Appeals court OKs ban on handgun sales to minors
Source: USA Today
In an lawsuit pitting the National Rifle Association against the federal government, a federal appeals court has upheld a federal ban on federally licensed gun dealers selling handguns to anyone under 21, agreeing with Congress that the age group was more prone to violence than adults.
The ruling Monday by a three-member panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans does not affect the sale of long guns to the under-21 age group, nor private sales to minors by parents or guardians.
"Congress designed its scheme to solve a particular problem: violent crime associated with the trafficking of handguns from federal firearms licensees to young adults," U.S. Circuit Judge Edward Prado wrote on behalf of the panel.
The 41-page opinion noted that Congress, in passing the law, "could have sought to prohibit all persons under 21 from possessing handguns or all guns, for that matter. But Congress deliberately adopted a calibrated, compromise approach."
Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/30/us-circuit-court-of-appeals-new-orleans-nra-ban-gun-sales-minors/2124255/
The NRA fought against the "calibrated, compromise approach" as if it were the End of the Republic. As it always does.
And, this time, lost.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Thanks to him for standing for simple sanity and the right of Americans to live free of fear. A few more decisions like this one and we will really start to drive NRA fanatics and their "Gun Lobby" out of our government.
bossy22
(3,547 posts)the opinion leaned on the idea that the age of majority is in most cases 21 and that prohibiting 18 year olds from purchasing a handgun but not possessing a handgun isn't much of an infringement. Few in the legal circle thought the NRA would win this case.
BTW the title is misleading since minors usually is used to denote someone under the age of 18.
A few more "wins" like these are guaranteed and will probably be considerably insignificant in the grand scheme of 2nd amendment jurisprudence.
SunSeeker
(51,367 posts)http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/30/us-circuit-court-of-appeals-new-orleans-nra-ban-gun-sales-minors/2124255/
bossy22
(3,547 posts)the judge's comment above is correct but the issue isn't black or white. What I have learned most from following 2nd amendment jurisprudence is that courts generally try to "fall in line" with public opinion when it comes to gun matters. Specific gun policy that has been around for quite sometime and isn't really on the "national radar" will most likely be upheld.
Also, the whole 18-21 age issue comes into play with this case. This is one of the most blurred area of legal jurisprudence since there are essentially two ages of majority. On one had you are considered an "adult" at age 18 but states can prohibit you from purchasing alcohol. On its face this would appear to be age discrimination since both are "adults" and congress appears to believe 18 year olds are pretty much able to manage their own affairs as individuals. Still, drinking ages of 21 are upheld. Applications for organizations/jobs/etc. can also require you to have a parent/guardian signature if you are under 21 even if you are 18. This has been upheld in courts even though courts have recognized that at age 18 parents/guardians do not have legal control over you.
on edit: I think behind closed doors the judges were probably thinking "is this really any issue?". To be honest, I'm a "gun guy" and I can't see this as a major issue. Law has been on the books for 2 decades and the gun world is still chugging along. Plus, plenty of guns are available to those citizens ages 18-20 for self defense.
Sgent
(5,857 posts)In some states the age of majority is still 21 -- with 18-21 in a grey zone. They often consider (for instance) 20yo member's of the military, those married, or those living independently to be adults; however, those still in school or otherwise not caring for themselves are considered minors.
I've seen child custody and support issues in divorce decree's become an issue for children 19 and 20. The custody was a non-issue, but the support could have been.
Most of this is because many states never changed the age of majority even when the voting age changed.
Lasher
(27,497 posts)My entire adult life I have believed we should be treated as adults in every respect if we are old enough to serve in the military - particularly if we are potentially subject to conscription. The 26th Amendment was a move in the right direction, but then along came MADD and their overreaching quasi-prohibition in every state for those younger than 21 years of age.
Botany
(70,288 posts)Teenagers w/handguns what could ever go wrong?
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms
My city, Columbus, OH has as many murders per year as the entire country of Spain.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)You mean there is an age group that is more prone to violence than other age groups???
IMPOSSIBLE - it is the guns. They make people do things. It is not the owner, it is the weapon.
Why are YOU of all people spouting NRA talking points (guns don't kill people, people do)??
"It also asserted that among murderers, the 18-20 age group was "more likely to use a firearm than adults 21 and over."
