NRA CHALLENGES CONSTITUTIONALITY OF FEDERAL HANDGUN BAN FOR LAW ABIDING 18-20 YEAR OLDS
Wednesday, September 08, 2010
Fairfax, Va. — The NRA is challenging federal laws that prohibit law-abiding Americans eighteen through twenty years of age from legally purchasing a handgun through a federally licensed firearm dealer. The case was filed Tuesday evening in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas Lubbock Division. James D’Cruz of Lubbock, TX is the plaintiff in this case.
The case is D’Cruz v. BATFE.
None of the other enumerated rights have an age restriction.
I’m surprised to see this, but I’m glad. I’ve never understood the age restriction.
“None of the other enumerated rights have an age restriction.”
Voting?
The first eight amendments list the enumerated rights and voting isn’t anywhere in them.
If you can join the military, you should be able to own a handgun, and while I’m at it, you should be able to drink alcohol. Some of these laws just don’t make a lick of sense.
“The first eight amendments list the enumerated rights and voting isn’t anywhere in them.”
Mentioned in passing in several subsequent amendments (15,19,24, 26 etc.) as “right . . . to vote”.
Only the first eight amendments list the enumerated rights. Although voting is mentioned in several places it’s not an enumerated right.
Voting has, from the beginning, been seen as NOT a fundamental right and subject to various restrictions.
I said enumerated, because there are other implied and created rights that are restricted by age, voting being one of them.
Is this really an NRA suit, or are they taking credit for something SAF is doing?
“Only the first eight amendments list the enumerated rights.”
I don’t see how. The amendments mentioning the right to arms, speech, and voting all operate under the presumption there is a right and limit the .gov’s ability to go mucking with those rights. It’s not like the right to privacy, which is never mentioned.