one or two suddenly creates a new "law" to their liking regardless of what millions of overwhelming majority voters want. Sadly, to challenge some liberal judge's decision or new judicial law frequently takes years to do - and only winds up being the decision of a few more federal judges in the Supreme Court.

    If you want to ruminate on something really scary, consider the fact that 100% of this country's population could vote for a Constitutional amendment (either by direct popular vote or via their respective Senators and Representatives) - and their vote could be instantly nullified by a radical President's veto along with a handfull of well-placed Supreme Court justices declaring the proposed amendment was "unconstitutional". One radical president and a handful of liberal judges have the power to dictate where this county is going, and screw the people regardless of what they want or how many of them want it.

    Years ago, there wasn't such a worry about the Legislative Branch (the people), the Executive Branch (president), and Judicial Branch (supreme court) having equal power where any two of the three branches could override actions of the third because there weren't as many subversives at work to take the country down. But, considering the current trend of governance by the Executive and Judicial Branches by only a select few people, we don't realize just how close we are to easily becoming a dictatorship regardless of how we vote or what we may want. Now THAT'S the scary part that we've been watching slowly come to pass whether we like it or not.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    Member Array Whitebrad25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Austin
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by peckman28 View Post
    Obviously you haven't been in the military. Most members are given basic familiarity or don't even handle a sidearm at all, just the M16/M4. This whole "no handguns for those under 21" crap wasn't even a federal law until 1968 anyway, and there is no law saying that those under 21 can't possess them anyway, at least not at the federal level. They just can't buy them from a FFL dealer. I seriously doubt that there was a rampant problem with people under 21 with handguns prior to the GCA of 1968, which never should've been passed in the first place. It ranks right up there with the drinking age being 21 as absolutely idiotic and unjustifiable on any level.

    Actually, my whole (father's side) family is retired military and I currently have several friends who are serving.


    I am making the point that they have, at the least, the minimal amount. There is nothing for those who simply possess an item they are not legally allowed to possess. Same reason why knives have such stringent laws; there is no age limit so they pick away at styles, lengths, etc. This is just based on what people believe I suppose. I have no problem with it and I don't live in Maryland, I live in Texas.

  4. #18
    Member Array KimberUltra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    68
    I don't know about other states, but awhile back in CT they wanted to raise the driving age to 18 because they felt 16 wasn't mature enough to drink. Age has nothin to do with it. I bet a 16 year ol with training and classes can handle a car better than a 40 yr old who has never driven anything in ther lives.

    Guns are the same way. It's experience and knowing safety procedures that is the most important part. My mother is pushing 50 and I'm nervous when she has a gun in her had. She's too nervous and jittery with it. I'm 23 and handle my firearms every day. Who is more likely to have to accident?

  5. #19
    Member Array Whitebrad25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Austin
    Posts
    19
    I agree with your post. The problem is, to some extent, a clear and concise measure must be used/set to better ascertain the level of ability one likely possess. So, the easiest thing to do is slap an age restriction on something. I am not saying that in the broad canvas the issue cannot be challanged, but I AM saying that in this exact instance it is legally backed, and, due to the laws, makes no sense for under 21 to carry. People WILL disagree, people might partially agree, nonetheless, it is MY opinion. But I will say I feel you are 100% correct that maturity dictates ability quite often.

  6. #20
    VIP Member Array paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA
    Posts
    5,134
    Quote Originally Posted by Eaglebeak View Post

    If you want to ruminate on something really scary, consider the fact that 100% of this country's population could vote for a Constitutional amendment (either by direct popular vote or via their respective Senators and Representatives) - and their vote could be instantly nullified by a radical President's veto along with a handfull of well-placed Supreme Court justices declaring the proposed amendment was "unconstitutional".
    I'm not saying you're wrong here, but how can SCOTUS say a change in the Constitution is unconstitutional?
    Hopyard likes this.
    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

  7. #21
    VIP Member Array peckman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,082
    Quote Originally Posted by Whitebrad25 View Post
    Actually, my whole (father's side) family is retired military and I currently have several friends who are serving.


