Guns modified to look like toys?

[TU Curmudgeon]

currently, i believe most cops would tend to stand down in the presence of a firearm that offered the appearance of a toy

however, that would likely change once these "toys" are found to have lethal capability and becomem widespread
then all toys appearing to look like guns would be perceived to be firearms until proven otherwise. but what happens if a defensively cautious LEO shoots first and evaluates the toy later?

One of the easiest ways to "get the drop on a cop" is to paint the front three inches of your gun's barrel day-glo orange. That way the police officer will know that it isn't "a real gun".

 

[rahl]

Actually that 21 was "court modified" by the court's ruling that it was "unconstitutional" to deny those over the age of 18 and under the age of 21 the right to purchase firearms.

21 is the age limit for handguns. in all 50 states.

 

[justabubba]

21 is the age limit for handguns. in all 50 states.

A federal law that for more than 50 years has banned licensed firearms dealers from selling handguns to young adults between age 18 and 21 is unconstitutional, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday. ...

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2021-07-13/appeals-court-dealers-can-sell-handguns-to-18-year-olds

 

[Lursa]

Minors are subject to decisions made by the parents/guardian. Unless they have been emancipated by the courts. If the parents don't give permission then the minor may not carry a firearm.

So then they dont have the right...they can only do so if they have permission.

If you need permission, it's not a right.

 

[rahl]

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2021-07-13/appeals-court-dealers-can-sell-handguns-to-18-year-olds

yes, I've already addressed the circuit courts ruling. You are still prohibited from buying a handgun in VA if you're under 21.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

21 is the age limit for handguns. in all 50 states.

Possibly so. However, the courts have ruled that that limit is unconstitutional.

From The Seattle Times​

​

​

Gun laws barring sales to people under 21 are unconstitutional, appeals court rules​

​

Laws preventing firearms dealers from selling handguns to young adults under age 21 are unconstitutional, a federal appeals court said Tuesday in a ruling that could have implications for efforts to restrict such sales nationally.​

​

In a divided decision, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit said the existing minimum age requirement for purchases from federally licensed gun dealers restricts the rights of law-abiding citizens and draws an arbitrary, unjustified line.​

​

“Despite the weighty interest in reducing crime and violence, we refuse to relegate either the Second Amendment or 18-to-20-year-olds to a second-class status,” wrote Judge Julius N. Richardson.​

​

The decision, which probably will be appealed to the full court, finds that 18-year-olds possess a Second Amendment right to gun ownership and notes that they were “required at the time of the Founding to serve in the militia and furnish their own weapons,” wrote Richardson, a nominee of President Donald Trump, who was joined by Judge G. Steven Agee, a nominee of President George W. Bush.​

Admittedly the case is going to be appealed, but, with the current make-up of the US Supreme Court, the odds are that the decision will ultimately be upheld.

PS - My apologies for referencing a court case that is only three days old and which you probably had never heard of.

PPS - Please note that I never said that it was NOT "illegal" for persons under 21 to purchase handguns, only that those laws which made it illegal for persons under 21 to purchase handguns had been found to be "unconstitutional" and (under US law) if a law is "unconstitutional" it is a nullity.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

yes, I've already addressed the circuit courts ruling. You are still prohibited from buying a handgun in VA if you're under 21.

And, under the terms of that court decision, that Virginia prohibition is equally unconstitutional. Once the case works its way up to the US Supreme Court, and the US Supreme Court rules in favour of the original Plaintiff, the Virginia law will become a nullity.

 

[Glitch]

currently, i believe most cops would tend to stand down in the presence of a firearm that offered the appearance of a toy

however, that would likely change once these "toys" are found to have lethal capability and becomem widespread
then all toys appearing to look like guns would be perceived to be firearms until proven otherwise. but what happens if a defensively cautious LEO shoots first and evaluates the toy later?

They go to prison. They can't shoot people just because they THINK someone may have a firearm. They need to be absolutely certain before they pull the trigger. We do not need trigger-happy police. It is not that difficult. When I was growing up we had cap guns that looked just like real revolvers, and the COPs were not going around blowing away children playing with their cap guns. So if law enforcement is shooting first and only determining that the item was a toy after-the-fact, they need to be locked away for the rest of their life.

