concealed carry holster draw pistol
Shutterstock
◀Previous Post
Next Post▶

From the Firearms Policy Coalition . . .

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) has filed a new federal Second Amendment lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas seeking to restore the right to carry arms in public for adults under 21 years of age. Defendants in the case include Steven McCraw, Director of the Texas Department of Public Safety. The lawsuit seeks a declaration finding the Texas carry ban as to adults under age 21 unconstitutional, an injunction, and attorney’s fees and costs. The complaint for Andrews v. McCraw can be found at FPCLegal.org.

“Under the 18-to-20-Year-Old Carry Ban that Defendants enforce, Plaintiffs Andrews and Blakey, along with other similarly situated members of Plaintiff [FPC], are categorically prohibited from obtaining a license to carry a handgun and denied the right to carry a handgun for self-defense on their person in public, in direct violation of the Second Amendment, as incorporated against the State by the Fourteenth Amendment,” the complaint says.

In June, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed the FPC-supported H.B. 1927 into law, enacting “constitutional carry” (i.e., permitless carry) in the Lone Star state. However, the bill did not extend the Texas statutory right to bear arms to adults under age 21. Through today’s lawsuit, FPC now seeks to ensure that all non-prohibited adults in Texas can exercise their fundamental Second Amendment right to bear arms outside the home.

“This lawsuit is part of our nationwide strategic litigation program designed to restore the Second Amendment and ensure that all non-violent individuals are able to exercise their fundamental right to keep and bear arms,” said Adam Kraut, FPC’s Senior Director of Legal Operations. “While we were glad to see Texas enact constitutional carry for adults over 21 years of age, that bill left us the important task of seeking judicial relief for adults under 21. We look forward to vindicating the rights of our members and all young adults who reside in Texas.”

In the complaint, the plaintiffs “acknowledge that their facial challenge to Texas’s ban on public carry by 18-to-20-year-olds is foreclosed in this Court by National Rifle Association of America Rifle, Inc. v. McCraw, 719 F.3d 338 (5th Cir. 2013), but they believe that case was wrongly decided. They therefore institute this litigation to vindicate their Second Amendment rights and seek to have McCraw overruled by a court competent to do so. Even under McCraw, however, this Court can and should rule in favor of Plaintiffs’ as-applied claim with respect to 18-to-20-year-old women asserted by Plaintiffs Blakey and FPC on behalf of its similarly situated members.”

Thus, while the District Court could still find in favor of Plaintiffs Blakey and FPC on the as-applied claim, the case seeks to have the wrongly-decided McCraw case overruled by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Last week, the United States Supreme Court heard arguments in a FPC-supported Second Amendment challenge to New York’s “may issue” scheme. Among dozens of other Second Amendment cases, FPC has filed lawsuits challenging unconstitutional restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms in Minnesota, Illinois, California, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Georgia.

Individuals that are interested in joining FPC in the fight against tyranny can become a member of the FPC Grassroots Army for just $25 at JoinFPC.org. For more on FPC cases and other legal action initiatives, visit FPCLegal.org and follow FPC on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube. FPC and its FPC Law team are the nation’s next-generation advocates leading the Second Amendment litigation and research space. Some FPC legal actions include:

  • A challenge to California’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” (Miller v. Bonta) that resulted in a post-trial judgment and permanent injunction against the challenged regulations, the first such victory in United States history
  • A challenge to Cook County’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” (Viramontes v. Cook County)
  • A challenge to Maryland’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” (Bianchi v. Frosh)
  • A challenge to California’s handgun “roster”, microstamping, and self-manufacturing ban laws (Renna v. Bonta)
  • A challenge to Massachusetts’ Approved Handgun Roster and Attorney General’s Handgun Sales Regulations (Granata v. Healey)
  • A challenge to San Diego’s ban on home-building firearms and precursor parts (Fahr v. San Diego)
  • A challenge to Delaware’s ban on home-building firearms and precursor parts, as well as 3D files (Rigby v. Carney)
  • A challenge to the federal ban on the sale of handguns and handgun ammunition to adults under 21 years of age (Reese v. ATF)
  • A challenge to New York City’s ban on electronic arms (Calce v. New York City)
  • A challenge to California’s firearm purchase rationing ban (1-in-30 day limit) (Nguyen v. Bonta)