    I am making the point that they have, at the least, the minimal amount. There is nothing for those who simply possess an item they are not legally allowed to possess. Same reason why knives have such stringent laws; there is no age limit so they pick away at styles, lengths, etc. This is just based on what people believe I suppose. I have no problem with it and I don't live in Maryland, I live in Texas.
    If you are under 21 you can still POSSESS a handgun (unless in Texas specifically there is a law saying you can't, in which case I stand corrected for that state anyway). Also, if I'm not mistaken, to get a CHL in Texas you have to take an 8 hour class, which is at least 4 more than any handgun training I've gotten in my time in the military, and that most military people get for that matter. Sorry, but that argument holds no water. As far as arbitrarily setting an age of 21 for handguns, I'm not backing down on that. It's stupid and immoral. As another said, if you have a 3 year span where you can get drafted and are in every other way treated as an adult by law, there is no justification for saying you can't drink or buy a handgun. As far as the "stupid kids" argument goes, sorry, but if you're a moron from 18-20, you won't magically grow a brain because you turn 21. When you're 18 you're an adult, and you should be treated as such in every way. Under 18 and you're still legally a minor, and should be treated as such. None of this "you're mostly an adult until 21" nonsense. At best, that only serves to make people who are 18 still think like children that much longer, and that is not a good trend.

  8. #22
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,658
    Quote Originally Posted by peckman28 View Post
    If you are under 21 you can still POSSESS a handgun (unless in Texas specifically there is a law saying you can't, in which case I stand corrected for that state anyway). Also, if I'm not mistaken, to get a CHL in Texas you have to take an 8 hour class, which is at least 4 more than any handgun training I've gotten in my time in the military, and that most military people get for that matter. Sorry, but that argument holds no water. As far as arbitrarily setting an age of 21 for handguns, I'm not backing down on that. It's stupid and immoral. As another said, if you have a 3 year span where you can get drafted and are in every other way treated as an adult by law, there is no justification for saying you can't drink or buy a handgun. As far as the "stupid kids" argument goes, sorry, but if you're a moron from 18-20, you won't magically grow a brain because you turn 21. When you're 18 you're an adult, and you should be treated as such in every way. Under 18 and you're still legally a minor, and should be treated as such. None of this "you're mostly an adult until 21" nonsense. At best, that only serves to make people who are 18 still think like children that much longer, and that is not a good trend.
    Peckman, I wonder from part of what you wrote if you are a young man.

    I used to think exactly as you above (in bold) but that was when I was 18, 19, 20, 21, 25. By 40 I began to realize I might be wrong. By 50 I had an older teen in the house. I knew I was wrong.

    We made a huge mistake in this country back in the 60s; 18 year old people for the most part are not adults. They aren't finished maturing. We recognize this when we keep them from drinking till they are 21, owning guns till they are 21.

    Our founders sort of had the right idea when they set different age limits for qualification to The House, Senate, and Presidency. Education and experience count, and few under 21 have fully matured. In fact I'd say that most folks don't mature truly, until around 25.

    Yup, I'm an old geezer. And I've been around long enough to watch the young and the stupid do stupid. Been there and done it myself.

    I would like to see the voting age returned to 21. I would like to see age of majority returned to 21. I would make some exceptions for those who are fully emancipated and living on their own and actually supporting themselves.

    Aside from the gun and booze issue, I've seen too many instances of parents feeling they can drop all care for their kids at 18. Funny, our law permits parents with health insurance to cover their children till they are 26. There is a reason why that was necessary. Modern life has (for better or worse) made it very difficult for younger people to be on their own.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  9. #23
    VIP Member Array peckman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,082
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Peckman, I wonder from part of what you wrote if you are a young man.

    I used to think exactly as you above (in bold) but that was when I was 18, 19, 20, 21, 25. By 40 I began to realize I might be wrong. By 50 I had an older teen in the house. I knew I was wrong.

    We made a huge mistake in this country back in the 60s; 18 year old people for the most part are not adults. They aren't finished maturing. We recognize this when we keep them from drinking till they are 21, owning guns till they are 21.

    Our founders sort of had the right idea when they set different age limits for qualification to The House, Senate, and Presidency. Education and experience count, and few under 21 have fully matured. In fact I'd say that most folks don't mature truly, until around 25.

    Yup, I'm an old geezer. And I've been around long enough to watch the young and the stupid do stupid. Been there and done it myself.

    I would like to see the voting age returned to 21. I would like to see age of majority returned to 21. I would make some exceptions for those who are fully emancipated and living on their own and actually supporting themselves.

