supreme-court-300x2251.jpg

In its Heller decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to own a handgun is a fundamental civil right. In the McDonald decision, it extended that right to all states in the Union. However, there’s a problem — that right is denied to those between the age of 18 and 21 who want to buy a gun through a dealer. Which, by the way, would be the only way of obtaining a gun if the Brady Campaign and the rest of their gun grabbing cohort have their way. Instead, those between 18 and 21 need to resort to private party sales (which, in most places, are not subject to a background check) to buy a handgun. And the NRA doesn’t think that is right . . .

This past week, the NRA filed a petition for the Supreme Court to hear a case challenging that specific section of the 1968-era Gun Control Act. The NRA argues that “the years since the Heller decision have been marked by intransigence by governments and courts that at best have simply been unable to break habits formed during pre-Heller days and at worst are engaged in massive resistance to this Court’s decisions.”

The case is the NRA v. The ATF (among others), and might be one of the cases that Justice Scalia was referring to when he said that he expects the Supreme Court to hear more gun control related cases this year. Naturally, we’ll keep an eye on it.

Recommended For You

62 Responses to NRA Asks Supreme Court to Strike Down Part of 1968 GCA

  1. If the current Supreme Court places any value on this history of their decisions, they simply HAVE to strike down the 1968 GCA, and I have to think they value the way history views their consistency.

    But am I hopeful? Not so much, because, like just about every public official, they’re subject to blackmail by NSA files.

    • I know this is spam, but I just got to say something that has been annoying me every time I see these posts.

      “($)20326 just working on the internet for a few hours.”

      At a rate of $79 per hour, a person would have to work 257.29 hours over the course of the month to earn $20326. For a 31 day month, that is an average of 8.3 hours a day. Assuming that no work is performed on weekends and that there are 8 weekend days in the month, leaving only 23 days of performed work, that averages out to 11.2 hours of work per weekday, or 56 hours per week. That is not “for a few hours,” that is full time.

      Moreover, even if a person between the ages of 18 and 21 worked really hard and earned that kind of money, they still would not be able to purchase a handgun through a dealer…or buy/consume alcohol…or rent a car…etc, because they aren’t “mature” enough. But, they can vote and influence the course of the nation and join the military and go wage war and get shot at. Makes perfect sense…

    • Paging Matt in FL, paging Matt in FL. Where is our Internet Seriousness Supervisor? Do not acknowledge the spam, or you become part of the spam. Spam.

      • My theory is that if most strippers had done better in English and Math classes in high school they would not have grown up and become strippers.

  2. If this is presented correctly the ruling could be interesting.

    The court should have actually made requirements of Sherriff, City & State Police during the actions by states to pass redefinitions & bans on certain types of prevalent modernazions to types of protected arms.

    Now, if this were a case to purposely lose, per se, then what?

    • Depending on how the opinion is written it could be (and probably will be) very narrow.

      There could be an arguement to relate to alcohol. The law has been passed for the age of 21 that you can not purchase (nor in most places drink/have in possession). Would this age limit also be illegal? The argument against it would mostly be that those that are age 18-20 are not “mature” enough for handguns, similiar to that most people think that 18-20 year olds are not “mature” enough to know when to stop drinking.

      In my opinion, most likely the age limit will stay. But if the courts decide otherwise, expect conditions to be put on purchasing a handgun. An example of this would be a drivers license in now many states. If you are 16 and want to drive by yourself, you need to have hours behind the wheel with a licensed driver, and have passed drivers ed. On the other hand, if you are 18, you can get your license without any of these requirements. I would not be surprised that a condition would be for an 18-20 yr old to have passed a safety course and have shown to be proficient. I would say this would be best case.

      Its going to be a hard fight. The NRA will have to be creative in the arguements.

      • I was thinking about the correlation of alcohol age limits as well. Science says the brain doesn’t fully mature until 21, hence the age requirement.

      • I don’t think alcohol’s argument even fits here.

        The reason the limit is 21 on alcohol, despite the age being a state level thing and not a federal one, is because some bonehead got the brilliant idea, not everyone wanted to go along with it, and they blackmailed federal highway money if states didn’t make their limit 21.

        The gun control act makes little sense, because in EVERY STATE if you want a handgun at 18, you have Mom or Dad buy it and gift it to you. And it’s perfectly legal. And a good number of states will allow you to carry one as well at that age, yet not buy one from an FFL.