◀Previous Post
Next Post▶

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

39 COMMENTS

  1. Ask for too much and get nothing. In order to get carry passed what may be an obstacle was trimmed. That was not to say 21 and under would never have their day. It means there are risky people in the legislature who need any lame excuse they can find to justify being a stick in the mud. Under 21 will have its day but apparently if not soon enough comes the lawsuit where some judge will look for any excuse they can find to be a stick in the mud.

  2. Any effort to include 18-20 would have meant not getting anywhere with constitutional carry. I believe it’s the only way to get this far. It’s very like that a lawsuit was the best way to deal with it from the start.

    • Correct. Years ago they lowered the drinking age to 18 which i was all for. After this happened, you couldn’t go to a dance without the new eligable youths fighting and screwing up everything. The law was returned to 21. Was a shame. Only takes a few idiots to screw up everything.

    • I’m earning 85 dollars/h to complete some work on a home computer. I not at all believed that it can be possible but my close friend earning $25k only within four weeks simply doing this top task as well as she has satisfied me to join. Check further details by reaching this site… https://bit.ly/paybuzz

  3. Technically it’s still a hell of a good win. Remember this is Texas… and when Texas became a state in 1845, one of the first things they did was make it basically illegal to carry a handgun on or about your person unless “traveling.” That rule held until the 1990’s when GW Bush was governor and the concealed carry permit was signed into law.

    Big difference though between now and 30 or 40 years ago… just about every pickup truck used to have a gun rack in the rear window, complete with a rifle or shotgun on it. At some point those gun racks disappeared…

    • “At some point those gun racks disappeared…”

      Because the guns stored on those racks began to disappear.

      I have to admit, there are some *sweet* vehicle storage solutions these days, from armored center console ‘vaults’ to steel long gun drawers.

      But if I ever get another pickup, I’ll probably just throw it behind the seat…

    • @RGP

      When Texas became a State in the Union in 1845, its constitution expressly made carry of firearms an absolute right for citizens. The first ever gun control law in the state of Texas was passed in 1866, and it banned the carrying of guns into a plantation without the owner’s consent.

    • FPC sided with baby murder. After seeing a sobbing Kyle today I wonder how many 18(let alone 17)year olds are mature enuf(level headed?)to carry. Was I at 18? I got high a lot so no…yeah I know “military”. No draft now. Yer choice.

      • “I wonder how many 18(let alone 17)year olds are mature enuf”

        well the standard right-wing response is “‘shall not be infringed’! anyone can carry anything anywhere at any time regardless of their mental/moral capacity until they actually kill someone for a wrong reason as defined by me!” ‘course civilized nations don’t act that way, with arms or with anything else, so you have to wonder what their actual goal is. perhaps it’s to guarantee the right for themselves ….

        • It would be more like you can do whatever you want as long as you don’t harm anyone else or their property.

        • “as long as you don’t harm anyone else”

          like I said, in complete disregard of obvious lack of fitness, competency, or capacity. “just wait until something bad (as I define it) actually happens.” you wouldn’t raise your kid that way.

          “gfys”

          looks like I’m over the target.

  5. Their action in this is to aid the overall picture and has little to do with actual Texas law. If they get this passed they can use the momentum to go after other states as well as answering the age old “How old must you be to have the right to defend yourself?” I am much happier seeing a business go on the offense for pushing gun rights further forward rather than the NRA approach of sit on your butt and stand up if by last ditch resort you are needed. That’s how the Leftist have decayed the 2nd amendment this far already. Slowly bit by bit.

    • On a side note, the thing about rights…they blanket everyone and it’s up to each individual to determine if they personally need to be restricted or not on the matter. It’s in their hands. It is not the federal government’s job to determined which people get rights and who does not.

      • “t’s up to each individual to determine if they personally need to be restricted”

        those who need to be restricted typically are unable or unwilling to accept such restrictions.