    Aside from the gun and booze issue, I've seen too many instances of parents feeling they can drop all care for their kids at 18. Funny, our law permits parents with health insurance to cover their children till they are 26. There is a reason why that was necessary. Modern life has (for better or worse) made it very difficult for younger people to be on their own.
    Our culture and laws teach us to coddle and treat people like mostly helpless dependents until they're 18. Extending that type of treatment out further until 21 or later will make the problem of the entitlement mentality in young people worse. I see that type of mentality about stupid young people all the time from people who are older (and yeah, I'm 26). I don't dispute that you gain more wisdom as you grow older, but that is no excuse whatsoever for keeping the kid-gloves on that much longer and acting all high and mighty because you've had enough time to gain more experience than those who are decades younger than you are, especially when it seems to be based largely on your anecdotal experiences with one teenager. Embracing the notion that people should be coddled and treated as helpless and stupid well into their 20s in fact shows a lack of wisdom. I can cite plenty of examples of idiotic old people, but you don't see me running around demanding that people in your age bracket be stripped of their freedoms. As a matter of fact, you reach your maximum raw intelligence when you turn 20, then your brain already begins going the other way. I bring that up to point out that you can't have a centrally imposed, arbitrarily arrived at "age of maturity" that's based on anything really objective. There was a time when you were pretty much an adult well before you were even 18, and society functioned well then too. When you say we made a big mistake in the 1960s, you're absolutely right, though for the wrong reasons. You seem to think that we gave young people too much freedom back then, when any objective student of history would conclude the exact opposite, and not just for young people.

    We have far more alcohol-related incidents, alcohol poisoning and so on with our 21 year old drinking age than you see in countries like France without such stupid laws. There is no evidence that an older drinking age has done anything helpful at all in fact; alcoholism is higher now than it was when those laws were passed. As far as the insurance thing goes, well that would be a separate debate for a different forum or PM (as well as the alcohol thing) but I will say that is a "solution" from a government that created a big problem in the first place, and is yet another step in the wrong direction. Bottom line, once you've reached the legal adult age you need to be treated like an adult, period. To endorse anything else is to degrade the concept of rule of law. I will give you points for consistency in saying that you basically think people should just not be legal adults until they're 21, but I cannot disagree more with such an assertion. The sooner people are allowed to go and figure things out for themselves the better. Make the age of adulthood older and people will just act stupid that much longer. Utopia can never be achieved, and in the pursuit we will rapidly lose our freedoms and our self-respect.
    Last edited by peckman28; January 22nd, 2012 at 03:24 PM.

  10. #24
    Ex Member Array Bullet1234's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    963
    I AGREE with
    "a group of law-abiding 18- to 20-year old adults challenged the state law
    prohibiting issuance of concealed handgun licenses to persons under 21".

    Any right you cAN have to FIGHT & DIE for YOU SHOULD HAVE,,,, THAT RIGHT.
    Many young men 18- to 20-year old have died fighting to keep these rights WHY
    SHOULD THEY NOT BE GIVEN THEM ALSO.

    Disagree with the JUDGE TOTALLY,,,, he is another liberal judge who SHOULD BE
    PUT DOWN.

  11. #25
    Member Array Whitebrad25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Austin
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by peckman28 View Post
    If you are under 21 you can still POSSESS a handgun.
    Back up to this point: I was saying (or trying) that the individual can not purchase the firearm or the ammo; thus, the individual does not have a need to possess the firearm. Offhand I am fairly sure possession of a firearm in Texas, under the age of 21, IS illegal.

  12. #26
    VIP Member Array peckman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,082
    Quote Originally Posted by Whitebrad25 View Post
    Back up to this point: I was saying (or trying) that the individual can not purchase the firearm or the ammo; thus, the individual does not have a need to possess the firearm. Offhand I am fairly sure possession of a firearm in Texas, under the age of 21, IS illegal.
    Nope. http://www.nraila.org/statelawpdfs/txsl.pdf

    I can't find anything anywhere that says you have to be older than 18 to possess a firearm in Texas, even a handgun. Long guns, I know for sure is 18. As far as handguns...you just can't buy them from an FFL dealer if you're under 21. You could do a face to face sale and it would be legal, as well as buying the ammo since there is no prohibition on possession, just on FFLs selling to you.

  13. #27
    Member Array KimberUltra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    68
    A few of you kind f hit the nail on the head. How much more mature was an 18 year old kid 100 years ago than they are today. Parenting has a huge effect on the issue. I grew up in the tail end of the dad where parents were allowe to hit their children. I was hit, plenty of times. I'm much more mature and disciplined than others are at the same age. These days young men are still sucking at the teet well into ther 20's. Being babied and coddled is the reason people aren't as mature as they use to be. No one knows how to handle life and responsibility

  14. #28
    VIP Member
    Array 64zebra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Panhandle of Texas
    Posts
    6,445
    Quote Originally Posted by Whitebrad25 View Post
    Back up to this point: I was saying (or trying) that the individual can not purchase the firearm or the ammo; thus, the individual does not have a need to possess the firearm. Offhand I am fairly sure possession of a firearm in Texas, under the age of 21, IS illegal.
    guess I broke the law at 5 when I fired my first gun.....and when I was hunting dove at age 10........

