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; Somebody better check the moon and stars for alignment. This just in from my NRA email alerts: NRA Will Appeal Texas Concealed Handgun Case NRA ...

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 41
Like Tree16Likes

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

  1. #1
    VIP Member
    Array oneshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    +42.893612,-082.710236 , Mi.
    Posts
    7,942

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

    Somebody better check the moon and stars for alignment.
    This just in from my NRA email alerts:

    NRA Will Appeal Texas Concealed Handgun Case



    NRA will appeal yesterday’s decision by a federal court in Texas, which held that the Second Amendment doesn’t protect any right to keep or bear arms outside the home.

    The decision, handed down by U.S. District Judge Sam Cummings of the Northern District of Texas, came in the case of Jennings v. McCraw, in which 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, who are treated as adults for virtually every other purpose under the law. (NRA is also a party on behalf of its members in this age group.) Judge Cummings ruled that it was unnecessary to address the state’s discrimination against young adults because “the right to carry a handgun outside of the home … seems to be beyond the scope of the core Second Amendment concern articulated in Heller [v. District of Columbia].”

    Chicago: Challenge to Ban on Guns Outside the Home Goes Forward: On January 19, a federal judge in Chicago allowed NRA-supported plaintiffs to move ahead with a challenge to that city’s laws that ban anyone from possessing or carrying a handgun except in his or her home, and that ban possession or carriage of a long gun anywhere outside his or her home or place of business.



    The judge in Texas, one Sam Cummings sounds as though he needs to be institutionalized.

    What are your thoughts?
    If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.

    Washington didn't use his freedom of speech to defeat the British, He shot them!

    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." -- Ernest Benn

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Moderator
    Array bmcgilvray's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    9,981
    "seems to be beyond the scope of the core Second Amendment concern articulated in Heller."

    I think Judge Cummings choice of wording used for writing the ban is lame. "Seems" is weak and ineffectual as used here to uphold the discrimination.

    Such wording would be appropriate for a judge with an agenda though.
    oneshot, 64zebra and CaptSmith like this.
    “No possible rapidity of fire can atone for habitual carelessness of aim with the first shot.”

    Theodore Roosevelt, The Wilderness Hunter, 1893

  4. #3
    VIP Member Array Brass63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    5,542
    This case, or one of many others like it, will eventually wind its way up to SCOTUS.
    And they'll rule on the constitutionality of the right to carry outside one's home and property.
    For better or worse, it's coming.
    The United States Constitution © 1791. All Rights Reserved.

  5. #4
    Senior Member Array Chad Rogers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Metro DC
    Posts
    958
    It was only a matter of time before the wording in Heller, which clearly did not grant an absolute right to possess and carry firearms, manifested itself.

    As far as Chicago goes, all the court did was say a lawsuit could move forward. There was no ruling on any of the case's merits.
    Last edited by Chad Rogers; January 21st, 2012 at 12:54 PM.
    "People who take an Internet handle of a great warrior, are usually the first to go fetal when crunch time comes." - Me

  6. #5
    VIP Member
    Array oneshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    +42.893612,-082.710236 , Mi.
    Posts
    7,942
    Quote Originally Posted by Chad Rogers View Post
    It was only a matter of time before the wording in Heller, which clearly did not grant an absolute right to possess and carry firearms, manifested itself.

    As far as Chicago goes, all the court did was say a lawsuit could move forward. There was no ruling on any of the case's merits.



    True^^^^^^^^^

    But looking at where each of these stories are originating, is just amazing.
    Are the political tides in Chicago beginning to change finally?
    If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.

    Washington didn't use his freedom of speech to defeat the British, He shot them!

    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." -- Ernest Benn

  7. #6
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,602
    Pre Heller AND NOT all that many years ago, Texas had very restrictive hand gun laws. You had to be traveling, interpreted by the courts to mean outside your county
    on an overnight trip, or going to and from your home to your business or to the gun store or to the range, by the most DIRECT route without stopping for a McD.

    This was not that long ago really. It was the law when I moved here and was the law for about 20-25 more years after.

    From that point of view, the judge is right. As far as I know, this was the way it was for a very very long time, myth about TX and Westerns notwithstanding.

    The game has changed a bit with incorporation of 2A under 14 A's umbrella, but Heller did not say anyone had a right to carry outside the house or force DC to issue
    more reasonable carry regulations.

    Don't like the result, but can't really fault the judge. The Supremes had their chance to fix things and they didn't.
    torgo1968 likes this.
    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

  8. #7
    Senior Member Array Chad Rogers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Metro DC
    Posts
    958
    Quote Originally Posted by oneshot View Post
    True^^^^^^^^^

    But looking at where each of these stories are originating, is just amazing.
    Are the political tides in Chicago beginning to change finally?
    I would not read anything into the fact that the judge in Chicago is letting a case go forward. There is a current Constitutional issue involved. There have been two SCOTUS decisions on the topic within the past 3 or so years. Most judges do not like to be overturned. Although the entire 9th Circuit doesn't seem to concern itself with such vagaries.
    "People who take an Internet handle of a great warrior, are usually the first to go fetal when crunch time comes." - Me

  9. #8
    VIP Member Array dukalmighty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    15,177
    Actually they may have a basis for the discrimination part,Texas will issue CHL licenses to Active Duty members of the Military and National Guard,and IIRC Military Vets under the age of 21
    "Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country,"
    --Mayor Marion Barry, Washington , DC .

