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

From the Heller decision, posted by TOG 6:

Now, the preceding part of that same quote:

So there you go, the SCOTUS has stated that there ARE CONSTITUTIONAL MEASURES FOR REGULATING HANDGUNS.

 

I'll try again: What reason did they give for disassembly and trigger locks being unconstitutional?

 

Which regulations did the court rule constitutional?

 

No one claimed they did.
But, if a requirement creates (x) impediment is unconstitutional, then a requirement that created (>x) impediment, logically, can only be unconstitutional.

See above. That's the argument made here.

I asked YOU:
Can you demonstrate the necessity for and efficacy of a requirement to keep firearms locked up?
Well?

 

Define assault weapon, and explain why you want “assault weapons” banned

 

This sounds like an issue that is close to your heart. With some of the other, troubled people, you have also spoken of, I'm beginning to think that Social Work is/was your field (though probably, once a social-worker, always a social-worker).

If there is something currently weighing on you, that you'd like to lighten the load by sharing, I am here to listen. But I don't know that this thread is the best place, especially as I have been pointing out to a couple of the posters, for whom every conversation seems to lead to their religiously defending the idea that any limitation on gun rights is unconstitutional, that the focus of this thread is only gun rights of people in the 18 through 20 age group.

But let me at least get clear on the concern you specified. You seem to be talking about young people who are also parents. But l don't want to assume you mean that they are afraid to talk about their spouse/partner, or someone else involved in the care of their child, sexually abusing that child, for fear of it being taken from them. More likely, you are saying that they fear if they talk to someone about their own history of being abused, that will lead to having their child being taken away, because sexual abuse runs in families (the abused are more likely to become abusers)?

 

*

 

Nope. I've had several positions when I was working in Corporate America but none of them were directly related to social work. I have always had a vigilante slant toward protecting hurting people. It's the main part of my personality that my family hates (they try to convince me that I'm crazy because I'm not racist, sexist, homophobic or any other "let me hate on this <group>). I've never been that way but not for want of them trying. ;-0

No, not specifically. What I referring to are the current laws in place that are designed to "catch the crazy" (my term. LOL) before it becomes a bigger problem for society.

For instance, first responders are usually the people that suffer the most. They are around the sick and dying every day. They are scraping bodies off the highways, they've been involved in shootings, etc.. Those kind of jobs are very important because they are the ones that keep our society going. However, while it's okay for someone within this subgroup of society to become dependent on substances or promiscuity or whatever their *outlet* is...it's mostly ignored UNLESS they seek out mental health services. It's the easiest way for them to derail their career and what does that say about *us* (society as a whole) that ADDRESSING the problem is looked down upon while the negative coping distractions are okay? That's very backwards.

Years ago, this woman worked for me. She was fired by my supervisor for a serious mistake and I wasn't able to save her job. I stayed in touch with her for some time after that and naturally begin to learn more about her personal life. One day she called me completely hysterical because her husband lost his job of 27 years. This was a heavy blow considering I couldn't rehire her and, even if I could, her check wasn't anywhere close to his.

Well, come to find out, about a year prior to his termination, his supervisor smelled alcohol on his breath. He was told to cut it out. It happened again and he received another warning. A few months after that he was inebriated and caused a car accident (nobody died but it was still bad) and his recognizing that he almost killed a family in another vehicle lead to him seeking treatment for his alcoholism. He called his wife who picked him up and took him to an in-patient alcohol treatment program at his request. She decided that his supervisors didn't need to know that so she called his job every day to say that he was home in bed sick. This went on for about two weeks.

By the start of that third week, she received a call from the Human Resources department at his company. She was trapped. Since his company provides his health insurance they were notified about his in-patient status at the treatment center. She finally came clean about it and he got his walking papers.

So, looking at this strictly from the company's side it's clear he had a serious problem that could not be overlooked, BUT they essentially punished him for seeking help. Looking at it from their side (the husband of my friend and their family), it was overkill. He lost his job after 27 years, didn't get a severance package and was already in his early sixties. His chances of being hired at anything even close to what he was making would have been a miracle. The last I heard (years ago) he is sober but still unemployed.