 

[justabubba]

They go to prison. They can't shoot people just because they THINK someone may have a firearm. They need to be absolutely certain before they pull the trigger. We do not need trigger-happy police. It is not that difficult. When I was growing up we had cap guns that looked just like real revolvers, and the COPs were not going around blowing away children playing with their cap guns. So if law enforcement is shooting first and only determining that the item was a toy after-the-fact, they need to be locked away for the rest of their life.

yep, putting away the cop is going to bring that kid back
not putting the kid in position to be killed would be a great start
such as disallowing firearms to give the appearance of toys

 

[Glitch]

So then they dont have the right...they can only do so if they have permission.

If you need permission, it's not a right.

Only when they are a minor. All minors are subject to the authority of their parents/guardians. Minors don't have any rights, unless their parents/guardians allow it. This is somehow news to you?

 

[Lursa]

Only when they are a minor. All minors are subject to the authority of their parents/guardians. Minors don't have any rights, unless their parents/guardians allow it. This is somehow news to you?

So they dont have the right. That's what I asked. You claimed, clearly, that they did and then qualified it 'with permission.'

So that means 'they dont have the right.'

Thank you.

 

[Glitch]

yep, putting away the cop is going to bring that kid back
not putting the kid in position to be killed would be a great start
such as disallowing firearms to give the appearance of toys

Not allowing such an idiot to become a COP in the first place is where you start. Then you won't have to infringe on the rights of others because you are not authorizing a moron to shoot children willy-nilly. Unless, of course, that was your intent in the first place.

You never know about leftists filth, they are always advocating for the deaths of others if it will advance their Marxist agenda. So it would not surprise me to discover that you want COPs to kill children on a regular basis.

 

[Glitch]

So they dont have the right. That's what I asked. You claimed, clearly, that they did and then qualified it 'with permission.'

So that means 'they dont have the right.'

Thank you.

Minors don't have the right. That doesn't mean it isn't an individual right. But be deliberately obtuse. I expect it from your ilk anyway. Leftists are always several beers shy of a six-pack, which explains why they are leftist.

 

[rahl]

Possibly so. However, the courts have ruled that that limit is unconstitutional.

From The Seattle Times​

​

​

Gun laws barring sales to people under 21 are unconstitutional, appeals court rules​

​

Laws preventing firearms dealers from selling handguns to young adults under age 21 are unconstitutional, a federal appeals court said Tuesday in a ruling that could have implications for efforts to restrict such sales nationally.​

​

In a divided decision, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit said the existing minimum age requirement for purchases from federally licensed gun dealers restricts the rights of law-abiding citizens and draws an arbitrary, unjustified line.​

​

“Despite the weighty interest in reducing crime and violence, we refuse to relegate either the Second Amendment or 18-to-20-year-olds to a second-class status,” wrote Judge Julius N. Richardson.​

​

The decision, which probably will be appealed to the full court, finds that 18-year-olds possess a Second Amendment right to gun ownership and notes that they were “required at the time of the Founding to serve in the militia and furnish their own weapons,” wrote Richardson, a nominee of President Donald Trump, who was joined by Judge G. Steven Agee, a nominee of President George W. Bush.​

Admittedly the case is going to be appealed, but, with the current make-up of the US Supreme Court, the odds are that the decision will ultimately be upheld.

PS - My apologies for referencing a court case that is only three days old and which you probably had never heard of.

PPS - Please note that I never said that it was NOT "illegal" for persons under 21 to purchase handguns, only that those laws which made it illegal for persons under 21 to purchase handguns had been found to be "unconstitutional" and (under US law) if a law is "unconstitutional" it is a nullity.

no, not possibly so. Demonstrably so. I hear of the case and already addressed it. It is a circuit court ruling, about a case from VA. It remains illegal to purchase a handgun if you are under 21 in VA.

 

[rahl]

And, under the terms of that court decision, that Virginia prohibition is equally unconstitutional.

no, it isn't. If/when SCOTUS takes the case and rules it unconstitutional, then it will be. It remains illegal in all 50 states, under federal law, to purchase a handgun if you are under 21.

Once the case works its way up to the US Supreme Court, and the US Supreme Court rules in favour of the original Plaintiff, the Virginia law will become a nullity.

yes, that is how constitutional law works. Until then, it remains illegal in all 50 states by federal law.