  10. #9
    Ex Member Array barstoolguru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    under a rock in area 51
    Posts
    2,548
    this is what happens when people under 21 have guns

    Suspect Calls DART Murder Self Defense
    Hopyard likes this.

  11. #10
    Member Array Chicago45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    23
    I'm not too concerned about either of these rulings.

    In Jennings v. McCraw (opinion here: http://www.bradycenter.org/xshare/1.19.12_Order.pdf) the judge found that plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the Texas statute disallowing non-military personnel aged 18-21 to carry a concealed handgun. The court held this because plaintiffs were not in immediate threat of prosecution for violating Texas Penal Code Section 46.02. Everything the judge said after reaching that conclusion is mere obiter dictum, which means it has no precedential or binding value. The judge, knowing the case would be appealed, merely added to the judicial record his opinion to influence the way in which the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals interprets the case.

    Indeed the judge articulated his dictum consistent with persuasive authority found in other federal district court, federal appellate court, and state supreme court jurisdictions (see pages 9-10 of the opinion). Should this case reach the SCOTUS I see it being upheld. Texas is merely doing what is properly within its police powers to do. The balance between public safety and allowing non-military persons aged 18-21 to carry a concealed handgun seems to weigh in favor of the former.

    In terms of what this case signifies regarding a constitutional right to carry a concealed handgun, a better set of plaintiffs could have been chosen. It would have been better to take a plaintiff from a "may issue" state who has been denied a concealed carry permit and use their case to test the constitutionality of concealed carry. After establishing the constitutional right to conceal-carry from a more general class (i.e. persons from a "may-issue" state) it would have been easier to test the constitutionality of a narrower class of plaintiffs (i.e. non-military persons aged 18-21). (Of course, I'm sure there are pending cases now that are attempting just this, so the SCOTUS may combine cases and issue a general ruling on concealed carry, hopefully in our favor.)


    Regarding the progress of Benson v. City of Chicago, I see it as a good, but extremely minor win thus far. As a resident of Chicago I'll be watching it very closely.
    Hopyard and CaptSmith like this.

  12. #11
    Member Array Whitebrad25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Austin
    Posts
    19
    As far as I am concerned an individual under 21 (in Texas specifically) cannot purchase a handgun, nor the ammo needed to shoot it. It is logical that said individual under 21 should not be in possession of the firearm as well. I am sorry, but I very clearly remember some of the dumb high schoolers that I know I would very well not want possessing a firearm. This ruling is for that age group and is not a rational applied to 21+, the legal age where one can buy handguns and ammo for them.

  13. #12
    Member Array Whitebrad25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Austin
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by dukalmighty View Post
    Actually they may have a basis for the discrimination part,Texas will issue CHL licenses to Active Duty members of the Military and National Guard,and IIRC Military Vets under the age of 21

    I would also rival that statement with the fact that your standard 'under the age of 21' person is not trained to the level of military members.
    Hopyard likes this.

  14. #13
    VIP Member Array peckman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,079
    Quote Originally Posted by Whitebrad25 View Post
    I would also rival that statement with the fact that your standard 'under the age of 21' person is not trained to the level of military members.
    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.
    Tally XD likes this.

  15. #14
    Distinguished Member Array Tally XD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Tallahassee, FL
    Posts
    1,831
    Quote Originally Posted by Whitebrad25 View Post
    As far as I am concerned an individual under 21 (in Texas specifically) cannot purchase a handgun, nor the ammo needed to shoot it. It is logical that said individual under 21 should not be in possession of the firearm as well. I am sorry, but I very clearly remember some of the dumb high schoolers that I know I would very well not want possessing a firearm. This ruling is for that age group and is not a rational applied to 21+, the legal age where one can buy handguns and ammo for them.
    Quote Originally Posted by Whitebrad25 View Post
    I would also rival that statement with the fact that your standard 'under the age of 21' person is not trained to the level of military members.
    Don't take this as an argument to your response but I believe if a young man/woman is old enough to be sent into a battlefield to possibly die then they have the right to own any handgun, long gun or ammunition that is legal to anyone 21 or older.

    I agree that not all youngsters are adult enough to have this responsibility, and handle it well, but there are an astounding many adults that do not meet this level of responsibility either.

    If the legal age of owning a weapon, ammunition or even alcohol is 21 years of age then the legal enlistment age for the military should also be 21 years of age.
    “I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry.”
    - Barack Obama Chicago Tribune, April 27, 2004

  16. #15
    VIP Member
    Array Mike1956's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Marion County, Ohio
    Posts
    10,173
    "Texas banning guns-Chicago Ok'ing guns outside the home?"

    No to both questions.

Page 1 of 3 123 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.