        It’s one of the stupidest, least thought out parts of the Gun Control Act. I liken it to being unable to go buy a car at a dealer, but used car lots and your friends can sell to you. It’s just as stupid.

        • I guess one might argue that if a parent buys a gun for the kid, at least an older adult has made the call that the kid is mature enough to have a handgun. Regardless, if someone is old enough to serve in the military, they are old enough to own a gun of their choice.

          And I wonder about the argument that the brain doesn’t fully mature until 21. If so, why let them vote? Oh, yeah, people with immature brains are the Democrats’ base.

      • yeah…but buying alcohol is not a fundamental right. Owning a gun is.

        On top of that, federal law to buy alcohol is 18. States are pressured to make it 21 or they lose road funding.

    • Or perhaps repeal the Twenty-sixth Amendment. LIke all progressive claptrap of the last century. Immature kiddies but give them the vote? How smart is that?

  3. Will this allow ages 18-21 to carry or purchase only? Dont get me wrong, I think the latter should be allowed but the former would be even better.

    • Carry is not regulated by the Federal government. So just purchase.

      Supreme Court or ATF will NOT touch carry with a 90 foot pole. They know that if they set it as universally OK, concealed or open (or just universal concealed), the hordes of the anti’s will be at their doorsteps. Try and limit it and the reverse will happen.

    • as this is a federal law it affects only the federal age requirement.
      The State and local laws could then be torn asunder by the federal precedent

    • Some states already allow people under 21 to carry (technically speaking California is one of those…though even the friendlier, de facto shall issue Sheriffs could deny a permit).

  4. Finally the counter attack on the GCA begins. I can’t wait for the NFA to be repealed along with the rest of the GCA.

  5. Why only go after a specific portion of the GCA? Are they planning on attacking the rest of the bill piecemeal? Can a resident law expert chime in on whether it is smarter to attack a piece of the bill at a time, or go for the whole kit and kaboodle and try for an overturning of the entire bill at one time?

    • You are not going to get the entire bill overturned easyly but you can chip at it. Also depending on how the bill is written you might be able to kill it is a small piece is found invalid.

      Thanks
      Robert

    • The best thing is piecemeal (I am not a lawyer). If you go after all of it in one shot, your chances of winning are very small. If you go after it piecemeal you can build a foundation to overthrow the entire law. There have been many court cases on our side lost because it was too broad. There was one a couple of months ago where the judge stated that if it was a narrower arguement, he would have sided on our side, but since it was too broad he had to side with the other side.

      You do not want to eat an elephant in one bite, take it a bite at a time.

      • ^^^This.

        This is the key to victory. This is exactly how the Anti’s have pushed gun control- a little bit at a time.

  6. I doubt it’ll be taken up. It’s very narrow and the SCOTUS likes big broad cases that cover a lot. Especially since the 2A is so woefully misunderstood by the lower courts as not actually being a right, or at least barely being a right… The next case will be the SAFE Act. It’s big and broad and covers a number of issues in it, most importantly the scope of the 2A and what it covers. After that case we’ll know: what weapons are covered, what accessories are covered, what level of scrutiny the 2A should be judged under and what powers to regulate firearms and their accessories governments have. Right now, the lower courts treat the 2A as the red headed step child of rights, it might as well not exist, they will only strike down a law that forbids exactly what Heller and McDonald said, you’re allowed to have a handgun in your house. The IL carry ban law was basically struck down because Judge Posner disagrees with Heller and McDonald and wanted to challenge the SCOTUS by making them eventually rule on self defense outside the home, which he believes is ridiculous and will make the SCOTUS look bad in doing. Sounds weird but look it up, Posner hates Heller and McDonald. In a case involving any other fundamental right, any law that delays, denies, or disrupts the exercise of a right, without incredible justification for why, is struck down. Abortion is a perfect example, a judge will offer an injunction if they think it might possibly perhaps maybe infringe that right. But the 2A? Nah, we get a rational basis test disguised as intermediate scrutiny (Which the scotus forbade the use of in Heller and McDonald). So the court asks the scumbag government if they have any reason for passing the bill, they say “for the children” and the law gets upheld. My money is on the SAFE Act being the next one. If Heller/McDonald was Roe v Wade, then NYSRPA v. Cuomo will be Casey v. Planned Parenthood and solidify the 2A as a fundamental right thats exercise cannot be disrupted, delayed or denied without absolute, undeniable, beyond a reasonable doubt evidence. If we lose that case though, pack up your bags folks, 2A might as well not exist if all the justification needed for banning all firearms outright, except a handgun in your home, is “it’s for the children your honor…”.

