18-to-20-year-olds can’t be barred from buying handguns, judge rules

[NolanVoyd]

Review what?

You're intentionally avoiding the topic to shout review at me as if that means anything.

You haven't made a post on the subject yet why is that why are you here?

Why are you so afraid to talk about the subject?

You really should review the conversation.

 

[SiNNiK]

Written at a time when a single shot musket was high tech and there was no standing US army. Citizen militias was all we had.

Single shot musket you say?

Girardoni Air Rifle - Forgotten Weapons

The Girardoni (also spelled Girandoni) air rifle was a very advanced design adopted in 1780 by the Austrian Army. While the standard arm of the day was a single-shot flintlock, the Girardoni offered a massive firepower advantage to the men who carried it. The guns (designed by Bartholomäus...

www.forgottenweapons.com

 

[Rich2018]

The army and the militia serve two very different purposes.

The militias purpose was never national defense

So how to you explain their presence at the battle of Bladensburg ?

 

[CLAX1911]

At the time of our revolutionary war they were one and the same.

So what?

 

[CLAX1911]

You really should review the conversation.

I'm not interested.

You're doing your best to avoid the topic.

Why is that?

 

[CLAX1911]

Single shot musket you say?
View attachment 67448324

Girardoni Air Rifle - Forgotten Weapons

The Girardoni (also spelled Girandoni) air rifle was a very advanced design adopted in 1780 by the Austrian Army. While the standard arm of the day was a single-shot flintlock, the Girardoni offered a massive firepower advantage to the men who carried it. The guns (designed by Bartholomäus...

www.forgottenweapons.com

I would say this doesn't matter it meant arms is unbearable arms pistols rifles shotguns that sort of thing.

The fact that it's semi-automatic doesn't disqualify it from being an arm that's bearable.

Besides the burden of proof on whether or not a firearm should be banned breasts with the state they don't just get to do it on their own for no reason.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/05/11/judge-rules-handgun-sales-allowed-18-year-olds/

A federal judge in Virginia has declared unconstitutional a set of laws and regulations that prohibit federally licensed firearms dealers from selling handguns to 18-to-20-year-olds, finding that the measures violated the Second Amendment.

“Because the statutes and regulations in question are not consistent with our Nation’s history and tradition, they, therefore, cannot stand,” U.S. District Judge Robert E. Payne, who sits in Richmond, concluded in a 71-page opinion.

Gun-control advocates say the decision, if allowed to stand, would significantly increase gun access for a population that research shows is more impulsive and responsible for a disproportionate number of fatal shootings. But attorneys on both sides of the case said they expected the Justice Department to appeal and request a stay, which would prevent Payne’s ruling from taking effect while higher courts weigh the case.
==========================================
This country has gone gun crazy. The 2A only deals with the arming of state militias,

In 1790, if a person had been convicted of a felony and had completed their jail sentence, they WERE allowed to "keep and bear arms".

Therefore, any so-called "legislation" which infringes on the right of a convicted felon who has completed their jail sentence to "keep and bear arms" MUST be contrary to what the Founding Fathers had as their Original Intent when drafting and incorporating "The Second Amendment" and that means that any so-called "legislation" which purports to prohibit felons who have completed their sentence of incarceration from "keeping and bearing arms" is unconstitutional.

[The above legal opinion, has been provided by the law firm of Wieselwort, du Plicité, Poco-Escrupuloso, Flerd, and Corrotto LLP, was paid for and has been officially approved and endorsed by "Devoted Online Lovers of Trump" Inc. (a non-partisan, independent, research and analysis organization exempt from federal taxation that is dedicated to bringing you the true truth and not the false truth that anyone who doesn't believe 100% of what Donald Trump says tries to tell you the so-called "facts" are), "Pro-Life United Gun Enthusiasts and Manufacturers for Jesus", and “"The ‘First Amendment Rights Trust’ Foundation”.]​

 

[Rich2018]

So what?

So the NG was also intended for national defense.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/05/11/judge-rules-handgun-sales-allowed-18-year-olds/

A federal judge in Virginia has declared unconstitutional a set of laws and regulations that prohibit federally licensed firearms dealers from selling handguns to 18-to-20-year-olds, finding that the measures violated the Second Amendment.

“Because the statutes and regulations in question are not consistent with our Nation’s history and tradition, they, therefore, cannot stand,” U.S. District Judge Robert E. Payne, who sits in Richmond, concluded in a 71-page opinion.

