TexasCHLforum.com

Vol Texan wrote: ↑Sun Sep 25, 2022 9:54 amI might get some flack on here for this, but I WANT Texas to appeal this. (Full disclosure, I hope Texas loses, but I still want Texas to appeal).

Here's my reasoning: According to the AG's website, the Texas Attorney General is responsible for"<snip> Defending the State of Texas and its duly enacted laws by providing legal representation to the State...<snip>. I don't want a situation where he picks and/or chooses which Texas laws he defends. Rather, I want him to defend all of them.

This AG might like or dislike a certain law with the same preferences as I do, but that's not important. The next one may not, and I still want that next AG to defend my preferred with the same vigor, irrespective of whether he/she likes that particular law or not. Liking a law isn't in the job description. Defending it is.

So yes, AG Paxton should defend our law. I hope he loses, but I hope he defends it.

I agree 100%

As for the DPS filing the appeal? I don't know how the legal mechanisms work in the courts, but I'd just as soon they keep their political opinions out of it. Perhaps it's necessary for them to file the appeal for the AG to do his job (I truly have no idea, just thinking out loud here). If that's the case, then OK, but if AG Paxton can defend the law irrespective of what they do, then I would prefer they keep their opinions to themselves. I see DPS' job as enforcement of the laws, not using their biases to drive whether laws should or should not be in place.

As I understand the process, when an agency is sued, the AG assigns a team of lawyers to handle the case. The agency has their own lawyers that work with the team to make sure the legal team understands the specifics of how the agency works in that area. The agency and the AG team make the decisions together on appealing or settling or dropping the case. When McCraw announced he was appealing, he was saying that his legal team working with the AG team had filed the notice to appeal. While I truly thought Paxton would appeal since he has the duty to defend the law that you pointed out, I would bet DPS was the agency that wanted the appeal because McCraw doesn't like the ruling and wants the law to stay on the books. I think (but am not sure) that all of the litigants are still tied to the case unless the court specifically releases them.

And while I don't like or trust McCraw, it is possible he took the lead on the appeal just to provide political cover for Abbott and Paxton.

Mike S wrote: ↑Fri Aug 26, 2022 7:48 am

Boxerrider wrote: ↑Fri Aug 26, 2022 6:32 am Somebody please correct me if I get part of this wrong.
This was a state case about preventing people 18-20 from legally carrying. In Texas, 18-20 year-olds can buy a handgun from an individual.
No handgun sales to people under 21 is a federal law, which applies to dealers. I think there are cases concerning this in the works, although I can't cite one off the top of my head.

I'm not a lawyer, nor an FFL. My understanding is that it's a Federal law that prevents an 18-20 yo from purchasing a handgun from an FFL, not a Texas law. If I recall correctly, the Federal law doesn't prohibit an 18-20 yo from individual/private purchases not involving an FFL. I'm pulling this out of my "fourth point of contact", so if I'm incorrect someone please cite what the Federal & State laws are & I'll gladly delete this to avoid misinformation...

Both of you are correct. This was a challenge to the state law only and not the federal law. It is federal law that covers purchasing from a dealer. I was trying to guess whether Paxton would appeal it or not. He has a duty to defend state laws in court, so he might have to appeal it at least to the 5th Circuit. But with both Abbott and Paxton being pro-gun, they could just accept the ruling and say "we tried'.

But it is not a legal precedent until it gets to the appeals court. I think, from what I have heard of the ruling, that the 5th Circuit will uphold it. That is always a gamble though. Anyway, now we have a better strategic reason for appealing it. Yes, there are cases going through the system on the federal purchase law. The 4th Circuit overturned the purchase ban last year, but I do not know the current status of that case. The 5th Circuit, several years back upheld the sales ban. The Bruen decision may change that based on its guideline of how to handle 2A challenges. If the 5th Circuit up holds this case, it is legal precedent and would be usable to fight the sale ban too. This means an appeal might be in our favor in the long run, though there is a risk to it.