Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Robb

(39,665 posts)
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 06:39 PM Apr 2013

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.
28 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Appeals court OKs ban on handgun sales to minors (Original Post) Robb Apr 2013 OP
Way to go judge Prado! another_liberal Apr 2013 #1
not as big of a "victory" as you think bossy22 Apr 2013 #3
The dissent thought the decision was "far-reaching." SunSeeker Apr 2013 #4
its not clear cut bossy22 Apr 2013 #7
18 is not always the age of independence Sgent Apr 2013 #18
The 26th Amendment somewhat rectified this general disparity. Lasher Apr 2013 #20
Why was this even an issue? Botany Apr 2013 #2
K&R SunSeeker Apr 2013 #5
Hold on here. I thought all gun owners were crazy and dangerous people? The Straight Story Apr 2013 #6
Burns you, doesn't it? Robb Apr 2013 #8
No, makes me happy :) exposes people The Straight Story Apr 2013 #9
By the sheshores? Robb Apr 2013 #16
Nope, just glad to finally see some here admitting things The Straight Story Apr 2013 #17
Yeah, you'd sure show ME. Robb Apr 2013 #19
But they can still buy AR-15s hack89 Apr 2013 #10
It's a little harder to shoot yourself with an AR-15 derby378 Apr 2013 #12
So why are we trying to ban AR-15s and not handguns? hack89 Apr 2013 #13
"We?" derby378 Apr 2013 #14
I actually oppose the AWB hack89 Apr 2013 #15
Gotcha derby378 May 2013 #26
Yet in most states they can legally own a handgun hack89 Apr 2013 #11
In a "straw purchase" ability to "legally own" is not a factor. LTG May 2013 #21
Thanks - didn't know that nt hack89 May 2013 #22
That's because he's wrong; you were right the first time. Robb May 2013 #23
Thanks hack89 May 2013 #24
US v Polk and US v Ortiz lay it out well. nt Robb May 2013 #25
Having read Polk and Ortiz - LTG May 2013 #27
Since when were 20 year olds considered minors? Angleae May 2013 #28
 

another_liberal

(8,821 posts)
1. Way to go judge Prado!
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 06:54 PM
Apr 2013

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)
3. not as big of a "victory" as you think
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 07:16 PM
Apr 2013

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)
4. The dissent thought the decision was "far-reaching."
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 07:31 PM
Apr 2013
In a dissent of the full court's decision not to rehear the case, U.S. Circuit Judge Edith Jones, joined by five other judges, argued that "the implications of the decision — that a whole class of adult citizens, who are not as a class felons or mentally ill, can have its constitutional rights truncated because Congress considers the class 'irresponsible' — are far-reaching."


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)
7. its not clear cut
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 07:46 PM
Apr 2013

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)
18. 18 is not always the age of independence
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 10:12 PM
Apr 2013

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)
20. The 26th Amendment somewhat rectified this general disparity.
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 10:23 PM
Apr 2013

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)
2. Why was this even an issue?
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 07:13 PM
Apr 2013

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)
6. Hold on here. I thought all gun owners were crazy and dangerous people?
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 07:44 PM
Apr 2013

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.

The Straight Story

(48,121 posts)
9. No, makes me happy :) exposes people
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 09:19 PM
Apr 2013

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)
16. By the sheshores?
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 10:04 PM
Apr 2013

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)
17. Nope, just glad to finally see some here admitting things
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 10:09 PM
Apr 2013

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.

derby378

(30,252 posts)
12. It's a little harder to shoot yourself with an AR-15
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 09:50 PM
Apr 2013

Pistols, unfortunately, are a different matter.

derby378

(30,252 posts)
14. "We?"
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 09:56 PM
Apr 2013

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)
11. Yet in most states they can legally own a handgun
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 09:40 PM
Apr 2013

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)
21. In a "straw purchase" ability to "legally own" is not a factor.
Wed May 1, 2013, 06:59 AM
May 2013

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.

Robb

(39,665 posts)
23. That's because he's wrong; you were right the first time.
Wed May 1, 2013, 08:21 AM
May 2013

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.

LTG

(215 posts)
27. Having read Polk and Ortiz -
Wed May 1, 2013, 06:39 PM
May 2013

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.)

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Appeals court OKs ban on ...