Gun-control advocates say the decision, if allowed to stand, would significantly increase gun access for a population that research shows is more impulsive and responsible for a disproportionate number of fatal shootings. But attorneys on both sides of the case said they expected the Justice Department to appeal and request a stay, which would prevent Payne’s ruling from taking effect while higher courts weigh the case.
==========================================
This country has gone gun crazy. The 2A only deals with the arming of state militias,

Just thank your lucky stars for such a Well Regulated Militia.

Something bad could happen without it!!

PRAISE GUN!!!!!

 

[Rich2018]

Just thank your lucky stars for such a Well Regulated Militia.

Something bad could happen without it!!

PRAISE GUN!!!!!

Yeah, the US Army would run out of soldiers.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

That's not a good argument. My reading of the constitution on that point doesn't support prohibiting guns until 21. I would prefer no one be able to purchase a gun until there 21. If its some right why restrict at 18? Why not 16, 14? If there is an age that is appropriate then why not 21?

#1: Registration​

All of the colonies – apart from Quaker-dominated Pennsylvania, the one colony in which religious pacifists blocked the creation of a militia – enrolled local citizens, white men between the ages of 16-60 in state-regulated militias. The colonies and then the newly independent states kept track of these privately owned weapons required for militia service. Men could be fined if they reported to a muster without a well-maintained weapon in working condition.

#2: Public carry​

The American colonies inherited a variety of restrictions that evolved under English Common Law. In 18th-century England, armed travel was limited to a few well-defined occasions such as assisting justices of the peace and constables. Members of the upper classes also had a limited exception to travel with arms. Concealable weapons such as handguns were subject to even more stringent restrictions. The city of London banned public carry of these weapons entirely.

The American Revolution did not sweep away English common law. In fact, most colonies adopted common law as it had been interpreted in the colonies prior to independence, including the ban on traveling armed in populated areas. Thus, there was no general right of armed travel when the Second Amendment was adopted, and certainly no right to travel with concealed weapons.

In other parts of the nation, the traditional English restrictions on traveling armed persisted with one important change. American law recognized an exception to this prohibition for individuals who had a good cause to fear an imminent threat. Nonetheless, by the end of the century, prohibiting public carry was the legal norm, not the exception.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

#3: Stand-your-ground laws​

Under traditional English common law, one had a duty to retreat, not stand your ground. Deadly force was justified only if no other alternative was possible. One had to retreat, until retreat was no longer possible, before killing an aggressor.

The use of deadly force was justified only in the home, where retreat was not required under the so-called castle doctrine, or the idea that “a man’s home is his castle.”

#4: Safe storage laws​

Although some gun rights advocates attempt to demonize government power, it is important to recognize that one of the most important rights citizens enjoy is the freedom to elect representatives who can enact laws to promote health and public safety. This is the foundation for the idea of ordered liberty. The regulation of gun powder and firearms arises from an exercise of this basic liberty.

In 1786, Boston acted on this legal principle, prohibiting the storage of a loaded firearm in any domestic dwelling in the city. Guns had to be kept unloaded, a practice that made sense since the black powder used in firearms in this period was corrosive. Loaded guns also posed a particular hazard in cases of fire because they might discharge and injure innocent bystanders and those fighting fires.

#5: Loyalty oaths​

One of the most common claims one hears in the modern Second Amendment debate is the assertion that the Founders included this provision in the Constitution to make possible a right of revolution. But this claim, too, rests on a serious misunderstanding of the role the right to bear arms played in American constitutional theory.

In fact, the Founders engaged in large-scale disarmament of the civilian population during the American Revolution. The right to bear arms was conditional on swearing a loyalty oath to the government. Individuals who refused to swear such an oath were disarmed.

The notion that the Second Amendment was understood to protect a right to take up arms against the government is absurd. Indeed, the Constitution itself defines such an act as treason.

[SOURCE]

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I was taught in high school the reason 21 is the minimum age to drink alcohol is biological: something about the ability of our livers to digest it. If that is true, it makes perfect sense to make 21 the minimum age for drinking.

It isn't true.

Mind you the amount of beer that it takes to get a 49.5 pound, 47.7" tall seven year old drunk is one heck of a lot less than it takes to get a 125 pound 64.2" tall 18 year old drunk.

But there also are biological reasons 18 is too young to use a gun.

PIFFLE, kids as young as three years old are perfectly, biologically, able to use guns.

People are still mentally immature and making bad judgments.

A state that is also quite capable of existing in the mind of a 64-year-old man from Mesquite, Nevada.

So the same people who are not old enough to digest alcohol

"False postulate"

are not able to properly use a firearm without mandatory training.

