TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state ... -case.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If you know anyone between 18 and 21 who wants to buy a handgun and/or get their CHL, the NRA would like to include them in their appeals.

Well I no longer am (25 now) but 5-6 years ago I certainly WAS in that group. I couldn't buy a handgun, so I bought one of those evil assault rifles (my first AK) instead. Then shortly after I turned 21, I bought my first pistol. I wish them luck in their lawsuit.

im probably going to sound old. yes we give 18 year olds in our millitary guns, but i dont think most 18 year olds are mature enough for the responsibility.

I do think the difference with the millitary is that they mold and shape you into being more responsible.And you have someone watching out after you all the time.

alvins wrote:im probably going to sound old. yes we give 18 year olds in our millitary guns, but i dont think most 18 year olds are mature enough for the responsibility.

I do think the difference with the millitary is that they mold and shape you into being more responsible.And you have someone watching out after you all the time.

Yeah, you sound old.

Seriously, I have seen many 18 year olds not in the militray who were way more mature than some 30 and 40 year olds. They can buy a long gun, why not a handgun?

...it's in the training...my 19-year-old's had his own .38 in his room since he was 12...loaded and ready...I know ex-soldiers I'd not stay on the range with...age has little to do with it...

...if you can send him/her out to protect us from the evil that lurks...they're a grown man/woman...and ought to be able to buy anything they have money to afford...it's shameful to tell them they can't buy a handgun...or a beer...

alvins wrote:im probably going to sound old. yes we give 18 year olds in our millitary guns, but i dont think most 18 year olds are mature enough for the responsibility.

I do think the difference with the millitary is that they mold and shape you into being more responsible.And you have someone watching out after you all the time.

I think the operative word here is "most." It really boils down to the job you did parenting. I gave my son his first 1911 shortly after he turned 18, and he had fired all of my pistols by the time he was 10 or 12. He's been a shooter since he was 6, and he was very well acquainted with firearms and firearm safety. He was present the one and only time I had a negligent discharge of a firearm—my .44 magnum—and it made as big an impression on him as it did on me.

I would have been perfectly comfortable with him carrying a pistol at age 18 based on his demonstrated track record of responsibility with firearms. However, I did ask him, out of respect for me, to NOT carry it in his car. He kept a 12 gauge Mossberg in the trunk instead, and I was fine with that. I had asked him not to carry the pistol in his car because I wanted to ensure that he'd never have to explain it to a cop if he got stopped—because there is no "gray area" about whether or not 18-21 year olds can be in possession of a long gun, whereas I worried that a poorly informed cop might not respect his right to possess a handgun in his car. Being a responsible 18 year old who respected his father, my son understood my concerns and complied with that request.

Well, I told my daughter about this and she sent her name in to sign up. She is 19 right now and has been an NRA member for a couple years. She has been shooting since she was 10 (well probably earlier but she got her own rifle then). I bought her a pistol last year, but it would be nice for her to be able to buy one herself from a dealer.

And to avoid the debate on the maturity of teens carrying, I will point out that the link is to sign up for the lawsuit on being able to purchase, not the CHL lawsuit. These are two separate lawsuits. I personally support both lawsuits, as does my daughter, but I can see no logic at all to this law. I also think the CHL law will change if the purchase law changes.

I turn 21 in less than 2 weeks......

Where was this 3 years ago?!!?

baldeagle wrote:http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state ... -case.aspx

If you know anyone between 18 and 21 who wants to buy a handgun and/or get their CHL, the NRA would like to include them in their appeals.

I noted in the NRA's appeal to members that they are looking for young Texans between the ages of 18 and 20, not 21.

Shame. I was going to sign up my god/daughter who just turned 21 this month.

JD

jdkinman wrote:I noted in the NRA's appeal to members that they are looking for young Texans between the ages of 18 and 20, not 21.

Shame. I was going to sign up my god/daughter who just turned 21 this month.

JD

Would a 21yo have any more legal standing than a 61yo in such a lawsuit? Neither is affected by the current age limit.

Shared on my FB page and sent to my 19 year old son
Thanks for the heads up.

apostate wrote:

jdkinman wrote:I noted in the NRA's appeal to members that they are looking for young Texans between the ages of 18 and 20, not 21.

Shame. I was going to sign up my god/daughter who just turned 21 this month.

JD

Would a 21yo have any more legal standing than a 61yo in such a lawsuit? Neither is affected by the current age limit.

Exactly. But the original post/info said "21" rather than "20." Just a typo, it appears.

If the lawsuit had been initiated a year earlier, I'd be signing her up.

JD

alvins wrote:im probably going to sound old. yes we give 18 year olds in our millitary guns, but i dont think most 18 year olds are mature enough for the responsibility.

I do think the difference with the millitary is that they mold and shape you into being more responsible.And you have someone watching out after you all the time.

We give the 18 y.o. the right to vote. Based on the last presidential election it seems that this was at least as dangerous as having a pistol.

jdkinman wrote:Exactly. But the original post/info said "21" rather than "20." Just a typo, it appears.

If the lawsuit had been initiated a year earlier, I'd be signing her up.

JD

In my defense I did write "between" 18 and 21, but I suppose I could have made that more clear.

I think once we give them rights to vote and say they are adults they need to be adults in whole. While yes there are those who are irresponsible at 18 I see it as no different than the 30 year old people who are irresponsible. In my opinion they have the right until they do something to otherwise lose it.

As an example I bought my first house at 18 and was buying my second before I was 21. I was voting and paying taxes. All of my own doing with no outside support. I may have been a little more responsible than most at that age but why should I have been penalized?

Hopefully they can get this pushed through.