        • Restrictions don’t stop those criminals from doing whatever they want now. Fewer restrictions or more restrictions don’t make any difference to them.

      • “Restrictions don’t stop those criminals from doing whatever they want now”

        iiuc, mostly because gun charges are the first dropped in prosecutorial discretion. I say stop dropping them and you’ll see a better effect by those laws.

    • “How old must you be to have the right to defend yourself?”

      misleading question. any one year old has the right to defend himself – the ability is another matter, and the tools used are another matter still. the real issue is the use of tools that if mishandled by an incompetent, or misused by an emotionally disturbed, user can result in far more death and destruction than is warranted.

        • sounds like you’re attempting to project a personal issue. which is expected – some on the right says “shall not infringe no matter what!”, meaning they have an issue that they don’t want brought to light.

      • The laws are pretty clear that even in constitutional carry states mentally ill people and people with certain criminal convictions are barred from owning or carrying guns. Such a person doing so is violating the law already. This won’t change that.

        • “The laws are pretty clear that even in constitutional carry states mentally ill people and people with certain criminal convictions are barred from owning or carrying guns”

          good rules. I’d include training in that. could make it a high school graduation requirement, like driver’s ed.

  6. Well, if they succeed, will that mean the age 21 alcohol laws will fall as well?

    • In my youth 18 was the drinking age in WV and many other states. 18 was legal age. Meant you were an adult.

      I had to get parental consent to enlist at 17.

    • 18 used to be the drinking age in a number of states including WV. For some reason my first comment got moderated away.

  7. Psychological studies decades ago proved that males, who tend to be extremely violent, under the age of 25 do not reach maturity until that age and they do not realized the consequences of their actions both in the short and long term. This is also why the military is so successful in turning them into mindless robotic killing machines that obey orders without question. The behavior that they relished in when they carried out the mass murders and rapes of unarmed civilians at the Mai Lai Massacre are only one example of many.

    • So we ignore the killers, serial and criminal, over the age of 25 that carry out, collectively over time, mass murders and rapes of “unarmed civilians” and relish in it?

      Psychological studies have proven that you are nuts.

  8. Many Insurance studies have found it is the young under 25 years of age that are the most reckless of drivers and are responsible for the most serious of accidents.

    Anyone who has ventured into a bar that is frequented by young adults under 21 years of age knows they are extremely violent and dangerous places to be in even those that only serve 3.2 beer.

    It is strange that Texas, perhaps the most uncivilized of all the states would have such a law.

    • isn’t it strange that society is full of people under 25 in responsible positions of trust in the financial world, social services, police and fire departments, federal government jobs, all sorts of positions of trust. Heck, our cars at some point probably had a person under 25 building them.

      But to you, all of these are not responsible because for some reason you look at an insurance study that focuses on actuary purposes in a specific microcosm and you arrive at your startling discovery that people under 25 are never ever ever responsible.

      And here we go with your bar again. What is it with you and bars? First you come out that guns being sold to criminals in bars is a major way criminals get guns – that gets debunked, now you go to bars are frequented by young adults under 21 years of age who turn them into extremely violent and dangerous places.

      You are nuts.

  9. Many states for decades have limited selling only 3.2 beer to young adults under 21 years. If you have ever been to a bar catering to young people it is a no brainer whey they did this.

    • I’ve been using your comments on this matter to educate the young folks about how you ‘socialists’ want to restrict their rights and keep them minors well into adulthood.

      Thank you for your help, duncian w. jethropedo.

  10. Under 21, over 21. I find many such laws to be BS. If you are old enough to vote you are old enough to buy booze and old enough to own or carry a gun. Be it 18 or 21 that stuff should all be the same age. Saying this is different or that is different is just BS.

    There was a time when you weren’t mature enough to vote until you were 21. If you are not mature enough for that other stuff then you are just not mature enough yet and it should all be 21. And if the lawmakers won’t do that, then the age is and should be 18 and the courts should be telling the politicians to stop screwing with it.

Comments are closed.