Tactical concealed carry purse off body
Courtesy Tactica

This is a BIG win. And it may be the first (of many) post-Bruen gun control law to be struck down on the merits.

From the Firearms Policy Coalition . . .

Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced a victory in Andrews v. McCraw, its Second Amendment lawsuit that challenged a ban on handgun carry by young adults in the State of Texas. The judgment and injunction can be viewed at FPCLaw.org.

“The issue is whether prohibiting law-abiding 18-to-20-year-olds from carrying a handgun in public for self-defense is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” wrote Judge Mark Pittman in his Opinion. “Based on the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by Founding-Era history and tradition, the Court concludes that the Second Amendment protects against this prohibition. Texas’s statutory scheme must therefore be enjoined to the extent that law-abiding 18-to-20-year-olds are prohibited from applying for a license to carry a handgun.”
“Texas cannot point to a single Founding Era law that prohibited 18-to-20-year-olds from carrying a functional firearm for self-defense, because not only did no such law exist, but those individuals are an important reason why we have a Bill of Rights in the first place,” said FPC Senior Attorney for Constitutional Litigation, Cody J. Wisniewski.
“The typical age of individuals that went to war with the British for our Independence was between 17 and 20 years old. And young people have just as much a right to keep and bear arms in public as adults over the age of 21. This decision is a significant victory for the rights of young adults in Texas and demonstrates for the rest of the nation that similar bans cannot withstand constitutional challenges grounded in history, as Bruen and Heller require. We look forward to restoring the right to keep and bear arms throughout the United States in the coming months and years.”
In order to allow Texas time to appeal and seek a stay, the trial court stayed the injunction for 30 days. “Though Plaintiffs’ interest in the vindication of their Constitutional rights suffers while the judgment is stayed, the stay is necessary to militate the possible negative effects of relying on the injunction while it is subject to appellate review and possible reversal,” the Court said. As such, young adults in Texas under age 21 should not carry handguns in public under this decision until the injunction takes effect. FPC will continue to provide updates on this case at FPCLaw.org and on social media.
The judgment in Andrews is likely the first final judgment on the merits in favor of Second Amendment rights since the Supreme Court’s decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen this June. The plaintiffs in this case were represented by David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson, and William V. Bergstrom of Cooper & Kirk, who are representing FPC and individual gun owners in multiple other legal cases, as well as Texas counsel R. Brent Cooper of Cooper & Scully, P.C.
Individuals who would like to Join the FPC Grassroots Army and support important pro-rights lawsuits and programs can sign up at JoinFPC.org. Individuals and organizations wanting to support charitable efforts in support of the restoration of Second Amendment and other natural rights can also make a tax-deductible donation to the FPC Action Foundation. For more on FPC’s lawsuits and other pro-Second Amendment initiatives, visit FPCLegal.org and follow FPC on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube.
In addition to Andrews, FPC is litigating to restore the right of young people to keep and bear arms in cases including Lara v. Evanchick (vs. Pennsylvania, in the 3rd Circuit), Reese v. ATF (vs. the federal government, in the 5th Circuit), Bassett v. Slatery (vs. Tennessee, in the 6th Circuit), Meyer v. Raoul (vs. Illinois, in the 7th Circuit), Worth v. Harrington (vs. Minnesota, in the 8th Circuit), Jones v. Bonta (vs. California, in the 9th Circuit), and Baughcum v. Jackson (vs. Georgia, in the 11th Circuit).

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

64 COMMENTS

    • A .22 magnum penetrates soft body armor which is frequently used by police. It must also be an assult caliber too! BAN IT!

    • 5.56 and .223 is .22 caliber, so you’re still ok with them carrying AR15s? This was about the right to carry, I really doubt too many people are open carrying rifles on a regular basis.

      Old people shouldn’t have guns. You’ve already lived long enough, no need to protect your life anymore. The Las Vegas shooter was old so that irrefutably proves my point old people should never be allowed “assault weapons.” Plus geezers that can’t find a caps lock might have trouble finding a safety so they are the most dangerous. /sarc

    • Assault Guns??

