federal or state law?

atxmob

Hmmm....fed law says you gotta be 21 to buy handgun, texas law says 18. so does fed supercede state law? is this 20 year old not able to purchase a handgun even though his state allows it? (I'm a little confused because the gunbroker site says that in general one must be 18 to purchase stuff on this site and my ffl contact as well as the seller has not asked to verify age of 21)

dotcom_guy30

you may wanna check into it but i think federal law overides state law

nitrouz

I think you may be able to buy used in Texas from a private party but not a new pistol from a dealer which would require Federal paperwork.



"He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one."
- Jesus Christ in Luke 22:36

longhunter

Must be kinda like the law here that says with CWP I can carry afield,bur wardens say I can't cause carryin afield says I am "hunting".....[:(!]

EOD Guy

quote:Originally posted by atxmob
Hmmm....fed law says you gotta be 21 to buy handgun, texas law says 18. so does fed supercede state law? is this 20 year old not able to purchase a handgun even though his state allows it? (I'm a little confused because the gunbroker site says that in general one must be 18 to purchase stuff on this site and my ffl contact as well as the seller has not asked to verify age of 21)


You have to be 21 to buy a handgun from a dealer. State laws determine if you can buy from a private party.

gunphreak

Nitrouz and EOD guy have the answer.

This is the heart of owning weapons today. Because that is true, it is also under attack by "gun show loophole" legislation, so as to ban all private transactions.

Death to Tyrants!!! Lev 26:14-39

Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

Luke 22:36.

jpwolf

I believe that the feds have ultimate authority as things stand now, but they are not supposed to. This is against what was originally intended. Correct me if I'm wrong Gunny or anyone, but the current "ten commandmants" case in Alabama is a prime example. The feds are forcing that judge to remove the statue when in reality they have no authority to do so. Final authority is "supposed" to rest with the individual states, in which case this judge would not have a problem. Just another example of the tyranny we are living under in my opinion. If this case goes to the supreme court of the United States, and they follow the letter of the law, Judge Roy Moore would be found to be in the right because of state law. We will see what they do. As to atx's question, better to be safe than sorry, until we can fix this mess, or you have fat bank account to fight it out in court.

mpolans

EXCEPT, the 1st Amendment of the U.S. (federal) constitution as incorporated through the 14th Amendment prohibits the display as a violation of the "Establishment Clause" of the 1st Amendment.

quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
I believe that the feds have ultimate authority as things stand now, but they are not supposed to. This is against what was originally intended. Correct me if I'm wrong Gunny or anyone, but the current "ten commandmants" case in Alabama is a prime example. The feds are forcing that judge to remove the statue when in reality they have no authority to do so. Final authority is "supposed" to rest with the individual states, in which case this judge would not have a problem. Just another example of the tyranny we are living under in my opinion. If this case goes to the supreme court of the United States, and they follow the letter of the law, Judge Roy Moore would be found to be in the right because of state law. We will see what they do. As to atx's question, better to be safe than sorry, until we can fix this mess, or you have fat bank account to fight it out in court.