As is the case with (for example) a 64-year-old man from Mesquite, Nevada.

BTW, Lee Harvey Oswald had lots of "mandatory training" in the use of firearms.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The badge means that person needs a firearm to do his or her job.

PIFFLE. There are lots of police officers who wear badges and do not **N*E*E*D** a gun to do their jobs.

The police in London (population of about 9.5 million vs. New York's 8.1 million), England, wear badges. They also do not **N*E*E*D** a gun to do their jobs.

The only people who need to own firearms are those who have those jobs.

Really? Why?

There is no reason 18 needs to be the minimum age for being a combat soldier.

True and simply being 18 years old does not mean that the person is actually mentally ready to become a combat soldier.

It just happens to be that age because of the draft,

Well, actually it's because the optics of "drafting school children" really suck and would be almost certainly result in any legislator who voted in favor of doing that having to fine new employment at the end of their current term of office.

which will never happen again.

Don't bet the ranch on that one.

Why are you worried about this during peace time, anyway?

The US is only "enjoying peacetime" because it has not formally declared war on any of the countries that it is engaging in warfare with. In fact, the US has OFFICIALLY "been at peace" since September 2, 1945.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I was first served alcohol in a bar in NY State at 16.

I was "carded" in Cleveland in 1963. They asked for my draft card and I produced my military ID which stated that I was an officer (and contained no details on my age). I got served. I was NOT 21 years old at the time.

 

[Glitch]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/05/11/judge-rules-handgun-sales-allowed-18-year-olds/

A federal judge in Virginia has declared unconstitutional a set of laws and regulations that prohibit federally licensed firearms dealers from selling handguns to 18-to-20-year-olds, finding that the measures violated the Second Amendment.

“Because the statutes and regulations in question are not consistent with our Nation’s history and tradition, they, therefore, cannot stand,” U.S. District Judge Robert E. Payne, who sits in Richmond, concluded in a 71-page opinion.

Gun-control advocates say the decision, if allowed to stand, would significantly increase gun access for a population that research shows is more impulsive and responsible for a disproportionate number of fatal shootings. But attorneys on both sides of the case said they expected the Justice Department to appeal and request a stay, which would prevent Payne’s ruling from taking effect while higher courts weigh the case.
==========================================
This country has gone gun crazy. The 2A only deals with the arming of state militias,

Inherent rights cannot be restricted by age. You have them from the instant of your birth, to the time of your death.

Naturally, leftist pieces of shit don't believe anyone has any rights. The Second Amendment deals with the State's constitutional authority to call forth their own State militias, AND the right of the people to keep and bear arms. If you actually had an education you would know that amendments often contain multiple rights, like the First Amendment, and they are not all directly related to each other. The Second Amendment identifies two distinct rights, one grants authority to the State, and the other is inherent to the people.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Already provided a citation.

Here is another.

Summary: Although some advocates want to lower the legal drinking age from 21, research continues to show that the law saves lives. Researchers found that studies done since 2006 -- when a new debate over age-21 laws flared up -- have continued to demonstrate that the mandates work. The laws, studies show, are associated with lower rates of drunk-driving crashes among young people. And it seems they also curb other hazards of heavy drinking -- including suicide, dating violence ......"

Age-21 drinking laws save lives, study confirms

Although some advocates want to lower the legal drinking age from 21, research continues to show that the law saves lives. Researchers found that studies done since 2006 -- when a new debate over age-21 laws flared up -- have continued to demonstrate that the mandates work. The laws, studies...

www.sciencedaily.com

Did you know that if the legal drinking age was raised to 65 that would also lower rates of drunk-driving crashes and would also curb other hazards of heavy drinking - including suicide and dating violence?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Inherent rights cannot be restricted by age. You have them from the instant of your birth, to the time of your death.

So, since the rights of individuals to "keep and bear arms" CAN be restricted so that you cease to have it at some time prior to your death - does that mean that you are in agreement that the "right to keep and bear arms" is NOT an "inherent right"?

Naturally, leftist pieces of shit don't believe anyone has any rights.

Thus exhibiting the fact that the depth of your knowledge on political philosophies isn't sufficient to wet the welts of my wellies.

The Second Amendment deals with the State's constitutional authority to call forth their own State militias, AND the right of the people to keep and bear arms. If you actually had an education you would know that amendments often contain multiple rights, like the First Amendment, and they are not all directly related to each other. The Second Amendment identifies two distinct rights, one grants authority to the State, and the other is inherent to the people.

Did you know that the "State" referred top in the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America is the nation and not the former colonies individually?