      WTH is an Assault GUN? lol..did you mean a salt gun? yanno for flys and stuff?

    • NTexas, before you post, make sure you put on your white face paint, rainbow wig, and red honking nose. You are an absolute clown.

      • Insult to real clowns everywhere who are trained professionals who rehearse daily in order to keep their skills at sharp as possible. Most clowns have actually gone to clown school and have a certificate of graduations. Should have used Bumbledorf which is a dull-witted oaf who finally was kicked out of grade school because he longer could sit at the desks.

    • @NTexas

      I’m not worried about the 18 – 20 year olds with a firearm. I’m more worried about people who don’t understand the extremely simple and basic concepts of things such as, for example, the caps lock on their keyboards, those are the ones that don’t need firearms access.

    • Guys, 5 will get you 10, NTexas is another dacian iteration. All CAPS is part of this one’s schtick.

      • “Guys, 5 will get you 10, NTexas is another dacian iteration.

        Folks, since I own 83% (or is it 87%) of all the screen names, gotta try to keep the gag fresh with new characters. Figgering this out ain’t actually rokett science.

    • And I ‘believe’ that I’m entitled to win the Powerball. Not all beliefs come true. Thanks for playing.

      Oh, and I also believe that one day you’ll find the missing caps lock. Good luck with that.

    • AND I BELIEVE YOU”RE A FRIGGIN’ NUTJOB, AND DON’T KNOW HOW TO USE YOUR ‘CAPS LOCK’ KEY, YOU SODDING LOSER. GO SOMEWHERE ELSE.

    • Usually it’s the Republican politicians we have to thank for those 21 and up laws, like here in Florida. They have been hard to challenge because an 18-year-old typically turns 21 before cases can be heard making the case moot. But that sounds like a step in the right direction Texas!

  3. and the games will continue. as a practical matter this decision is stayed meaning it is not in effect. the court of appeals will probably reverse. more back and forth procedure will drag out for years. maybe the supreme court will send it back down and the hot potatoe will continue to pass for years if not decades. nothing will change. sorry i’m
    so pessimistic but it’s what i have seen for years.

    • “so pessimistic but it’s what i have seen for years.”

      Californication is the gold standard for handling post-Bruen cases: remand to the district court that used “text, history and tradition” to overturn the Cali bans on firearms/ammo. The idea is to delay the matter until a left-wing, staunch anti-gun SC can be engineered.

      • This appeal goes to the 5th Circuit (solid conservative/originalist majority; think: inverse of 9th Circuit). VERY unlikely they will issue a stay pending appeal.

        And I suspect the Texas AG may well want to lose this case.

        • “This appeal goes to the 5th Circuit… VERY unlikely they will issue a stay pending appeal….And I suspect the Texas AG may well want to lose this case.”

          Assuming for the moment that the Texas AG is legitimately defending the restrictions under discussion, one might wonder if this was/is a setup?

          Alternately, would the 5th actually want to create the serious confusion, and further turmoil, by not issuing a “stay”, while Texas AG appeals to the SC?

          Seems that regardless of the actual ruling by the 5th, the matter will go to the SC, creating a rats nest of uncertainty for possibly years? Thinking Heller and McDonald were pretty clear, yet it took a decade(?) to get to Bruen.

        • “And I suspect the Texas AG may well want to lose this case.”

          We hope!

          LKB, have you seen this?

          “CA “Assault Weapon” Ban Coming To An End Next Week!?!”

          “Saint Benitez has already set a hearing in this case!”.

          Looks like a ‘rocket docket’?

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJIANfAX8lY

        • WRT Saint Benitez’s hearing next Monday:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CObDTkyLzbI

          Ultimately, he’s going to stomp California, impose a permanent injunction, and deny a stay. Whether that happens Monday or soon after, we’ll see. He *might* take some time to make sure his decision is 100% appeal proof — but it won’t shock me if he does it right away, or perhaps grants a temporary injunction.

    • Standing to challenge (typically would age out and case would be mooted before getting anywhere) as well as funding to push the lawsuit with a side of bigger fish to fry. Sucks to have to sue for basic rights but it’s where we are for now.