When we go to doctors' appointments they ask pre-screening questions about substance abuse. The idea is to get people the help they need before it becomes a problem. BUT, what is also does is expose them. It's the same thing in the mental health field. A person is not allowed to discuss homicidal or suicidal thoughts because all mental health professionals (and me also when I was a child abuse advocate) are REQUIRED to report it. This rule may stop people who are "mostly stable" but it also prevents people from being able to discuss whatever is causing their mental angst. A suicidal person or homicidal person isn't going to tell the truth. It won't happen. So, once again, we see the "policies and procedures" that are designed to *help* aren't really working.

There is a general misconception that abused people grow up to abuse people. Yes, that is possible and does happen but it's more common for abused people to do the opposite (as I did, by volunteering as a child abuse advocate). If you look into this you will find that MOST abused people end up in the "helping" fields and swing the pendulum way too far to the other side (being over lenient with their own children). It's a cycle that repeats every other generation or two. For example, I was abused as a child and an adult (my father would just stalk me, bust into my place and beat the hell out of me. He passed about a month ago now and I STILL have no clue why he targeted me).

I have two children and I have NEVER hit them, yelled at them, sworn at them, pushed them away or anything close to that. Here's the reason why. I was beaten at school, in public, at a few of my jobs (they got me fired more than once), in church...there had to be hundreds of witnesses and not one person stood up for me. People would often tell me "well, being a parent is really hard and you don't know how hard it really is." I conceded that point because I wasn't a parent at the time those opinions were expressed. However, I am NOW a parent and seeing my precious babies and enjoying their company and wanting to protect them in bubble wrap (tripled layer) is all I can think about. I have NEVER been angry with my kids. No joke. Never. They decided to open 2 bags of flour to "make it snow" in the house. Yeah, it was a mess but so what? If you can't make it snow in the house when you're a kid, when are you allowed to do it? I think it would be extra weird to stand in the street or at one's job. LOL And, NOW that I am a parent my parents' action seem even more heinous.

So, back to the point of this thread, my concerns about young adults having access to weapons is we are primal. We often react without thinking and it's so easy to fall into some craziness if we aren't careful. It wouldn't matter what age it is listed at because it would still be "too young" in many ways. I have conceded they have a legal right to guns. There is nothing I can do about it (or would even know what to do about it). Sure, most of these young adults will probably be safe and cautious about using a weapon. Some of them won't. As I've matured, I now understand the importance of separating those things I can control and those things I can't. And, I have purposed to just let that go.

 

I'm a bit depleted, so am only offering a partial response, to a partial post, once more. I know what you mean about the hypocrisy. I wonder if most people don't believe such things, when it comes to the medical community, or if they simply feel it is justified, like a cop, lying to a suspect, in order to get a confession.

Back during the AIDS crisis, it got to a point when the medical community was saying that one didn't need to be gay or an I.V. drug user, to get the virus; merely to have sex with someone whose sexual history connected you (all the people who'd slept with the people, who'd then slept with the person who you are now sleeping with). And at that time, I was seeing a woman who was in the midst of a divorce, and whose cheating husband was very promiscuous. So I thought I should get tested. When I asked to be tested though, I was treated as if I were radioactive (and had a 2nd head). The gloves that the nurse wore, when she drew my blood, were super-thick, as one might wear if working with high-voltage current, or at least cleaning toilet bowls. Anyway, the result was negative and, despite what was the public message, from medical authorities, my doctor said that, for a straight, non-needle-sharing guy, like myself, there was really no reason for me to have been concerned.

The image of your kids creating a flour storm, in one of the rooms of your home, is inspiring me to take a gestalt slant: it all comes down to Santa Claus. This tale, parents present to their children, as if it were a wonderful gift. The gift, ultimately, is the knowledge that everyone, including your own parents, is willing to dupe you, if they feel their reason warrants it. The child's naive belief is entertaining, something nostalgic. No thought is given to the disillusionment-- much less about all the time misled, spent focused on a phony star-- not only from the shattered belief in Old St. Nick, but from a slaying of the child's trust in parents to supply truth, or to at least be honest. For, in everyone's eyes, it is their own truth which takes center stage, is all-important. Yet, what other than this lesson, can be the rationale for a society celebrating one of its most sacred of days-- representing humanistic goodwill, even among non-Christians-- with the time-honored tradition of deceiving its children? It must be with the hope of their gaining the understanding that their own pristine vision, their minds' blankets of white, they should expect others to treat with the respect shown to freshly-fallen snow, by a Husky (or a reindeer) with a full bladder.

