• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Federals appeals court: California ban on sales of semiautomatic weapons to persons under 21 unconstitutional

Do you think this will be the end of it or just force states to come up with a different approach to accomplish their goal
 
Laws are not meant to prevent crime. Laws do not prevent crime. Laws are meant to provide an avenue for justice. They allow us (society) to, after the fact, act in a way that justifies the existence of society. A law banning firearm sales to those beyond legal age serves no avenue of justice.

A law preventing the sale of alcohol to those under 21 allows us to pursue justice. It allows us to hold those who would take advantage of someone accountable.

How does a law preventing the sale of a firearm to someone beyond the age of adulthood prevent those quasi-children from being taken advantage of? What purpose does it serve in the name of those affected; how does it serve to protect their rights?
 
Good.

What is it with the political left, they don't think a 20 year old has rights?
 
Do you think this will be the end of it
Nope. I don't think they'll allow 50 cal weapons, but I think more and more laws in the more restrictive states will be challenged and they'll win.
 


Saw this one coming.


Irrelevant compared to the fact that pretty much NO law abiding citizen of this state can get a concealed carry permit except maybe up around Redding or elsewhere near Southern Oregon.
The Mumford Act is a much bigger issue than whether or not a kid can buy a semi-auto firearm.
 
Laws are not meant to prevent crime. Laws do not prevent crime. Laws are meant to provide an avenue for justice. They allow us (society) to, after the fact, act in a way that justifies the existence of society. A law banning firearm sales to those beyond legal age serves no avenue of justice.

A law preventing the sale of alcohol to those under 21 allows us to pursue justice. It allows us to hold those who would take advantage of someone accountable.

How does a law preventing the sale of a firearm to someone beyond the age of adulthood prevent those quasi-children from being taken advantage of? What purpose does it serve in the name of those affected; how does it serve to protect their rights?

Just a note, most crime that involves a sentence of incarceration does not end up in someone serving a sentence in jail or prison. Besides that, most people get away with crime. LEO cannot prevent/stop crime. We expect too much of them.
 
Just a note, most crime that involves a sentence of incarceration does not end up in someone serving a sentence in jail or prison. Besides that, most people get away with crime. LEO cannot prevent/stop crime. We expect too much of them.

Too often the justice system is misconceived as a punishment system. Such an idea kinda half gets it. The justice system is about dealing with crime after the fact, true. It's about society being able to act in a manner, in response to a crime, so as to justify the existence of society.

But punishment is not justice. Public safety through incarceration and opportunity for redemption through rehabilitation are justice. It's not about punishment, as punishment does not justify the existence of society, it's about public safety and opportunity for redemption. If we misconstrue the system as punishment, we are one step from a cruelty system.
 
Persons under 21 are an important part of our "well regulated militia."
 
Persons under 21 are an important part of our "well regulated militia."

U.S. Code § 246.Militia: composition and classes

(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
 
That state is like having Russia and China within our borders. They are straight up insane.
That is one stupid ****ing comment. Not surprising it came from you.
 
9th Circuit Court en banc to overturn in 5, 4, 3, ...

9th circuit en banc panels are randomly selected. There's always a chance that a majority of Trumpers will get on there.
 
But gun violence is liberals fault according to the right wing losers. Yeeehaw! Every ***** in this country gets a gun
 
9th Circuit Court en banc to overturn in 5, 4, 3, ...

Judge Van Dyke described the current situation with the 9th Circuit and California gun laws wonderfully in his dissent of the en banc overturn of Duncan v Bonta:

By my count, we have had at least 50 Second Amendment challenges since Heller—significantly more than any other circuit—all of which we have ultimately denied. In those few instances where a panel of our court has granted Second Amendment relief, we have without fail taken the case en banc to reverse that ruling. This is true regardless of the diverse regulations that have come before us—from storage restrictions to waiting periods to ammunition restrictions to conceal carry bans to open carry bans to magazine capacity prohibitions—the common thread is our court’s ready willingness to bless any restriction related to guns. Respectfully, Judge Hurwitz’s claim that our judges’ personal views about the Second Amendment and guns have not affected our jurisprudence is simply not plausible. Res ipsa loquitur. [It speaks for itself] Pages 155-156
 
... “America would not exist without the heroism of the young adults who fought and died in our revolutionary army,” Judge Ryan Nelson wrote. “Today we reaffirm that our Constitution still protects the right that enabled their sacrifice: the right of young adults to keep and bear arms.” ...

This clown nelson must think that the chinese are gunna storm the beaches of Malibu any day now or something.

So, some immature, hot-headed 18yo can't buy a f***in' Michelob in LA, but has a constitutional 'right' to own a mass-killing machine???

You can't make this shit up.

You're a SERIOUSLY sick motherf***er, in my always humble opinion, nelson...
 
... “America would not exist without the heroism of the young adults who fought and died in our revolutionary army,” Judge Ryan Nelson wrote. “Today we reaffirm that our Constitution still protects the right that enabled their sacrifice: the right of young adults to keep and bear arms.” ...

This clown nelson must think that the chinese are gunna storm the beaches of Malibu any day now or something.

So, some immature, hot-headed 18yo can't buy a f***in' Michelob in LA, but has a constitutional 'right' to own a mass-killing machine???

You can't make this shit up.

You're a SERIOUSLY sick motherf***er, in my always humble opinion, nelson...
I'm not aware of any states where an 18 year old can't get a beer.
 
I'm not aware of any states where an 18 year old can't get a beer.
California, for one.

Somehow, even though California does not consider an 18 year old mature enough to drink, buy a semiauto rifle or be responsible for their student loans, they're still allowed to vote.
 
California, for one.

Somehow, even though California does not consider an 18 year old mature enough to drink, buy a semiauto rifle or be responsible for their student loans, they're still allowed to vote.
I'm pretty sure that any 18 year old in California that wants a beer can find a way to get one.
 
I'm pretty sure that any 18 year old in California that wants a beer can find a way to get one.
I assumed you meant legally. Based on my experience as an 18 year old in California, I plead the fifth.;)
 
I assumed you meant legally. Based on my experience as an 18 year old in California, I plead the fifth.;)
I assumed also, so no harm no foul. Oregon's an ass in that regard as well. Though at 17 I could walk into most bars/taverns and never be hassled.
 
Future school shooters and other future teenage mass-killers must be partying in my beautiful California tonight.

I suggest an appointment with a local psychiatrist asap, nelson.

You got some serious mental issues, dude...

 
Back
Top Bottom