    • “2A aside, just how is it that these laws were not down on 14A equal-protection long ago?”

      According to them, the unique dangers of guns {gag}…

  5. I like this magic birthday switch that flips at 16, 18, 21. Have biologists pinpointed the specific organ or gland that controls this chronological micro-evolutionary process and have they been able to determine why for some it never triggers even into their 40’s, 50’s and beyond?

    • I dunno…had a wife & son at 20. Went to work every day-never missed. Gunz never came up but I was quite responsible for awhile then. You sink or swim to your responsibilities. Just like Boch’s post earlier. Get in a few potentially fatal scuffles in Chiraq with thugs & you don’t sweat the small stuff. No gats or any weapons then. Some younguns can handle strife-some can’t or won’t.

    • The magic switch is Liberalism. It prevents people from ever attaining any semblance of Reality.

      • Explanation for the less astute, there is a reason why the spelling is with capitalized L. Distinction with a difference, our FF’s were small “l” liberals, an entirely different and diametrically opposed alignment of values to the “Liberal”. “L” change by the (D)ifferent, whom co-opted the word as an intellectually dishonest gambit to pull the wool of the eyes of the ignorant. Holding much similarity to their currently ongoing maskirovka’s…

        Sorry to hijack Dark, only spreading the word.

        • William,

          Which is exactly why I (almost) always refer to them by their PROPER name – Leftist/fascists. There is nothing “liberal” about them. They are True Believers in the Leftist way (whether their particular saint or prophet be Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Castro, Guevara, Ortega, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, name-your-brand-of-idiocy), and are not just willing, but EAGER to utilize full-bore fascism to achieve their aims.

          And if we aren’t willing to oppose their fascist ways, we get what we deserve.

  6. I live in Texas, everyone who doesn’t live here thinks we are the most gun-tootin-ist gunners in America. This couldn’t be further from the truth. We weren’t allowed by our dear leaders to carry concealed until 19 and 95.

    This state is so behind the curve in gun laws. It’s catching up, but good Lord….

    • Colonel, that’s only half the story, so far as the law went, we weren’t allowed to open carry handguns, either, so ANY carry of a handgun was ALWAYS illegal. The purpose of the laws was to ensure blacks were unarmed when their betters showed up to hang them a little bit, otherwise someone might be hurt. So for the first 100 years of these laws, they were only used to arrest blacks, white folk could safely ignore them. And before anyone starts pointing and giggling, you might wish to examine your OWN state’s laws, most were similar. To my knowledge only Vermont never had any gun laws at all, also maintained less violent crime than most any other state.

  7. The Texas AG supports this 18-21 age limit!!!!

    Newsmax showed him saying it!!!

    Which is interesting cause usually he’s talking about the Federal and Texas Constitution all the time and claiming he’s defending them!!!!

    • @Nanashi

      On the federal level, after we kicked the British out, in the historical text, history and tradition context (e.g. Bruen) there were none really.

      On the colony level (now ‘states’) it was a regional thing (e.g. a town had prohibitions sometimes in some context) which was generally 15 – 16 years of age but it wasn’t country wide. Where there was some prohibition based on age in some areas it was conditional, for example, a firearm was ok for a 12 year old while hunting or on the farm but not in the town limits. And it was not enforced as a matter of law or regulation that much but rather more a collective ‘society’ based ‘community standards’ thing so it was ok if 12 year old Timmy’s dad wanted him to have a firearm as long as it was kept from general carry around town.

      But these areas that did have these prohibitions allowed establishment of ‘firing ranges’ (e.g. practice) on the outskirts of town or in the town for young kids and others to maintain that important use and proficiency for defense as the constitution provided against tyranny and preservation and defense of the constitutional right to “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” (e.g. self/home/family/others-defense).