Again, this must be a BS study, I have heard here on DU anyone with a gun is a nut, only loves guns and violence, etc - no other statistic can be true unless it shows the gun itself is the responsible party.
This law won't stand as real progressives everywhere where stand up against it's implications that people are responsible for their actions, especially those in a certain age group.
Robb
(39,665 posts)Maybe the NRA will win the next round.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)Who will, in another thread later, ignore this very same thing and blame guns and not people.
Funny how when others said it they were nra shrills - I am would guess you are one now too.
Robb
(39,665 posts)I yield to your command of the language, surpassed only by your capacity for logic.
"I don't have to make shense! I'm exposhing shrills!"
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)That it is not the guns that cause the crimes, but the people - especially a certain age group.
If it WAS the guns it would not be the age group. So that is one less argument people have.
And as I have asked many times:
What percent of gun owners use them in crimes?
No one seems to like to answer that one either.
I note you post a few stories a day about shootings. I wonder how many I could post a day about people with guns who didn't use them in a crime, have their kids play with them, etc?
But then some people like to whip up fear (like the right does with islam) and can only see one thing.
Robb
(39,665 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)I guess AR-15s are not as dangerous as handguns.
derby378
(30,252 posts)Pistols, unfortunately, are a different matter.
hack89
(39,171 posts)which kill more people?
You might be, but I'm not. I'll support Toomey-Manchin with a smile on my face, so at least there's that.
However, that video of the poor schmuck who shot himself while drawing his pistol from his holster stuck with me. Why is it so hard to keep his finger off the trigger while drawing the weapon?
hack89
(39,171 posts)"we" referred to our leaders in Congress.
hack89
(39,171 posts)they just can't buy them.
http://smartgunlaws.org/category/state-minimum-age-purchase-possess-guns/
So they have someone over 21 buy for them - because they can legally own it, it is not a straw purchase. And of course, in those states, private sales are still a legal option.
LTG
(215 posts)A straw purchase occurs when the buyer fills out the form 4473, stating under oath that he is the actual and true purchaser. The crime is lying on the form in order to purchase the firearm. The "actual" purchaser, the one who provided the cash for the purchase, is guilty of abetting in the lie, a kind of accomplice.
The lie on the form is a crime regardless of the status and ability of the other party to purchase for themselves. Purchasing a gun at the request of another, with them paying for it, is always a straw purchase, due to the lie made in the federal form. It is, however, not a straw purchase if you are purchasing with the intent of giving it to someone else if it is truly a gift.
The type of straw purchase involving a prohibited individual is the one that gets the most press and discussion. It has the additional crime of knowingly transferring to a prohibited person on the one side, and felon in possession on the other.
But, both cases are technically straw purchases and subject to potential prosecution.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Robb
(39,665 posts)The law is specific in its requirement that it be broken materially -- and courts have ruled in this direction repeatedly.
Absent evidence the person receiving the weapon in the end is prohibited from owning it, the law has not materially been broken. Lying on a federal form is punishable, certainly, but not under straw purchase laws.
I guess I need to read the actual language of the law.
Robb
(39,665 posts)LTG
(215 posts)I read the opinion of both cases you cite. In Ortiz the circuit court (11) upheld the convictions of either making a false or misleading statement on the form, or aiding and abetting the making of such a statement.
In Polk the circuit court (4) held that while the defendant was not guilty of the charged violation, he was guilty of committing a violation of the more general "straw purchase" section, that did not require that the actual buyer be a prohibited person.
Unless there is something I'm missing, these would seem to support my interpretation. There is, of course, always the chance I've misread, misunderstood or are simply wrong, but I don't think so. Would appreciate the specific parts of the decisions that support a different interpretation. Thanks, always happy to be educated.
Under the USSC sentencing guidelines, the violation of making a false material statement in process of filling out the required paperwork to purchase a firearm, carries a possible maximum sentence of up to 10 years in prison.
Relevant statute: 18 U.S.C. 922 (A) (6)
Edited to add:
ATF describes a "straw purchase" as the purchase of a firearm at the request of and for another who can't or won't make the purchase for themselves. (Won't often applies when an individual does not want any paper trail showing they own the firearm.)
Angleae
(4,469 posts)Sensationalism in reporting at it's finest.