TexasCHLforum.com

clarionite wrote: Fri Aug 26, 2022 3:31 pm If this stands, I wonder how it will effect our reciprocity agreements with other states? If I remember correctly, the inclusion of active duty under the age of 21 threw a monkey wrench in reciprocity in the past.

I don't think it will change the status of current agreements (or not) since Texas already allows some under 21 to get an LTC. Adding more to mix won't change that.

https://www.insider.com/illegal-anyone- ... ork-2022-8

Illegal for under 21 to buy Redi whip whipped cream in New York.

Irony?

clarionite wrote: Fri Aug 26, 2022 3:31 pm If this stands, I wonder how it will effect our reciprocity agreements with other states? If I remember correctly, the inclusion of active duty under the age of 21 threw a monkey wrench in reciprocity in the past.

For the moment, I would think that it shouldn’t have any effect at all. Reciprocity is a feature of licensure, not of Constitutional Carry. My understanding is that this ruling only affects Constitutional Carry, not the issuance of LTCs.

Armed Attorneys on YouTube put out a video about it:
https://youtu.be/XR7lqugwp-4

They pointed out that there are several options the state can pursue to bring Constitutional Carry into compliance with Bruen, while still placing some restrictions on permitless carry for 18-20 yr olds. I’m not saying there should be any restrictions…just that there’s options that may be able to satisfy Bruen while not messing with reciprocity.

Some great info in that video! Like they say at the end, this is the canary in the coalmine. There are a lot of other bogus laws that will also be struck down.

I don't know what the political winds are, but my guess is that the LTC age will be lowered to 18 for everyone. I'm good with that. There are plenty of 18-20year olds that out shoot their elders. Will be interesting what actually happens with CC.

The Annoyed Man wrote: Sat Aug 27, 2022 9:04 pm
For the moment, I would think that it shouldn’t have any effect at all. Reciprocity is a feature of licensure, not of Constitutional Carry. My understanding is that this ruling only affects Constitutional Carry, not the issuance of LTCs.

They pointed out that there are several options the state can pursue to bring Constitutional Carry into compliance with Bruen, while still placing some restrictions on permitless carry for 18-20 yr olds. I’m not saying there should be any restrictions…just that there’s options that may be able to satisfy Bruen while not messing with reciprocity.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I had to study the ruling to get a basic understanding, but I think you might be missing part of this, TAM.

On the next-to-last page it says:

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that:
1. To the extent that Texas’s statutory scheme, TEX . PENAL CODE § 46.02(a) and TEX . GOV’T CODE §§ 411.172(a)(2), (g), (h), (i), prohibits law-abiding 18-to-20-year-olds from carrying handguns for self-defense outside the home based solely on their age, this statutory scheme violates the Second Amendment, as incorporated against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment.

This paragraph references two statutes:

• PC § 46.02(a) - this one does explain that you need to be 21 for permit-less carry
• GC §§ 411.172(a)(2), (g), (h), (i) - but this one explains the age requirements for a License to Carry

Given that this ruling specifically mentions both statutes, I do believe it covers both methods of carry in Texas, and expands both to cover 18-20 year olds.
However, I'm not a lawyer, and I welcome any of the better educated folks here to correct me if I'm wrong.

Vol Texan, I agree with you. I thought it was only constitutional carry at first too... apparently the decision affects both... but apparently there is room for Texas law to be changed to only allow one or the other.

I never understood why military personnel under 21 could carry but civilians could not. I don't know if it's changed any but in the 70s, the Air Force gave me no training or experience with handguns. I had two days of training with the AR-15, but was no better prepared to carry a handgun than a civilian 18 to 20.

TxRVer wrote: Mon Aug 29, 2022 10:40 am I never understood why military personnel under 21 could carry but civilians could not. I don't know if it's changed any but in the 70s, the Air Force gave me no training or experience with handguns. I had two days of training with the AR-15, but was no better prepared to carry a handgun than a civilian 18 to 20.

There is an effort underway to provide more handgun training in the army, but until then its more safety and rifle marksmanship.

I believe this is not an LTC ruling, rather, an unlicensed carry ruling.

RoyGBiv wrote: Mon Aug 29, 2022 12:35 pm I believe this is not an LTC ruling, rather, an unlicensed carry ruling.

Reposted from above:

On the next-to-last page it says:

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that:
1. To the extent that Texas’s statutory scheme, TEX . PENAL CODE § 46.02(a) and TEX . GOV’T CODE §§ 411.172(a)(2), (g), (h), (i), prohibits law-abiding 18-to-20-year-olds from carrying handguns for self-defense outside the home based solely on their age, this statutory scheme violates the Second Amendment, as incorporated against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment.

This paragraph references two statutes:

• PC § 46.02(a) - this one does explain that you need to be 21 for permit-less carry
• GC §§ 411.172(a)(2), (g), (h), (i) - but this one explains the age requirements for a License to Carry

Given that this ruling specifically mentions both statutes, I do believe it covers both methods of carry in Texas, and expands both to cover 18-20 year olds.
However, I'm not a lawyer, and I welcome any of the better educated folks here to correct me if I'm wrong.

philip964 wrote: Sat Aug 27, 2022 6:11 pm https://www.insider.com/illegal-anyone- ... ork-2022-8

Illegal for under 21 to buy Redi whip whipped cream in New York.

Irony?

I didn't even know those things existed. I mostly just buy the tub or rarely the can, but what uses those things?

philip964 wrote: Sat Aug 27, 2022 6:11 pm https://www.insider.com/illegal-anyone- ... ork-2022-8

Illegal for under 21 to buy Redi whip whipped cream in New York.

Irony?

Guess they'll have to switch to heroin, so they can get free syringes.

The State of Texas has decided to appeal this ruling:

On Tuesday evening, Director Steven McCraw of the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) filed his notice of appeal to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court. Shortly after the district court’s ruling was issued, comments by Gov. Greg Abbott indicated the governor was not keen on challenging the ruling.

https://thetexan.news/texas-dps-appeals ... -handguns/

puma guy wrote: Fri Sep 02, 2022 9:53 pm

philip964 wrote: Sat Aug 27, 2022 6:11 pm https://www.insider.com/illegal-anyone- ... ork-2022-8

Illegal for under 21 to buy Redi whip whipped cream in New York.

Irony?

Guess they'll have to switch to heroin, so they can get free syringes.

Nitrous oxide…like at the dentist… is the propellant in the canned whipped cream.

rtschl wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2022 4:18 pm The State of Texas has decided to appeal this ruling:

On Tuesday evening, Director Steven McCraw of the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) filed his notice of appeal to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court. Shortly after the district court’s ruling was issued, comments by Gov. Greg Abbott indicated the governor was not keen on challenging the ruling.

https://thetexan.news/texas-dps-appeals ... -handguns/

I 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.

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.