      (note: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” – which was then and still today unique from all other countries which makes us different from say, the U.K. which does not have such a founding principal but instead is founded based upon feudal tyranny which today survives in its modern form as still the foundations and functioning and government of the U.K. . This is why, for example, the ‘public’ in the U.K. and Europe can’t understand the firearms use in the United States, because they have no suitable frame of life reference for living under this type of liberty because their life is framed in their version of modern day feudal tyranny populace control)

      These areas where such age prohibitions existed derived their prohibitions from British rule and law. In the Massachusetts Colony 1644 – 1657 The British (allegiance) Governor and Company of The Massachusetts Bay in New England established that “and practize of armes will be of great vse to this countrye…itt is therefore ordered, yt all youth within this jurrisdiccion, from tenne yeeres old to ye age of 16 yeeres, shall be instructed…in ye excersise of armes, as smale gunnes, half pikes, bowes and arrowes” – where the age limit was established as 16 for colony defense purposes (e.g. local militia) but other limits context were not set and those came later with the various regions (e.g. towns).

      Prior to kicking the British out and establishing our country, it was grounded in British rule and law for the colonist only. But once we established our country British rule and law was invalidated in the United States.

      Thus as a country, under our constitution and later bill of rights, there were really no prohibitions (or not many) in the historical text, history and tradition context (e.g. Bruen) which is why the anti-gun arguments and claims of ‘historical gun control or regulation’ fail.

      Any other existing ‘regulation of firearms’ back then was based upon ‘prohibited persons’ being criminals or related to the person’s race, ethnicity, religion, or indentured status. Today, the prohibition still remains in the form of a convicted felon being a prohibited person, but the rest (race, ethnicity, religion, or indentured status) is unconstitutional and illegal.

      But also today we see a resurgence of the attempt to place restrictions or prohibitions on those who were not prohibited in the historical text, history and tradition context (e.g. Bruen), and a resurgence in the Democrat party and anti-gun interests to prohibit based upon race by posing one as better or worse than the other by the concept of framing all gun owners as ‘white supremacists’ or ‘far right wing’ in context with ‘black victims social justice’.

      • Note: “tenne yeeres old to ye age of 16 yeeres”

        The lower age was actually set at age 10 in the Massachusetts Colony edict.

        In derived practice by the colonists later it was 15-16 mostly, but those down to age 10 were mostly not prohibited.

        • The anti-gun argument goes, basically, “hundreds of individual statutes regulated the possession and use of guns in colonial America”

          Well actually, they referred principally to the places and times in which persons who could possess firearms were either required to do so or permitted to do so – and not the prohibition or ban on firearms. These were grounded in pertaining to prohibited possession by certain persons (e.g. criminals, Indians, etc..), or prohibited transfers to certain persons were related to the person’s race, ethnicity, religion, or indentured status. For example, in 1619, Virginia passed a law criminalizing the transfer of firearms to “Indians”.

          (note: The 1619 convention of the Virginia House Of Burgesses passed an ordinance stating the following: “That no man do fell or give any Indians any piece ƒhott, or poulder or any other armes offenfive or deffenfive upon paine of being held a Traytor to the Colony, & of being hanged…” – Giving weapons to the native Indian population was a very serious offence, and the penalty of death by hanging shows the colonists fear, and knowledge that weapons possessed by “Indians” would likely be used against the colonists.)

          (note: in 1656 colonial Massachusetts firearms ownership and use was prohibited for “Negroes” and “Indians”. They had a statute that read: “…henceforth no negroes or Indians, although servants to the English, shall be armed … ” and was imposed in the context of regulating “…military companyes within this jurisdiction…” – so that was a colony region specific thing, and not a ‘every colony thing’.

          These were all based upon British rule or law, which was invalidated when we established our independence thus there were no such prohibitions any longer in the context of the historical text, history and tradition of the constitution and United States as a country (e.g. Bruen) (even though these prohibitions based upon race, ethnicity, religion, or indentured status still remained for a long time after in different forms and implementation). Anything else after that was a regional thing, and not a federal or country wide thing, as I outlined above – until the federal government decided to impose its domination over states rights to set federal laws.

          The remaining legacy from pre-founding colonial periods that still remains is the prohibition for criminals (e.g. convicted felons).

