4th Circuit panel rules federal law requiring handgun buyers to be 21 or older is unconstitutional

The comments in my post did not have anything to do with the issue of storage.

The opening post was not about that issue either.

 

State law in WA prohibits selling certain firearms to those under 21. In case you were having trouble guessing 'who' voted that into law... 3/4 of the county Sheriffs in WA refuse to enforce that law, and they were all elected Sheriff in rural countys that voted against the law and that reliably vote conservative/republican. King and Thurston counties, as usual, effectively enacted that law for the rest of the state all by themselves, which is Seattle and Olympia, and in case you arent familiar, those are two of the farthest left-leaning cities in the nation, on par with Portland and not far behind San Francisco.

In WA, its leftists who legislated 18-20 yo's into second class citizens, and its rightists outright refusing to enforce it.

 

18 is an adult, and should be able to do anything an adult can do, vote, buy lottery tickets, invest, drink, ect....

or we can raise the age to join the military to 21 too

 

While that is probably safe to say, it would be more accurate to say that they supported the position of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms (the ATF, i.e., law enforcement), which did not want to allow gun ownership to those younger than 21. These 3 endorsements, however, does not make it the de facto position of the Left.

 

What is your point? In my post, which you quoted, I say:

You admit, in your post, that those counties that passed this law-- which is still nowhere near taking away guns from all legal gun owners-- ARE NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF THE LEFT, IN GENERAL; rather, they are, "TWO OF THE FARTHEST LEFT LEANING CITIES in the Nation." Did I not admit that there is, not surprisingly, a range of views on guns, among those on the Left? And that the, "take them away," opinion is supported only by the most extremist? And you call the cities that did this, 2 of the farthest left cities in the country, i.e., not just typical, "leftist"-led, cities. So does not everything you said, comport with what I had already stated?

 

when you said "there is no one, "on the Left," here, arguing against the ruling" were you referring to the ruling in OP, or some other ruling? And were you suggesting something other than it not being a primarily leftist-driven position?

 

And "safe storage" as defined by the anti-gunners can be deadly, if a persons self defense gun is more than a few seconds away from being used, that person doesn't have a gun for self defense.

 

Assault firearms are already highly regulated in the U.S., what more are you seeking?

 

If they are properly trained, guns are not a problem. Fact is there are hundreds of case's where young children have come to the defense of their younger siblings using a gun, many time without firing a shot.

 

Or elsewhere for that matter.

 

And most of those deaths are cause by criminals shooting criminals and anti gunners fudging the numbers.

 

The left is not very knowledgeable on this subject. There are already background checks. No amount of more rigorous background checks will make a difference without overhauling the NICS database. They should start there is they had any knowledge on this issue.

Registration is useless. Most people simply wouldn't register their guns. There wouldn't really be any purpose to it.

 

It reminds me of a law declaring you can only own an automobile if you keep it parked in the garage.

 

Perhaps not, but their positions align almost perfectly with every other gun control proposal. Occam's Razor and all that.

 

An 18-19-20yr old can legally purchase an M60 machine gun...
... but not a handgun.

 

I’m not opposed to lowering the age to purchase a handgun from 21 to 18, but just for the sake of argument it seems that the logic would be similar to that of the legal drinking age.

An 18 year old spends a decent amount of time completing high school, even long if they have been held back at all, and this leads them to being more likely to interact with underage individuals than a 21 year old might. It seems to me that there is a greater likely hood for handguns being purchased on behalf of minors.

 

In the military 18 year old's can operate all kinds of heavy weapons. They can also legally drink alcoholic beverages.

PS I never bought a 3.5 Rocket Launcher nor a .50 cal machine gun for anybody either.

 

I don't think that's a fair comparison. Alcohol rights are not the same thing as defense rights.

I think a lot of this comes down to the principle of the thing, rather than actual everyday pragmatics.

 

Should 13 year old's own guns since they reached the age of puberty where nature armed their other gun?

 

We should also not only discuss whether or not something should be legal, but also discuss how much punishment exactly should be attached to that law.

That is something that often gets ignored in public debates.

 

18 is old enough to do things adults do since they are adults.

 

The ruling in the OP. And there was no one HERE, i.e., no left-leaning members of PF, who were arguing that it was a bad ruling.

 

Not likely since Kolbe v Hogan dealt with assault weapons, not garden variety hand guns. It is a fairly conservative district. What this will end up being is a conflict in the law at some point with some other Circuit like the 9th that will force the SCOTUS to settle. Until then, Heller would suggest that that 18 years olds would have as much a right to self defense as a 22 year old.

 

To overgeneralize in the same fashion as you just did, "the Right," is not very honest on the subject. It uses misleading facts to imply things that aren't true. For example, one disingenuous poster argued, "there are already backround checks," as if the ignorant people on the Left didn't realize this, and were arguing for something that already exists. The word that poster left out, so to speak, was, "universal." Then that poster, in a post suggesting that we Lefties needed to do more research to back up our opinions, had the gaul to say, with no explanation as to why this would be so, & while offering no substantiating links, "No amount of more rigorous background checks will make a difference without overhauling the NICS database." First of all, it is not even clear what this insincere arguer is saying, because the WELL-KNOWN push, from, "the Left"-- though, for your information, more than 80% of the public feels the same way, so it would appear the Left has really been growing-- is for universal background checks: that is, not, "more rigorous," checks, but the same checks that are mandated for most purchases, be extended to purchases that are currently exempt. But I think you already knew that. I don't think you, however, or anyone else, could possibly say, with certainty, that if there were uniform registration requirements,
"Most people simply wouldn't register their guns." What would be the basis for a, "knowledgeable," statement like that? And, if that were the case, then why would anyone on, "the Right," care so much about the proposing of something that they would simply ignore, anyway?

That you know more specifics than I about gun law, I have no doubt. But that you are misrepresenting the facts, I am also certain. It is, likewise, clear (as I just pointed out) that your reasoning does not follow logic, so save me, your B.S. arguments.