****ATTENTION****
This story is about a former LHS student and current TTU student. We will be talking about this issue in a couple of weeks. Very interesting case.
LUBBOCK, TX (KCBD) – A Texas Tech professor says a Lubbock teen who filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the age to buy handguns may have a chance to win. James D'Cruz is the plaintiff in the case that was filed in a Lubbock federal court.
The right to bear arms is a target of many conversations out on the shooting range. The lawsuit claims that eighteen year olds are considered adults for almost all purposes and ‘certainly for the purposes of the exercise of fundamental constitutional rights.' The National Rifle Association is challenging the federal law that prevents people under 21 from purchasing handguns, something the association believes infringes on personal constitutional rights.
Licensed gun dealer and Rustic Range owner Dub Dillard has some concerns about the suit. "I like the law the way it is. I don't think that 18-year-olds are mature enough to handle handguns."
Papers filed in federal court say D'Cruz, the plaintiff, is well trained and was a member of JROTC's marksmanship team and has earned awards for his marksmanship.
It's that training that gun owner Don Vandiver doesn't believe everyone will have access too. "I'm not sure all 18-year-olds have maturity to handle something so inherently dangerous," said Vandiver who would like to see more training for people between the ages of 18 and 20 if the ban is overturned.
As the law stands, people under the age of 21 can walk into a licensed store and if they pass background checks can purchase a rifle, but cannot buy a smaller handgun or the ammunition for those weapons.
Texas Tech constitutional law Professor Mark McKenzie, who used to litigate cases, believes D'Cruz has a strong case. "The problem of treating 18 to 20 year olds differently in terms of your right to bear arms is that it is a fundamental right enshrined in the bill of rights."
"We think if you are old enough to vote, old enough to serve your country and old enough to die you should be able to buy a handgun through all legal means," said Alexa Fritts, spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association.
McKenzie says the Supreme Court has not defined what is too restrictive when it comes to gun laws. He says this lawsuit is just the next of many steps for gun right advocates.
"The NRA systematically is testing regulations which are okay and which go too far," said McKenzie.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
38 comments:
I believe that 18 year olds should have the right to bear a handgun. If they have the rights of adult citizens of the U.S., then they should also be given the right of the 2nd Amendment. People who are 18 years old can also decide whether or not they want to join our armed forces, and if they have the maturity to decide that, then they should also have the maturity to decide whether or not they can handle a handgun.
This case is really tough, I can actually understand both sides of it. First of all, from James' perspective, I can see why, if you can purchase a rifle and be old enough to enter the military at 18, the act of purchasing a handgun wouldn't be that big of a deal, it's probably not more dangerous then most of the weapons you already have or have used. However, I can also understand why there's a law concerning handguns in the first place, considering a handgun is a weapon that is easily concealed and hidden and more necessary for dangerous acts due to these facts. You can't necessarily hide a rifle in your coat pocket. I think that maybe for someone in his position that could be responsible for owning something like that, it could be a fair idea. But, I don't think that every eighteen year old can be trusted with a law such as the one he's trying to pass.
I agree with Dub Dillard, 18-year-olds are absolutely not old enough to handle guns, you can serve for the country in army when you are 18, but that is a completely different purpose. They use guns to protect us, while 18 year olds who are not serving the country, just want to buy a handgun for their own protection. Also,many 18-year-olds are in highschool, completing their senior year, and highschool is not the best place to be carrying a gun to. This way normal talks and arguments dont take the face of a gun fight and serious injuries of students, possibly innocent students.
I agree with Dub Dillard, 18-year-olds are absolutely not old enough to handle guns, you can serve for the country in army when you are 18, but that is a completely different purpose. They use guns to protect us, while 18 year olds who are not serving the country, just want to buy a handgun for their own protection. Also,many 18-year-olds are in highschool, completing their senior year, and highschool is not the best place to be carrying a gun to. This way normal talks and arguments dont take the face of a gun fight and serious injuries of students, possibly innocent students.
There are really good arguments for both sides of this case right now. Dub Dillard is right, 18 does sound like too young of an age to purchase a handgun, yet at that age you could purchase a rifle/shotgun. I guess it might be because it's way easier to conceal a handgun, but to me it seems the gun types should be switched because a rifle seems much more dangerous that a pistol. I'm surprised the government hasn't addressed this problem earlier.