  9. I’m very surprised that these person and organizations were the defendants:

    Defendants: Texas Department of Public Safety Director Steven C. McCraw, Parker County Attorney John Forrest, Fannin County Criminal District Attorney Richard E. Glaser, and Grayson County District Attorney J. Brett Smith

    I’m going to speculate that this decision will not be appealed by the defendants; I believe that the this is a tactic from the socialist-democrat’s playbook except this time it was for the people.

    • i assume they were defendants because they would not issue permits to those under 21 because texas law prohibits them from issuing the permits. i’m sure the AG will appeal and this will drag through the courts for years and nothing will change as a practical matter

      • You must not be from Texas.
        “Permits” are no longer required.
        These “defendants” are from very Republican (Conservative) North Texas.

  10. If your offspring still thinks and acts like a child at 16, much less 18, you done !@#$ed up as a parent.

  11. Growing up in Alaska, It was common to see 12 to 17 year olds walking through town with a rifle or shotgun. No one freaked out, hell even our school bus had a gun rack and the High school had a security locker to store your rifle or shotgun. You would get your firearm back after school so you could hunt on the walk home. Harborview Grade school in Juneau (AK) had a shooting range in the basement so students could take firearm safety and marksmanship classes. The problem is parents now days, plain and simple, they teach thier children nothing, because they know nothing. The new zombies, sitting staring at phones instead of actually doing something. Alas, I digress. I must be old.

  12. Any yet under federal law you still can’t personally go buy your own handgun or it’s ammo until your 21. Although, obviously, the prevalence of pistol caliber carbines make that last regulation unenforceable.

  13. @Geoff “I’m getting too old for this shit” PR
    “CA “Assault Weapon” Ban Coming To An End Next Week!?!”
    “Saint Benitez has already set a hearing in this case!”.

    “Hearings” can be for any number of reasons. At the moment, the judge has not issued anything on the intent of the hearing.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJIANfAX8lY

  14. If the judge stays his ruling pending an appeal, he doesn’t have much faith in his ruling and expects the appeal to be successful.

    • California has overturned every Pro 2A decision in the last however long using en banc. But this time it’s remanded from the Supremes.

      • “But this time it’s remanded from the Supremes.”

        Not that it matters. Biden admin just expanded EPA charter in defiance of the SC ruling that it was unconstitutional to do so.

        Federal judges cannot be removed except through impeachment and conviction. To pickup on an old saying, “The Supreme Court has made its ruling; let them enforce it.”

  15. The crux of this is the double-standards we see in this country. What is a legal age of adulthood? Military Enlistment/Selective Service, Consent, voting, alcohol imbibing, buying tobacco, firearm ownership (which has two ages depending on handgun or long gun), driving or working all have different ages (which range usually 15-21), which makes it more like quadruple or quintuple standards.

    The fact there is no established singular all-encompassing age for legal adulthood illustrates how farcical the government can be. Adult responsibility begets adult responsibility. Meaning if you’re adult enough to operate a 2,000+lb 100+mph death machine then you should be to do all adult things.

    Make a single adult age for everything. Whether it be 16, 18 or 21, I don’t care. Just pick one fricken age and apply it for everything across the board or else have zero credibility in terms of being intellectually honest.

    • Thinios,

      Preach it!! While I would expect (require???) anyone arguing for any particular “age of adulthood” to actually justify that choice, I could probably “live with” anything from 16 to 25 . . . but pick a gotdayum age and stick with it. Lessee, I can start working and get a “learner’s permit” at 15, and stay on my parents’ insurance until I’m 26. THAT makes sense!!!!

      • Don’t forget about the Boston Hospital that will recognize whatever gender a three year old claims to be.

  16. Even though I’m a proud vet, young men and women (and its) are going to have to tell recruiters to pound sand.. men and women under the age of 21, are obviously not trusted to make a decision to carry a firearm unless it’s for the industrial military complex… they sure don’t mind them killing and dying for $$$… you start shorting these politicians the privilege to make gazillions of dollars on foreign wars, things will change…. A new class of pro-gun Democrat will surface…

Comments are closed.