TexasCHLforum.com

http://m.statesman.com/statesman/pm_230 ... d=OZwLSRRN" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...that's just fine...we can arm our own boys and girls...read the Federal and State laws re: children and handguns...and you can work within them to accomplish home defense and now defense in the car including any children you feel are qualified and ready for it...
...one more time I'll say...they can go to war for us and carry Uncle's weapons, but they can't buy a pistol or a beer...it makes no sense at all...and it's just one more instance where we've let our government get the upper hand...

...appeal is in the works... http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Feder ... px?id=7118" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

speedsix wrote:...one more time I'll say...they can go to war for us and carry Uncle's weapons, but they can't buy a pistol or a beer...it makes no sense at all...and it's just one more instance where we've let our government get the upper hand...

"the ruling states. "The right to bear arms is enjoyed only by those not disqualified from the exercise of the Second Amendment rights.""

Which says to me that 18 to 20 year olds are disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, which would then extend (I'm sure there is some Latiun legal term for it) to ALL Constitutional rights, which would then lead me to question: WHAT ARE THEY FIGHTING FOR???

[rant=on]I remember being taught that constitutional rights did not extend to minors, and I was not totally unhappy with that concept until I got closer to my "age of majority" when it became clear to me that some of the rights I was so cheerfully willing to forsake as a child were important to me as an 18 year old, or even a 16 year old.

And then I went off to war, well not really, but I could have, just the luck of the draw in the Navy in the 60s, and then it occurred to me that I hadn't even had a chance to vote yet.

And then the voting age was reduced to 18, while states that had 18 year old drinking ages raised them to 21, which has had little or no effect that I am aware of on teenage drinking except to bankrupt some bars in college towns (jk) and start a couple of cottage industries specializing in producing fake ID.[/rant]

The judge's ruling should be reversed based specifically on that one statement, and he should be fired, or drawn and quartered, or both.

...both is good...we've got some of the sorriest judges in history...

jimlongley wrote:

speedsix wrote:...one more time I'll say...they can go to war for us and carry Uncle's weapons, but they can't buy a pistol or a beer...it makes no sense at all...and it's just one more instance where we've let our government get the upper hand...

"the ruling states. "The right to bear arms is enjoyed only by those not disqualified from the exercise of the Second Amendment rights.""

Which says to me that 18 to 20 year olds are disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, which would then extend (I'm sure there is some Latiun legal term for it) to ALL Constitutional rights, which would then lead me to question: WHAT ARE THEY FIGHTING FOR???

[rant=on]I remember being taught that constitutional rights did not extend to minors, and I was not totally unhappy with that concept until I got closer to my "age of majority" when it became clear to me that some of the rights I was so cheerfully willing to forsake as a child were important to me as an 18 year old, or even a 16 year old.

And then I went off to war, well not really, but I could have, just the luck of the draw in the Navy in the 60s, and then it occurred to me that I hadn't even had a chance to vote yet.

And then the voting age was reduced to 18, while states that had 18 year old drinking ages raised them to 21, which has had little or no effect that I am aware of on teenage drinking except to bankrupt some bars in college towns (jk) and start a couple of cottage industries specializing in producing fake ID.[/rant]

The judge's ruling should be reversed based specifically on that one statement, and he should be fired, or drawn and quartered, or both.

@jimlongley: I'm pretty sure that this one will get appealed to a higher level court...this judge was playing politics with that stuff knowing full well that statement doesn't hold a darned bit of water. Either you are a minor and under other protections, OR you have the rights ENUMERATED in the Constitution of the United States of America. As a sergeant, I held my 18-20 year old maintainers to the same standards as older ones, and they had the same rights under the UCMJ. I see absolutely no reason it should be different under civil law. There are always folks trying to play political games and it irritates the dickens out of me...rrrrrr!

...I'm not believin' that ALL constitutuional rights don't apply to minors, with parental override (search within parents' home)...and yet they give them to illegal aliens and terrorists and other critters...we've gone a looooooooooooong way from what the US was known for...hard and fair justice...to the point that the ONLY ones who get justice through the system are the bad guys...and the thumb on our necks gets heavier by the day...

Before we go and start a revolution, lets consider that this ruling is actually a good thing for our side. We have lost nothing at this point, and we get to appeal it and move the case on quicker than we would have otherwise. Remember that civil rights litigation is a strange creature that seems to move randomly, however even defeats can be counted as victories when they let the process move forward faster. An excellent example of defeats actually helping us was with McDonald V. Chicago, that case made its way through the court system and to the supreme court extremely quickly because of rulings just like this one.

...when we find out we have judges rendering this kind of swill...it do get worth being upset over...and the fur on the back of my neck's up too far to smooth down with platitudes...we've lost A LOT to have this kind of idiot on the bench...I want to see change...

Umm, you might want to consider who this judge is before you condemn him. Who knows, maybe he even has a gun-rights history.

croc870 wrote:Umm, you might want to consider who this judge is before you condemn him. Who knows, maybe he even has a gun-rights history.

...Ummm....I don't care what his history is...this decision is wacko...that's what the thread, article, and my comments are about, ummm....

And as I predicted in my posting above, the NRA will appeal this case.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Feder ... px?id=7118

speedsix wrote:...both is good...we've got some of the sorriest judges in history...

Federal judges should have term limits as much so, if not more than the other elected sodomites in congress. Until we dispose of these elected and appointed dynasties, nothing is ever gonna' change...very much.

Check it out: elections only bring change in names and faces, everything else remains the same. IOW, SOSDD.

Oldgringo wrote:

speedsix wrote:...both is good...we've got some of the sorriest judges in history...

Federal judges should have term limits as much so, if not more than the other elected sodomites in congress. Until we dispose of these elected and appointed dynasties, nothing is ever gonna' change...very much.

Check it out: elections only bring change in names and faces, everything else remains the same. IOW, SOSDD.

And no pensions/retirement. NO ELECTED OFFICIAL, at any level of government, or Federal Judge should ever get any government pension .

That is ok, despite not so bright judges ruling I will ensure that when the time comes my children will have what they need to defend themselves.

speedsix wrote:...I'm not believin' that ALL constitutuional rights don't apply to minors, with parental override (search within parents' home)...and yet they give them to illegal aliens and terrorists and other critters...we've gone a looooooooooooong way from what the US was known for...hard and fair justice...to the point that the ONLY ones who get justice through the system are the bad guys...and the thumb on our necks gets heavier by the day...

Apparently, minors have a constitutional right to an abortion, even though it is not enumerated..... but they do not have the right to keep and bear arms, which is enumerated.

This is not what I signed on for. Stop the ship of state. I want off.