    • I’m in NY at the moment and this abomination of a law – the un”SAFE ACT” needs to go. I won’t be sticking around long enough to find out though as I’m moving to Virginia in Jan/Feb, but my hopes are the NYers will be given their rights back.

      FUAC

  7. The Federal courts are in cahoots with the central government to undermine the Constitution. They say things like: The rights guaranteed by the first ten amendments aren’t unlimited, and the limits aren’t literally expressed in the Constitution, so we will make it up as we go along.

    What a bunch of BS.

  8. That is the first time I ‘ve heard that an 18 year old acquiring a pistol by private sale is OK. Am I hearing you correctly? Is there a lawyer type who can confirm that such a purchase is “legal ” by Federal law/state law x 50?

    • Some states prohibit handgun purchase by under 21, some require that all handgun transfers go through a licensed dealer. Now either of these prohibits purchase by under 21, if this part of GCA 68 is overturned then those required to go through a dealer would be able to purchase handguns legally. It would be an improvement for those people, but more is still needed.

    • Now that you say it, I didn’t think it was legal. I know in California a grandparent/parent can give the minor a long gun and give an 18tr old grandchild/child a handgun without a background check and I know that that is usually the recommended route because they cannot purchase by themselves.

      Then again, I am not easily finding a Federal law saying an 18 yr old cannot buy a handgun from a private seller. It only seems to mention that they must be residents of the same state. Then I looked at the GCA more closely. The 21 years requirement is only applicable to dealers.

      The GCA states with private sales

      (1) It shall be unlawful for a person to sell, deliver, or otherwise transfer to a person who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe is a juvenile:

      (A) a handgun;or

      (B) ammunition that is suitable for use only in a handgun.

      (2) It shall be unlawful for any person who is a juvenile to knowingly possess:

      (A) a handgun;or

      (B) ammunition that is suitable for use only in a handgun.

      (3) This subsection does not apply to:

      (A) a temporary transfer of a handgun or ammunition to a juvenile or to thepossession or use of a handgun or ammunition by a juvenileif the handgun andammunition are possessed and used by the juvenile:

      (i) in the course of employment, in the course of ranching or farming related to activities at the residence of the juvenile (or on property used for ranching or farming at which the juvenile, with the permission of the property owner or lessee, is performing activities related to the operation of the farm or ranch), target practice, hunting, or a course of instruction in the safe and lawful use of a handgun;

      (ii) with the prior written consent of the juvenile’s parent or guardian who is not prohibited by Federal, State, or local law from possessing a firearm, except:
      .
      .
      .
      (5) For purposes of this subsection, the term “juvenile” means a person who is less than 18 years of age.

      It appears to me, absent other provisions and state laws, a 14 year old could buy a rifle….

    • The 5th circuit court (which covers Texas) has stated that 18-20 yr olds can legally purchase handguns in private sales, and that this is the only way to do it.

      “Those not “engaged in the business” of selling firearms—that is, non-FFLs—may sell handguns to 18-to-20-year-olds; put differently, 18-to-20-year-olds may acquire handguns through unlicensed, private sales. Eighteen-to-twenty-year- olds may possess and use long-guns, and may purchase long-guns from FFLs (or non-FFLs). However, the parties also agree that 18-to-20-year-olds may not purchase handguns from FFLs. Appellants challenge 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(b)(1) and (c)(1), and corresponding regulations, only to the extent that these laws prohibit sales of handguns or handgun ammunition by FFLs to 18-to-20-year-olds.”

      http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cpub%5C11/11-10959-CV0.wpd.pdf

    • Yes, it is legal for a person between the ages of 18 and 21 to possess a handgun. The Federal gov hasn’t been able to regulate that possession, only interstate commerce (the only reason they can regulate and why FFL’s exist). Since private party sales are legal (in most states) without an FFL, and the prohibition of a transfer to someone under 21 is only prohibited for an FFL, the Fed has no standing to regulate that possession. Some states (CA, now CO, etc) require all transactions go through an FFL, effectively barring voting, tax paying adults from possessing common means of self defense (among other uses).