 

[Bodi]

I present:

View attachment 67342651

​

About a week ago, a company in Utah that makes custom modifications to firearms debuted what it described as a fun new product: a kit that encases Glock handguns in red, yellow and blue Lego blocks, refashioning lethal weapons to look exactly like children’s toys. “We have been building guns out of blocks for the last 30 years and wanted to flip the script to aggravate Mom,” Provo-based Culper Precision explained on its website. It went on to argue that personal defense is a right granted by God and that gun ownership is protected by the Constitution before getting to the most important reason the company was selling “BLOCK19,” as the design was named, for $549 to $765, depending on the specifics. ​

​

“There is a satisfaction that can ONLY be found in the shooting sports and this is just one small way to break the rhetoric from Anti-Gun folks and draw attention to the fact that the shooting sports are SUPER FUN!” the site proclaimed, exuding a bravado that would prove to be short-lived. “Here’s the thing. Guns are fun. Shooting is fun. 30 rounds full auto is fun.” What’s not fun, and went unaddressed on the sales page, is the reality that thousands of children unintentionally shoot themselves or others each year because they find a gun and pull its trigger. . . . ​

​

If the child of one of his customers finds a Lego-modified gun and shoots himself with it, Scott said that would be the customer’s fault, not his. . . he added that he does not believe an adult who allows a child access to a gun that looks like a toy — resulting in the child’s death — should be held criminally liable.​

​

[cont].​

​

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2021/07/13/lego-gun-glock-controversy/

​

Apparently there is no collorary law to the federal one prohibiting making toys being made to look just like actually guns. (ie, prohibiting guns from being designed to look like toys). They didn't bother doing a full 50-state survey to determine just how many states this would be legal in.

Wonderful. We will no doubt have more chidren that end up getting themselves killed thanks to the idiocy of the parents. We'll have more gun nuts making a big show of how little they care by shrugging at the idiot parents' poor decision in leaving the gun around, while making as sure as they possibly can to avoid the fact that it's not fair to the child to blame its death on the idiocy of its parent. Just as the shit quoted in the article says.

And I suppose we might have to consider worrying about whether our kids smuggle an actually toy gun they've made out of legos outside and get shot by a police officer who has heard about this guns that look like toys and who "does not know it is not a real gun" like the one he'd read about.

Thanks. Thanks a lot.

I hope that no kid dies from this... but if it happens I hope these guys are charged with murder.

 

[Bodi]

Decorating a gun goes back to a few minutes after the first gun was made. I am hesitant in a full out agreement that we need laws preventing decorating guns because I honestly don’t see anything wrong with wanting your zodiac sign, favorite sports team, piece of art, or almost anything to Personalize your gun reason. that said I do think the example in the OP is an extreme case and there should be ways to prevent such modifications that go to far. The devil is of course goi to be defining the line.

I see a problem if gangs get a hold of this... walking around with supposed fake guns.

 

[Lursa]

Minors don't have the right.

That's all I asked.

That doesn't mean it isn't an individual right. But be deliberately obtuse. I expect it from your ilk anyway.

You were the one being adamant and definite. So I opened the door to the honest answer.

Leftists are always several beers shy of a six-pack, which explains why they are leftist.

Getting mad at others, blaming others when called out....sounds several beers shy for sure.

 

[Bum]

I present:

View attachment 67342651

​

About a week ago, a company in Utah that makes custom modifications to firearms debuted what it described as a fun new product: a kit that encases Glock handguns in red, yellow and blue Lego blocks, refashioning lethal weapons to look exactly like children’s toys. “We have been building guns out of blocks for the last 30 years and wanted to flip the script to aggravate Mom,” Provo-based Culper Precision explained on its website. It went on to argue that personal defense is a right granted by God and that gun ownership is protected by the Constitution before getting to the most important reason the company was selling “BLOCK19,” as the design was named, for $549 to $765, depending on the specifics. ​

​

“There is a satisfaction that can ONLY be found in the shooting sports and this is just one small way to break the rhetoric from Anti-Gun folks and draw attention to the fact that the shooting sports are SUPER FUN!” the site proclaimed, exuding a bravado that would prove to be short-lived. “Here’s the thing. Guns are fun. Shooting is fun. 30 rounds full auto is fun.” What’s not fun, and went unaddressed on the sales page, is the reality that thousands of children unintentionally shoot themselves or others each year because they find a gun and pull its trigger. . . . ​

​

If the child of one of his customers finds a Lego-modified gun and shoots himself with it, Scott said that would be the customer’s fault, not his. . . he added that he does not believe an adult who allows a child access to a gun that looks like a toy — resulting in the child’s death — should be held criminally liable.​

​

[cont].​

​

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2021/07/13/lego-gun-glock-controversy/

​

Apparently there is no collorary law to the federal one prohibiting making toys being made to look just like actually guns. (ie, prohibiting guns from being designed to look like toys). They didn't bother doing a full 50-state survey to determine just how many states this would be legal in.

