Posted on 11/25/2010 10:49:09 PM PST by goldstategop
Finally, the gun lobby has filed two lawsuits in federal court in Lubbock, Tex., to compel the State of Texas to allow young people between the ages of 18 and 20 years old to buy handguns and carry them concealed in public places.
The first suit challenges the longstanding federal law prohibiting licensed gun dealers from selling handguns to anyone under 21 years old. The second case contests a Texas law setting 21 as the minimum age for carrying a concealed weapon.
As a legal matter, both lawsuits should fail. In its recent Second Amendment rulings, the Supreme Court struck down complete bans on handgun ownership, but explicitly left room for limits on gun ownership and possession by felons and the mentally ill, and other reasonable restrictions like Texas’ age limitations. The Supreme Court has said nothing to suggest that the Second Amendment requires Americans to allow armed teenagers in their communities.
Beyond the dubious legal claims, the idea that young individuals ages 18 to 20 have a constitutional right to buy weapons and carry them loaded and concealed in public is breathtakingly irresponsible.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
You only shoot people your liberal overlords tell you to shoot in foreign lands!
But don’t start getting uppity: you’re still an ignorant peasant here at home.
More whining by the New York Times. Their rants are so predictable.
The author knows nothing about service. Neither does the NYT.
Hell, I owned a .22 Rifle when I was eight. Kept it in my bedroom closet with a box of ammo. Bought it off my older Brother for $25 after he got his 30.06.
We are living in a country full of pussies, no doubt about it.
Liberals begin with the notion a gun is dangerous. They fail to comprehend the values of the person possessing the gun are more important than the gun in question. Guns don’t kill people; people kill people is a truism that has validity to it.
Why not? Its hilarious to find the New York Times declaring people - who by the way are the most liberal voting segment of the population - to be immature and irresponsible with guns. Let’s see; they are adult enough to be allowed to vote for Obummer but they are too young to be allowed in the vicinity of a gun! Liberal Logic 101.
A friend of my wife recently found a gun in their home (hidden, they returned it to the old owners. Gramp’s old Winchester.) The friend said “I just didn’t feel safe with that gun in the house!”
I told my wife “I guess there are two types of folks. Those that don’t feel safe with a gun in the house, and those that don’t feel safe WITHOUT a gun in the house (and/or on their person).”
If liberals saw the second amendment the way they do sex education, all teenagers would be handed guns for free because kids are going to do it anyway.
Yup. Teenagers can have sex by liberal logic but heaven forbid they even practice at the local shooting range!
Kind of cute how the author slides in the notion that a blanket restriction on all 18/19/20 year olds (many of whom are in the military) treating them as if they were felons, is reasonable. On the other hand, treating NY Times writers as felons seems to me to be reasonable.
Let’s require New York Times editors to get clearance before they pen a stupid editorial.
I bought my first handgun from a dealer (also the local
auto parts store) when I was 14. Ruger .22 Standard. $37.95.
No paperwork, no wait. Just passed it on to my stepdaughter.
Ah, the good old days.
ruger???
everyone’s first gun should be a glenfield model 60.
not counting the first shotgun...a single barrel 410...and a bbgun before that.
The NY Times is clueless. After losing the House in 2010, they champion an issue that cost them the House in 1994.
Throw me into that briar patch!
I'm in CA where the good old days are gone forever.
Of course, if they nail you with a felony for carrying a knife, your guns are confiscated and you're forbidden from keeping one in your home. Which might be the entire reason behind such restrictions...
Did the NYT then come out and say they are against 18, 19 and 20 year olds serving in the military? Pretty sure they have to shoot guns.
Why can they vote, but they’re denied a right to self defense?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.