Here, in fact, is a missed opportunity, since many kids, I believe, don't really grasp what had been the point of the Santa fraud, other than perhaps to mock them and, while there is little choice but to accept it, like the proverbial fruitcake, the experience gets stored in their psyche as something neither comprehended nor questioned, just another Xmas-related item, in the box of decorations-- how much more affecting, and memorable, would be this precious gift to childhood, if we added, to the tradition, the children getting to eat special, yellow snow-cones?

I don't imagine any of that helps?

 

It's pretty common for companies to help folks that are addicted, if they come to them for help, and fire those that lie to them.

And back to topic: Despite the multi-decade blizzard and fake news, Americans see right through it: TO REDUCE VIOLENCE, 53% SAY CRACKING DOWN ON GANG ACTIVITY BETTER THAN RESTRICTING GUN OWNERSHIP.

The Sensible Middle with which the GOP are aligned, on yet another issue, and the hysterical fake news aligned crowd failing to carry the day despite lies and fake news spewed all over the people from multiple outlets, for decades.

 

The left keeps running into the brick wall called the constitution.

 

These "young adults" already have legal access to machine guns - whatever 'danger' you see in not denying their right to own a handgun is not a demonstration of the necessity for preventing the exercise of that right.

 

I drank as soon as I landed in Germany. I was 18.

 

The AWB ban succeeded in doing nothing, therefore it was nothing but a annoyance to the law abiding.

 

The 1994 federal AWB did not succeed in anything.

 

I was, obviously, speaking from a legislative and judicial standpoint: i.e., it was not successfully challenged and struck down.


(But let's not move into new areas-- I'm still intending to reply to your past query. I just haven' t gotten to it, yet.)

 

Ahh.
Judicially, much has changed since then.

 

That is a false assumption, once explained what is involved to implement UBC's, support for them drops to almost zero.

 

It cannot be done without eliminating most health care privacy laws.

And every single time pro-gun groups have tried to have mental health records entered into the NICS database the health care industry fought tooth and nail to prevent such from happening, they claim by entering mental health records into NICS less people will seek out treatment for mental health problems.

 

That has been tried many times and has been defeated by the mental health care industry.

 

100% false, if a person had a gun for self defense and access to that gun takes more than 3 seconds, that person does not have a gun for self defense.

 

Under the ADA they are required to allow time for treatment one time, if the person fails again then can be canned even though addiction is considered a disability under the ADA.

 

I'm sure employers are glad to do that, employees in recovery are extremely valuable, but, in this case, according to what you stated, he lied to his employer, repeatedly, about why he was missing work and his whereabouts. I'm confident that in his recovery process that he owned that, rather than blaming others. I believe you said that his recovery was successful. That's the most important thing.

 

I don't know if this is nationwide or not, but, here in IL, it's mandated to be reported to law enforcement if a person discusses suicide or homicide with their mental health care provider. From this, we can be reasonably sure that a suicidal and/or homicidal person is NOT going to talk about that with their mental health care provider.

The only thing that leaves is some kind of "thought police" intervention.

 

First off, how about a link to something confirming your statement?

Secondly, though this should be obvious, if all it takes to eliminate people's support for Universal Background Checks, is one explaining, "what is involved to implement," them, wouldn't it seem the best way for you to defeat my point, in the eyes of other readers, as well as probably (if, "support for them drops to almost zero") win me over to your point, as well, would be for you to actually do that, i.e. to explain what is involved?

And thirdly, I believe your statement is very misleading, by (I suspect) taking the word, "universal," to its literal extreme; that is, if background checks could be EXPANDED, beyond the current status quo, very easily, and in ways that make sense to most Americans, but you can name one or two exceptions, which only amount to a very small number of cases, which people might agree would be overkill, you are claiming that people, then, do not support universal checks. To get past that specious argument, I'll stipulate a changing of the word universal to, "nearly-universal," or even just, "expanded." NOW, what have you got?

Link?

Well, there is the heart of your disagreement with me, and with most people, in a nutshell: most people, if it will mean fewer accidental shootings by children, and fewer stolen guns in the hands of criminals, i.e. greater safety for society at large, that it takes a gun owner 3 extra seconds to access his weapon, the majority of us do not see this as an onerous burden, over which it is worth sacrificing greater public safety.