Wonderful. We will no doubt have more chidren that end up getting themselves killed thanks to the idiocy of the parents. We'll have more gun nuts making a big show of how little they care by shrugging at the idiot parents' poor decision in leaving the gun around, while making as sure as they possibly can to avoid the fact that it's not fair to the child to blame its death on the idiocy of its parent. Just as the shit quoted in the article says.

And I suppose we might have to consider worrying about whether our kids smuggle an actually toy gun they've made out of legos outside and get shot by a police officer who has heard about this guns that look like toys and who "does not know it is not a real gun" like the one he'd read about.

Thanks. Thanks a lot.

Gawd......as if stepping on the damn things wasn't bad enough....

 

[Glitch]

That's all I asked.


You were the one being adamant and definite. So I opened the door to the honest answer.


Getting mad at others, blaming others when called out....sounds several beers shy for sure.

If you want to delude yourself by claiming that rights do not exist, feel free. I know that is what all leftist filth believe. Unfortunately for you, reality is considerably different. Whether you like it or not, people do have individual rights and some of those individual rights are protected by the US Constitution.

So by all means continue to spew your "nobody has any rights" BS, so we can all have a good laugh at your expense.

 

[lwf]

Thank you for not being able to see the similarity between "unalienable with qualifications" and "a little bit pregnant".

If you don't like the word, pick a different one. If your point is that technically speaking there is no such thing as an "unalienable" right by the true definition of the word, then fine. But we all know that there are civil rights that are guaranteed by the constitution. If people using the word "unalienable" to refer to constitutionally guaranteed rights confuses you, then just don't use it. But I don't see the point in splitting this particular hair.

 

[lwf]

Because the decision to intentionally take anyone's life should always be a hard one. Are you suggesting that it should be easy for police to kill people?

It should be easier for police to choose not to kill people. Having actual firearms that resemble children's toys could potentially make it harder for a police officer to make that choice when he is choosing between taking the life of someone else's child brandishing what looks like a Lego handgun or allowing his own children to become orphans.

 

[Lursa]

If you want to delude yourself by claiming that rights do not exist, feel free.

You are making shit up I never wrote. Why? Why lie?

I know that is what all leftist filth believe.

Your posts do not indicate that, at all. "Facts not in evidence."

Unfortunately for you, reality is considerably different.

For you, that's only conditional on whether or not we agree on an issue. Am I delusional when we agree too?

Wow, common sense really doesnt even occur to you does it?

Whether you like it or not, people do have individual rights and some of those individual rights are protected by the US Constitution.

Never wrote otherwise and your repeated lying shows you have no real argument and are wrong.

So by all means continue to spew your "nobody has any rights" BS, so we can all have a good laugh at your expense.

Again, never wrote that. Feel free to post a quote where I did.

I'll wait

When none appears, we'll all know you lied.

 

[jimbo]

So that means that convicted murderers sitting on Death Row are "constitutionally entitled" to keep and bear arms - right? And that means that any so-called "laws" which infringe on that "constitutional right" are, in and of themselves "unconstitutional" - right?

Have you ever actually read the constitution?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

 

[Glitch]

It should be easier for police to choose not to kill people. Having actual firearms that resemble children's toys could potentially make it harder for a police officer to make that choice when he is choosing between taking the life of someone else's child brandishing what looks like a Lego handgun or allowing his own children to become orphans.

Except that we know that is not true. Children's toys have ALWAYS resembled real weapons since the beginning of time. You are just looking for an excuse for COPs to kill children.

Where were all those thousands of children deaths by COP when we were playing cowboys and indians with realistic looking cap-gun revolvers? According to you, COPs should have been shooting children by the thousands every year. So your so-called "potential" is just another lie.