    NO, there is no state law in Texas where possessing a firearm at a certain age is against the law. Under 21 can't purchase handgun or handgun ammo, under 18 can't purchase rifle/shotgun or rifle/shotgun ammo.
    There is a law about leaving a loaded firearm where its accessible to children.
    Other than that, no age restrictions.

    as for the bolded....so when I was 15 and couldn't buy ammo....I had no need for my shotgun for dove/turkey hunting?, no need for my 30-30 for varmit/deer hunting?.....or in case some jackwagon broke into the house while my parents were gone? (yes, I loaded them when parents would be gone overnight, etc)
    there are plenty of stories where teenagers have stopped home burglaries with firearms
    just laying all that out there...that the statement in bold above is WAY wrong
    LEO/CHL
    Certified Glock Armorer

    "I got a touch of hangover bureaucrat, don't push me"
    --G.W. McClintock

    Independence is declared; it must be maintained. Sam Houston-3/2/1836
    If loose gun laws are good for criminals why do criminals support gun control?

  15. #29
    VIP Member
    Array 64zebra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Panhandle of Texas
    Posts
    6,445
    First.....the title to this thread is completely inappropriate for the material contained in the news story....no banning of guns was present in the story or due to the fed decision
    I do think its wrong however

    We did make a lot of mistakes IMO in the 60's, most of which fall into the category of political discussion and this isn't the appropriate place for all that.

    The reason parents can insure their kids until whatever age was done way before obamacare came into law. I was on my parent's health and dental until 24....because I was in college...hence the reason that policy was in place in the early 90's. That was per my dad's Exxon insurance policy (you know....the evil money hungry oil company that was really good to us), not some government mandate.

    I agree in that becoming 21 doesn't automatically make you some special, mature, or anything else type of person. The law for drinking was made to hopefully curb some underage drinking (works some of the time, not always). It has absolutely nothing to do with alcoholism rates. Its an attempt to prevent those in high school/just out of high school from partaking of the alcohol. I arrest way more people above the age of 21 for alcohol offenses than I do high schoolers drinking, etc. I also arrest a LOT of people that are in the 30s/40s that are less mature than a lot of 18 year olds that I know.

    As far as owning guns....at 18 can buy rifle/shotgun but have to wait til 21 for a handgun....stupid. The rifle/shotgun does way more damage than a handgun...that whole law was made to satisfy some people that would rather feel good about a law that to actually look at things and use common sense (just like federal gun laws). At 10 years old I had a 20ga and a 30-30 under my bed every night. Never took one to school, or did anything illegal with them.
    LEO/CHL
    Certified Glock Armorer

    "I got a touch of hangover bureaucrat, don't push me"
    --G.W. McClintock

    Independence is declared; it must be maintained. Sam Houston-3/2/1836
    If loose gun laws are good for criminals why do criminals support gun control?

  16. #30
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,658
    Quote Originally Posted by KimberUltra View Post
    A few of you kind f hit the nail on the head. How much more mature was an 18 year old kid 100 years ago than they are today. Parenting has a huge effect on the issue. I grew up in the tail end of the dad where parents were allowe to hit their children. I was hit, plenty of times. I'm much more mature and disciplined than others are at the same age. These days young men are still sucking at the teet well into ther 20's. Being babied and coddled is the reason people aren't as mature as they use to be. No one knows how to handle life and responsibility
    The correct question is how much more complex is society today than it was 100 years back. It takes a lot of experience and education (acquired in school or at work or in the military and living life) to acquire good judgment in complex situations. And today, everything is a complex situation.

    @peckman, save your post and come see me wherever I might be in around 70 years (I hope for your sake you make it that long), and we'll find out if you changed your mind, oh, around 10 years hence.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

and the possession of long guns outside the city of chicago

,

jennings v. mccraw texas

,

powered by mybb army ranks of the general

,

powered by mybb circuit city

,
powered by mybb game of darts
,

powered by mybb michigan state

,
powered by mybb military rankings
,

powered by mybb oklahoma state

,
powered by mybb second person to walk on the moon
,

powered by mybb sound politics

,

powered by mybb texas state

,

will texas ban guns

Click on a term to search for related topics.