Natl Rifle Assn of America Inc v. Steven Mc
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 10128
| 5th Cir. | 2013Background
- Texas prohibits carrying a handgun in public by 18–20-year-olds; licensing allows some under-21s with military training to obtain concealed licenses.
- General criminal provision 46.02 bans public handgun carrying unless on own premises or in a vehicle.
- Concealed handgun licensing program (license required, age 21+, training, background checks) creates a higher minimum age than the general rule.
- Plaintiffs are three individuals aged 18–20 and the NRA; two turned 21 during litigation, one remains under 21 at judgment.
- District court denied standing for the general provision but upheld the licensing law; court found no substantial pre-enforcement threat under the general provision.
- Court applies BATF framework from a prior Fifth Circuit decision to Texas’s age-based handgun restrictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs have standing to challenge the general provision | Jennings/Harmon have standing via credible threat of prosecution. | Texas argues lack of threat since license provides exception for licensed carry. | Plaintiffs have standing to challenge the general provision. |
| Whether Jennings and Harmon are moot | Aging out of the 18–20 group does not moot their claims. | Court should dismiss as moot since they are now 21. | Jennings and Harmon moot; remanded to dismiss. |
| Whether the Texas scheme violatess the Second Amendment | 18–20-year-olds have Second Amendment rights to carry in public; ban infringes. | Scheme falls within longstanding regulatory tradition; permissible under intermediate scrutiny. | Texas scheme survives intermediate scrutiny; no Second Amendment violation. |
| What level of scrutiny applies and is the law narrowly tailored | Age-based restriction burdens core rights. | Law targets a discrete group and is tailored to public safety. | Intermediate scrutiny applied; law reasonably related to public safety and passes. |
| Whether the law violates equal protection | Age-based, non-suspect classification burdens fundamental right. | Not a fundamental-right or suspect-class trigger; rational relation suffices. | Equal protection claim rejected; rational basis review upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 F.3d 570 (U.S. (2008)) (recognized individual right to keep and bear Arms and identified presumptively lawful restrictions)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (U.S. (2010)) (Second Amendment fully applicable to states)
- NRA v. BATF, 700 F.3d 185 (5th Cir. 2012) (upheld age-based federal restriction on handgun sales to 18–20-year-olds; informs step-two analysis)
- United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (U.S. (1996)) (strict scrutiny considerations for laws affecting fundamental interests; requires genuine justification)
- Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (U.S. (2007)) (standing framework and necessary injury in pre-enforcement challenges)
- Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (U.S. (1969)) (standing/public-rights principles guiding pre-enforcement challenges)
- Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (U.S. (2000)) (reaffirms burden-shifting analysis in equal protection when no fundamental rights)