  9. If that is the case, then why do I need a “may issue” license to buy and carry a pistol? I can’t even have it in my house without a permit.

    • Because apparently handguns are sooooo much more dangerous and difficult to operate than any other firearm. Coming from an anointed Kalifornia Handgun Safety Certificate holder, FYI.

      • but wait, I thought it was those scary black baby killers mass machines of destruction that were the problem?

    • I do wonder the same thing. In NY, you need a license for a premise permit (granted it is a shall issue), but still with the waiting period and paper work, since eller said it was a fundamental right for self defense inside the home, then why do I need a license to buy a hand gun? Wouldn’t he license make it a nuisance and limit the fundamental right to only those that apply? On top of that, since we need to register a pistol to a license, that registration would also be limiting our fundamental right, too.

  10. This is good: going on the offense!

    It would be a small victory. And even if we don’t get our way on this, its good to put the antis on the defense… That’s less energy and resources that they might have spent on attacking our existing rights.

  11. Even if SCOTUS were to terminate GCA68, this criminal administration we have now, with its blatant disregard for the rule of law, will more than likely create its own law.

  12. With the way the court’s been going lately, taking anything relating to 2a in front of them is playing with a loaded gun.

  13. How about being able to buy a handgun across state lines? Lets get that ban overturned. If I can pass a 4473 in my home state, why can’t I pass it when I go to a gun store in the other 49 states?

  14. I think this is just the easiest way for the NRA & Co. to start chipping away at the ’68 GCA. Just sayin’.

  15. If you’re old enough to be drafted into the army…

    You’re old enough to buy a gun.

    You’re also old enough to buy a beer.

    The old farts in government want to be protected by the 18 year old’s in military service… but wont protect their liberty in return.

    • You send young men to war because they think there is no round has their name on it and don’t care. Older men do.

      Then if you’re a moron you send young/old women.

  16. If the NRA and other gun lobbies manage to win this case in SCOTUS. I think they should either lobby representatives and senators or use the courts to take sbrs out the NFA act. They just have to point out how ridiculous it is that one can buy an AR15 pistol which is easily more concealable then an sbr but if someone wants a stock they need to pay the atf an extra $200 and go through a background check.

      • That was actually the original intention, tax everything that goes bang to the point where we can’t afford it. The initial drafts of what became NFA34 were bans, not taxes (I think) but they were told the 2A prohibited that, so they claimed it was for revenue (except in the debates about the bill). By taxing something at a rate approaching or exceeding 100%, which was originally the case (a Tommy gun was about $200 at the time, suppressors much less) you don’t generate much revenue, you simply restrict sales. Some leftist are proposing the same approach to ammunition. Again. Still.

      • I think if it goes through the courts than it will be a disaster; however if we start having representatives in the house push it while we still having a majority then press it in the Senate it’ll put Reid on edge as he wants to avoid the issue now and put manchin and other Democrats in pro-gun states in a tighter spot with their constituents.

  17. I hope this gets struck down. While there are alot of immature 18-20 year olds who probably shouldn’t have a handgun, there are a lot that should be able to. I was pretty peeved when I got back from my second buisness trip to afghanistan and I couldn’t drink or buy a pistol. Even though I’d been entrusted with loads of weapons and ordnance in another country.

    • I hope so too. BUT, just because you were trained to use serious ordnance on the durka durkas doesn’t mean you’re qualified to exercise your natural right to self defense against a crackhead with any firearm of your choosing. (Heavy sarcasm)

      P.S. if you ever find yourself in Long Beach, I’ll happily buy you a few beers.

    • I feel ya, Marine. First time I deployed I was still 17. When I complained about the unfairness of life 1 of our NCO’s was kind enough to explain it to me. He said sh!t flows downhill and I lived in the valley.

  18. Was it the GCA of 68 that created the whole “sporting purpose” thing that allows the ATF to ban imports? If so that’s another point that can be attacked, since in the Heller case it was officially ruled an individual right, and it protected more than just sporting uses of firearms.

    • Yup, sure was, lifted almost verbatim from German laws from the 30s. Sen. Thomas Dodd (D CT) had them translated after he found out about them during the Nuremburg trials, and used them as the basis for writing GCA 68. His son, Sen. Chris Dodd (D CT), is so proud of what his father did he followed in his footsteps.

  19. Even in Canada an 18 year old can buy a handgun from a dealer, provided they get the license, which is no big deal.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *