I'd like to read the opinions of those on this forum regarding the NRA challenging age limits for purchase and carrying of concealed firearms.

Quote
NRA opens new front in gun rights battle
In two recently filed court cases that could expand gun rights if they are successful, two Lubbock men are challenging federal and state laws that limit 18-to-20-year-olds from buying handguns and carrying them as concealed weapons.

Attorneys and supporters on both sides of gun rights issues said the federal court cases pose a significant test of Texas' concealed-handgun law and a separate, 32-year-old federal law barring handgun sales to those under age 21.

In addition, the lawsuits could significantly figure in debate about expanding gun rights when a more conservative Republican Texas Legislature convenes in January — including proposals to allow Texans to openly carry pistols and allow concealed weapons on college campuses.

"At 18 years of age, law-abiding citizens in this country are considered adults for almost all purposes and certainly for purposes of the exercise of fundamental constitutional rights," said Chris Cox , executive director of the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action , which has filed the cases.

"The U.S. Supreme Court clearly stated that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms for all law-abiding Americans. ... That right is not limited only to Americans 21 years of age and older."

Handgun-control groups warn that changing current laws would set a dangerous precedent.

"This is an unprecedented attempt to arm teenagers ... even though most states currently restrict them from carrying a concealed weapon," said Daniel Vice , senior attorney for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence . "Teen gang members could buy guns if this law is changed."

I will say if they can die for us.  They  can do as they like.

Just my way of thinking young man.   ;D

Great article SS, but in the future can you keep them down to the most pertinent paragraph, otherwise we are breaking copyright laws by posting too much.
The site that carries the story makes money off people clicking their site, if we steal their traffic, we are liable.
Don't want to give husein any excuses. ;)

Quote from: walkstall on November 27, 2010, 06:55:43 PM
I will say if they can die for us.  They  can do as they like.

Just my way of thinking young man.   ;D

I would definitely agree that they are young enough to die for us. Many of them have. Many have paid dearly as the result of being victims of IEDs and other battle injuries. How about the state legislature writing a bill that gives returning servicemen the right to own firearms and excluding all othes till they reached the age of 21.

Quote from: surfer_squirrel on November 27, 2010, 07:06:07 PM
I would definitely agree that they are young enough to die for us. Many of them have. Many have paid dearly as the result of being victims of IEDs and other battle injuries. How about the state legislature writing a bill that gives returning servicemen the right to own firearms and excluding all othes till they reached the age of 21.

Again my way of thinking, the state legislature does not have the right to saying who and who can not have a gun and at what age.

Under no circumstances? How about illegal aliens or non-citizens?

Quote from: surfer_squirrel on November 27, 2010, 08:38:27 PM
Under no circumstances? How about illegal aliens or non-citizens?

"How about illegal aliens or non-citizens?"  They have No-Rights.

Quote from: walkstall on November 27, 2010, 08:53:38 PM
"How about illegal aliens or non-citizens?"  They have No-Rights.

The Obama administration and the current congress would disagree with your opinion.  ;D

Quote from: surfer_squirrel on November 27, 2010, 09:24:17 PM
The Obama administration and the current congress would disagree with your opinion.  ;D

Please read slowly lol there Dem's.  That why congress is changing slow but sure.  ;D

While I agree with the position taken by the NRA I wish the NRA would set its sights higher. I'd like to see an attack on some of the landmark anti-Second Amendment legislation that's passed like the Gun Control Act of 1968, the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Brady Act or any of a number of similar pieces of legislation.

The anti-Second Amendment crowd's been been brought to a virtual standstill at the federal level for the past fifteen years but it's time to aggressively disassemble what they see as their great accomplishments. I don't disagree with the goal the NRA's set, I just think it's too timid.

Quote from: arpad on November 28, 2010, 02:17:06 AM
While I agree with the position taken by the NRA I wish the NRA would set its sights higher. I'd like to see an attack on some of the landmark anti-Second Amendment legislation that's passed like the Gun Control Act of 1968, the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Brady Act or any of a number of similar pieces of legislation.

The anti-Second Amendment crowd's been been brought to a virtual standstill at the federal level for the past fifteen years but it's time to aggressively disassemble what they see as their great accomplishments. I don't disagree with the goal the NRA's set, I just think it's too timid.

Spot on.

Back here in the upper northeast hinterlands, open carry is legal, acquiring a concealed carry permit is a painless process if you are a law-abiding citizen, and buying handguns and "assault" weapons is very easy to do.

A lot of these anti-gun laws are STATE laws. 

Quote from: AmericanFlyer on November 28, 2010, 10:12:03 AM
Back here in the upper northeast hinterlands, open carry is legal, acquiring a concealed carry permit is a painless process if you are a law-abiding citizen, and buying handguns and "assault" weapons is very easy to do.

A lot of these anti-gun laws are STATE laws.

Excellent point, Flyer! With some issues, conservatives have a difficult fence to straddle, and this is one of them.

On the one hand, we believe in states' rights, protected by the Constitution from interference in most matters from the feds. As a nation, we are, after all, a confederation of 50 associated but separate states. Looking at it from that angle, states and localities should carry the burden of this type of regulation; it is certainly within the definition of "police powers" specifically reserved to the states. The Second Amendment was specifically directed at keeping the federal government OUT of the gun control business.

On the other hand, there are different fingers. No, wait... I was in the Jokes forum earlier...

On the other hand, if we have 50 states with 50 different sets of gun laws, there are going to be very real problems, especially for travelers. A number of years back, the NRA was all gung-ho for what was called "preemption" on a federal level. They wanted fed law to be the "blanket" rule for the whole country, thereby making individual state laws essentially moot. Individual states have also sought to preempt cities and towns from enacting stricter gun laws than those on the state books, sometimes with success.

It's issues like this that gave rise to the expression, "horns of a dilemma."

Quote from: AmericanFlyer on November 28, 2010, 10:12:03 AM
Back here in the upper northeast hinterlands, open carry is legal, acquiring a concealed carry permit is a painless process if you are a law-abiding citizen, and buying handguns and "assault" weapons is very easy to do.

A lot of these anti-gun laws are STATE laws.

And in a bunch of states the anti-Second Amendment types have had their asses handed to them over the past decade or so. Sometimes due to the actions of the NRA but more commonly due to state-level organizations.

The NRA's chimed in where a state, or even city, law might have national ramifications like the recent court case in Chicago.

But the state organizations haven't exactly been sitting on their hands.

I direct your attention to Arizona which, earlier this year passed what they're calling "constitutional carry" and looks very much like Vermont-style carry law, i.e. no permit required. A couple of other states are looking at constitutional carry as a result.

My conclusion is that the anti-Second Amendment types are on the ropes and pro-Second Amendment forces don't quite realize it. Because if they did realize it, and keeping in mind politics is barroom brawling where the best time to kick a guy is when he's down, the pro-gun forces would be pushing for all they were worth. Instead I'd characterize pro-gun forces, and especially the NRA, as acting as if they've scored a lucky punch and aren't quite sure what to do at this point.

They ought to be going for the jugular. They ought to be tearing down the big, landmark accomplishments of the anti-Second Amendment forces.

Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine are all open carry states.  The funny thing is, many "non-gun" people don't realize this, so when somebody walks into Home Depot or Wal Mart with a .357 holstered to their hip, a lot of people really freak out.  It's funny as hell!   :o