Judge Strikes Down Texas Law Barring Gun Carry for Young Adults
BY Herschel Smith
2 years, 3 months ago
A Texas judge has sided with a gun-rights lobby group that challenged a state law barring 18-to-20-year-olds in Texas from carrying a handgun outside the home.
US District Judge Mark T. Pittman, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, ruled Thursday the law violates the Second Amendment, guaranteeing the right to bear arms.
“The Second Amendment does not mention any sort of age restriction,” the judge wrote. “The Court thus concludes the plain text of the Second Amendment, as informed by Founding-Era history and tradition, covers the proposed course of conduct and permits law-abiding 18-to-20-year-olds to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.”
The lobby group Firearms Policy Coalition sued the Texas Department of Public Safety for enforcing a law that prohibits those under 21 years of age from carrying a handgun outside their home, motor vehicle or watercraft. The group argued that young people under 21 had just as much right to bear arms in public as those who are older.
The founders discussed the carry of muskets on their walk to school and as a “constant companion during walks.”
FPC for the win!
On August 26, 2022 at 10:03 am, Frank Clarke said:
Thank you, Clarence Thomas.
On August 26, 2022 at 12:31 pm, Milton said:
Yeah for the victory.!.
Didn’t the judge cite no age requirement?
Are younguns up to 17.999 years old to be denied the right to defend themselves. Little steps. Milton
On August 27, 2022 at 12:53 pm, djmoore said:
Federal law, 10USC330, defines the United States militia as all able bodied males between the ages of seventeen and forty-five, plus a few others. That’s it. Not the eligibility, mind, but militia membership itself. Live to be a high school junior without getting disabled, and you’re in.
How does this law help young men prepare for the duties and privileges of militia membership?
How are our teachers, who squabble over allowing themselves to be armed in the classrooms, even remotely helping to achieve the well-regulated (that is, well trained) militia spoken of in the Constitution as “necessary to the security of a free state”?