 

[Glitch]

Written at a time when a single shot musket was high tech and there was no standing US army. Citizen militias was all we had.

You clearly have no clue what you are talking about.

The US has had a standing Army since September 29, 1789, two years before the Second Amendment existed. Before the Second Amendment existed only Congress had the constitutional authority to call forth the militia. The prefatory clause of the Second Amendment changed that, and it also acknowledged a provision in the English Bill of Rights of 1689 - that acknowledged the right of everyone to be armed.

This is when an actually education would have served you better than your very obvious leftist indoctrination.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

So how to you explain their presence at the battle of Bladensburg ?

By not knowing that, at the time of the drafting of the US constitution BOTH "standing armies" (which neither the US nor Great Britain had) and "militias" were the same thing - the NATIONAL military.

 

[Glitch]

So, since the rights of individuals to "keep and bear arms" CAN be restricted so that you cease to have it at some time prior to your death - does that mean that you are in agreement that the "right to keep and bear arms" is NOT an "inherent right"?

Don't be silly. Inherent rights can only be restricted through due process of law, which can also result in not just the suspension of inherent rights, but can also deprive someone of their life, liberty, or property. That does not make it any less of an inherent right. It merely makes it a government suspended inherent right, prohibiting the individual from exercising their inherent right under penalty of law.

Naturally, I would not expect a leftist to be able to comprehend the concept of inherent rights. It is far beyond your ability.

Thus exhibiting the fact that the depth of your knowledge on political philosophies isn't sufficient to wet the welts of my wellies.

Did you know that the "State" referred top in the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America is the nation and not the former colonies individually?

As if a Canadian could possibly have a clue.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Don't be silly. Inherent rights can only be restricted through due process of law, which can also result in not just the suspension of inherent rights, but can also deprive someone of their life, liberty, or property. That does not make it any less of an inherent right. It merely makes it a government suspended inherent right, prohibiting the individual from exercising their inherent right under penalty of law.

Naturally, I would not expect a leftist to be able to comprehend the concept of inherent rights. It is far beyond your ability.

The totality of misunderstanding in that is almost beyond comprehension.
For one thing, if "Inherent rights can only be restricted through due process of law, which can also result in not just the suspension of inherent rights, but can also deprive someone of their life, liberty, or property. That does not make it any less of an inherent right." is true, then that means that everyone has the "inherent right" to steal or to murder or to be married to more than one person at the same time because everyone is capable of doing those things and their ability to do those things is only "restricted through due process of law".

IOW, the term "inherent right" is a meaningless babble.

Start thinking of "essential freedoms" rather than "inherent rights" and you will start forming a more coherent world view.

As if a Canadian could possibly have a clue.

Now how does where I choose to live have anything whatsoever to do with my citizenship?

And how does my citizenship have anything to do with my intelligence or ability to reason?

However I do have to admit that Canadians do elect very few legislators who are of the same caliber as Ms. Palin was.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

There is no reason 18 needs to be the minimum age for being a combat soldier.

It's not. It can be 17 with the parents consent.

 

[CLAX1911]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/05/11/judge-rules-handgun-sales-allowed-18-year-olds/

A federal judge in Virginia has declared unconstitutional a set of laws and regulations that prohibit federally licensed firearms dealers from selling handguns to 18-to-20-year-olds, finding that the measures violated the Second Amendment.

“Because the statutes and regulations in question are not consistent with our Nation’s history and tradition, they, therefore, cannot stand,” U.S. District Judge Robert E. Payne, who sits in Richmond, concluded in a 71-page opinion.

Gun-control advocates say the decision, if allowed to stand, would significantly increase gun access for a population that research shows is more impulsive and responsible for a disproportionate number of fatal shootings. But attorneys on both sides of the case said they expected the Justice Department to appeal and request a stay, which would prevent Payne’s ruling from taking effect while higher courts weigh the case.
==========================================
This country has gone gun crazy. The 2A only deals with the arming of state militias,

With things like this happening and 11 states over the past 3 years making constitutional carry the law and 61% of counties in the US supporting gun rights guess the majority of people don't really support gun control or whatever you want to call gun control.

It's like the majority of people support freedom. Imagine that.

 

[CLAX1911]

You don't need to come here and post your opinions either, so there is no reason to tell me I should have stayed out of this thread.

If you hate me, you are free to put me on your ignore list. I will post here every time a poster replies to me.

I care more about human lives than the right to own something that was invented specifically to end human lives. Do you?

But you can have the right to own something and still care about human lives because the two aren't mutually exclusive.