Hmm. While I completely understand where D'cruz is coming from, i still don't think the law should be changed. If anyone under the age of 21 can't handle alchol, then what makes anythink that anyone under the age of 21 can handle a handgun? Yes there are 18 year olds fighting for our country, but they have been trough extensive training to be able to do so. Unless such extensive training also becomes a law for anyone under 21 wanting to buy a handgun,then the law shouldn't change.
This looks like a very interesting case. In some ways it does seem that 18 year olds (consider the people at LHS) are definitely lacking the maturity to handle a handgun. However, if you can enlist in the army and be shipped overseas once you turn 18, shouldn't you also expect to have the right to bear arms, as the second amendment states? It seems to me the government expects to treat 18-20 year olds as adults in some instances, but continue to treat them as children in others. It will be very interesting to see how this all pans out.
Though experienced people like James who are 18 most certainly have the right to obtain hand guns, I know many 18 year olds who would most likely accidentally shoot themselves or someone else. People who vote and go off to war are usually people who are responsible though, and I agree that they deserve this right and shouldn't have to pay for the immatureness of others. So maybe they could have some kind of training and test of gun knowledge before one is allowed a hand gun?
Ok so there are many ways to look at this. On the one hand I agree that most 18 year-olds aren't old enough. But on the other we can do just about everything else. If we can buy the bigger more dangerous ones then why can we but the smaller ones. Size is really the only difference and if you ask me this is the best way to exercise our constitutional rights.
get it d'cruz, hes right if we are old enough to die for our country and all that other stuff why not carry a pistol?
He would haha
But on a serious note: I dont agree that teens having just finished high school or are finishing their last year of it should be allowed to have handguns. There is a lot at risk if they decide to lower the age. What's going to keep a tortured teen who SEEMS nice on the outside from shooting up the school with a handgun they were legally able to purchase? That weapon can be concealed and many of the high schools do not have metal detectors to point this out. It's the same idea as having the drinking age at 21. Teens are not at the age that they can handle it and they put their peers at risk when they do so. What I want to know is why? Why do we need a handgun that early? Is the world really that dangerous that we now need to have a weapon on us at all times? Or will it just become a fad? If this passes and the age is lowered I would definitely agree that people at that age are required to take classes before they can purchase a handgun.
I personally own a rifle and I believe that the government should allow you to purchase a gun at 18 if you have had training to control the weapon. I agree with Don Vandiver that you should have to have a sufficient amount of training to buy a gun. I think that this should be for any gun seeing as how if you are 18 you can buy a rifle with no knowledge on how to use it. The law that bans it though, I believe does interfere with the Constitution an some ways considering that 18 is legal age for most things. I think they should make a required course that teaches how to handle a gun correctly and that you must pass before being allowed to buy any kind of gun. This would kind of be like Drivers Ed class in that you would a teacher to make sure you are doing things correctly. But i do believe that the law should be changed to where if they are 18, then they can buy handguns if they pass a test to prove they know what they are doing.
I believe that the plaIntif has a very interesting point. When you take into account that someone is allowed to serve in the military but is not a able to buy a handgun there seems to be quite a contradiction. It seems strange that at 18 you are legally considered an adult except that you still can't drink, rent cars or do numerous other things that would seem to come with adulthood but you can however serve in the armed forces and get the same criminal punishments as 'real' adults. It will be interesting to see how this one plays out cause it's an perplexing question.
I believe that an 18 year old should have the right to a handgun, i dont see the point in not allowing it. Regardless of maturity level it can be a form of protection for younger females especially. I dont see why someone under 21 would be allowed to purchase a rifle and not a handgun, the rifle is much more intimidating.
I see both sides of this argument. I was raised around firearms, I've been hunting more times than I can count, and I've won shooting competitions but I understand why the law is the way it is. You can't conceal a shotgun, you can't hide a thirty ought six on your body and walk around in public unnoticed. With a lazy doorman you can hide a little 22 pistol and just waltz into a club or bar. You can't do the same with a rifle. I understand where he is coming from but at 18 you don't necessarily worry about home protection, or even just personal protection so you don't need a hand gun. Most 18 year old college students seeking a firearm license are getting ready for deer season. You can defend the purchase of a shotgun, you can say you need a rifle for hunting season, but what about a handgun? Protection or target practice, or just because? Get a 12 gauge if you want protection.
In my opinion, not allowing those who are only eighteen to purchase a gun is unconstitutional and against the very principles of which America was founded. However, there are times when we must question the Constitution and not just take it as a sacred, unchangeable thing. When the Constitution was written, was there such advanced technology? When the fourth amendments was added, had America experienced the trauma of Columbine and other school shootings? Therefore, I believe that the key is not if allowing 18 year olds to purchase handguns is constitutional but if it is right.
I agree with Dub Dillard, 18-year-olds are absolutely not old enough to handle guns, you can serve for the country in army when you are 18, but that is a completely different purpose. They use guns to protect us, while 18 year olds who are not serving the country, just want to buy a handgun for their own protection. Also,many 18-year-olds are in highschool, completing their senior year, and highschool is not the best place to be carrying a gun to. This way normal talks and arguments dont take the face of a gun fight and serious injuries of students, possibly innocent students.
I agree with the statement that every 18 year old is mature enough to buy a handgun. If they were allowed to own one, then there should be a looottt of training that they'd have to go through to get it. More training then what they would have to do to own any other gun. And yes when you're 18 you can go fight and even die for your country and yes within doing that you get to use a gun BUT you also have a ton of training you have to go through to even be allowed to shoot it. If there this case is won then there should be some kind of long or hard training the 18 year old has to complete and pass before being allowed to purchase a handgun.
I can see both sides of this argument. Eighteen year olds are notoriously known to be immature in some places, but they are legal adults. If they can buy rifles, they probably should be able to buy handguns...but handguns are more dangerous in public, in the sense that they can be concealed.
Also, I didn't realize there was an age where you were "old enough to die". Fritts should have worded that better.
I agree with NRA's spokesman, Alexa Fritts. I believe that if you are old enough to enlist in the army and handle weapons of that caliber then you should be old enough and mature enough to by a simple hand gun.
I think it's pretty dangerous for 18 year-olds to be carrying handguns around places, licensed or not. They've still got some developing to do in maturity because if they get mad for any reason and they can't control themselves and pull the trigger, somebody could be seriously hurt or dead.
I have to say I'm all for his case. 18 year olds are considered adults and can use weapons in the military, and can defend our country, but they're not allowed to have a weapon to defend themselves? I don't see what makes a rifle any different. Those can cause damage as well. I also agree, however, with Don Vandiver, who says he'd like to see more training for the issue of a gun to an 18 year old. Maybe even mandatory checkup testing 6 months after you're issued the gun. It says that treating 18-20 year olds different in their right to bear arms is "enshrined in the bill of rights." Wasn't the bill of rights made to protect us and to defend us? How can it do such things when it won't let young adults protect and defend themselves? If they can pass a systematic test that's always being inspected, let them have a gun. Excited to see what happens for D'Cruz.
I believe that they should change the law and allow 18-year-olds to purchase handguns. If 18-year-olds are allowed to vote and enlist in the army which are rights granted to adults then they should also be able to purchase handguns. The statement "that 18-year-olds are [not] mature enough to handle handguns" is not a valid argument in my opinion. No one is checking their maturity level when they vote and enlist, so how would they monitor it now? As stated in the Bill of Rights the right to bear arms is a right fundamental right guaranteed to the people. So 18-year-olds should be included especially if they are allowed to purchase rifles for hunting.
I believe that they should change the law and allow 18-year-olds to purchase handguns. If 18-year-olds are allowed to vote and enlist in the army which are rights granted to adults then they should also be able to purchase handguns. The statement "that 18-year-olds are [not] mature enough to handle handguns" is not a valid argument in my opinion. No one is checking their maturity level when they vote and enlist, so how would they monitor it now? As stated in the Bill of Rights the right to bear arms is a right fundamental right guaranteed to the people. So 18-year-olds should be included especially if they are allowed to purchase rifles for hunting.
I think that it's perfectly allowable to restrict firearm purchases to adults over the age of 21. The concept of not getting ALL privileges at 18 isn't a new one. You can't drink until 21. You can't claim financially independent until 23. I agree that 18 year olds don't need to be buying guns, and after spending a year 2 years in science classes with Mr. James D'cruz, I only believe it more.
Grant Curry
Government 1st
I think that it's perfectly allowable to restrict firearm purchases to adults over the age of 21. The concept of not getting ALL privileges at 18 isn't a new one. You can't drink until 21. You can't claim financially independent until 23. I agree that 18 year olds don't need to be buying guns, and after spending a year 2 years in science classes with Mr. James D'cruz, I only believe it more.
Grant Curry
Government 1st
I believe the most important line from this article is that if you're old enough to serve your nation and vote, you're old enough to own a gun. On the topic of owning a gun : Guns don't kill, certain people WITH guns kill.
I think that the law to prohibit any one under 21 year's old to posses a gun is a smart idea. Even though it goes against the Bill of Rights it is in best interest to keep weapons out of the hands of anyone that is immature. However the 18 year old does have a case because it is clearly stated in the Bill of Rights.
Adam Escandon 1st prd.
This is a very intresting case. I think that if 18 year olds are old enough and mature enough to be drafted and sent off to war then I'm pretty sure that some are mature enough to own a hand gun at the age of 18. I think it's a little odd how people under the age of 21 can purchase a much bigger gun like a rifle but they can't purchase a handgun. I think there's a big trust issue with this. How can one trust that an 18 year old will handle the gun safely and to not abuse it? I am very curious to see how this turns out.
I believe James D'Cruz has a good chance of winning his case, also I agree that if you are old enough to enlist in the army who actually handle bigger and more powerful weapons, then you a can certainly handle a little hand gun. Also D'Cruz was also a trained JROTC marksman so I don't see why he wouldn't win.
I don't know if every 18 year old is mature enough to handle having a handgun, but even some people over 21 aren't and the law doesn't prevent them from buying them. If the law says 18 year olds are legal adults, whose rights are protected by the Constitution (i.e. the 2nd Amendment), and they have the right to vote, enlist in the army, and even buy rifles, I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to buy handguns.
Although 18 year olds are considered adults, the vast majority of them are most certainly not mature enough to handle a gun. The decision making part of the brain is not fully developped until the age of 25. If 18 year olds are given lethal weapons when they are not capable of always making good choices then there could be a substantial increase in crime rates. Also, if James D'Cruz wins because "[he is] old enough to vote, old enough to serve [his] country and old enough to die" does that also mean he's old enough to drink? For the same reasons 18 years old can not purchase alcohol, they should not be allowed to own hand guns.
I come from a family that goes to hunt and to the shooting range so I'm not a stranger to a handgun or a rifle. Some 18 year olds are mature enough to understand the danger of guns and respect them but others will abuse the privilege and just carry it around to be cool. The problem is you can't just give the right to bear arms to some 18 year olds.
I think no matter how old you are you shouldn't have the right to have guns.
In must countries, people can't have guns. And I think that is the safes way.
If people have guns there will be a lot of problem.
The reason people want to have guns is that they want to have a weapone, so when other people try to kill them they can at least try not to get kill.
But if no one is allow to have guns then there won't be any one that try to kill you with a gun.
So i say just make lows that say no one has the right to have a gun expect for polices or special needs.
This case is intense! The plaintiff has a very strong case and theoretically it makes perfect sense. Although, as much as I would like to say that eighteen year olds should be able to purchase a handgun, I'd get freaked out if I had a friend that had a handgun lying around their house. It'd be like, "I don't EVER want to get YOU mad." Personally, I don't think it matters how old you are, a handgun, pistol, any type of small gun shouldn't even be kept in a household area. The second amendment was created way back in the day for REAL reasons of self defense. Back then, there were so many conflicts that people needed a right to bear arms to survive. In most places now, a handgun isn't a necessity. Also, most eighteen year olds don't even have an organized room, what if they forgot to put their gun in whatever 'safe' place they keep it and it got to the hands of a child? I'm not saying that twenty one year olds are super mature and deities, and all eighteen year olds are stupid, lazy, and senseless; but I think twenty one year olds can control their emotions better than eighteen year olds.
I personally own a rifle and I believe that the government should allow you to purchase a gun at 18 if you have had training to control the weapon. I agree with Don Vandiver that you should have to have a sufficient amount of training to buy a gun. I think that this should be for any gun seeing as how if you are 18 you can buy a rifle with no knowledge on how to use it. The law that bans it though, I believe does interfere with the Constitution an some ways considering that 18 is legal age for most things. I think they should make a required course that teaches how to handle a gun correctly and that you must pass before being allowed to buy any kind of gun. This would kind of be like Drivers Ed class in that you would a teacher to make sure you are doing things correctly. But i do believe that the law should be changed to where if they are 18, then they can buy handguns if they pass a test to prove they know what they are doing.
I agree with the guys who are saying that 18 yr olds aren't mature enough to carry a hand gun. i mean there are some 18 yr olds who act like children and those three years could make a difference. Also there are kids in school who are 18 19 years old. what if they bring a gun into the school?? i also don't agree that if your under 21 you can buy a rifle...
Bryce, if you want FULL credit for this assignment, you will make a complete analysis of the article, not a simple statement rephrasing the issue.
Thanks
Mr. P
Post a Comment