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

18 year olds in the military are generally not in regular contact with minors.

Not sure about the 18 year olds drinking under age in the military thing. Could be unit by unit, but my room mate in the barracks was not allowed to drink.

 

18 year olds are welcome to purchase all sorts of firearms for self defense. A handgun isn’t the only available means.

I think actual everyday pragmatism is at the core of the argument.

 

I have to assume you misquoted, because I don’t see how this is a response to my post.

 

Never mind since you tell me you need it to be explained.

 

The 4th en banc used spurious logic in uphold the "assault weapons" ban. Why should we trust them here? The left leaning judges outnumber the right leaning judges 8 to 7. It all depends upon the makeup of the en banc.

The only concern I have using Heller is that Scalia allowed for long standing restrictions to be considered Constitutional. Evidently 1934 was far enough prior to 2008 to be Constitutional; will 1968?

 

Dave, let's assume for this discussion you have a son.

Son you promise, "when you turn 13, Dad will buy you your own gun."

Should the feds have the right to stop you from parenting? (current law applied)

 

It's the most common means, especially in public.

 

I know you’re talking about puberty, I just don’t know what it has to do with my post. I guess you don’t either?

 

There could be a problem if there happen to be other laws which selectively prevent them from carrying the only category of guns which they are allowed to buy.
(example, it is not uncommon in many places to have laws that require carrying to be concealed)

That would be a case where two different separate laws combine together to take away individual rights, in a way that neither law alone by itself necessarily does.

 

I’m not familiar with gun laws for all states that could apply to this situation. I assume the parent would maintain ownership of the weapon and allow the child to use it/have them “own” it.

How does this apply to the example I have given?

 

Why do you say Scalia vs the court ruling?

 

So would that also require changing CC license laws?

Plenty of states allow for open carry of long weapons.

 

Why only for self defense?

 

I get that you are not familiar with laws of all states.
I am not either. For purposes I presume Federal laws are being discussed?

 

I can certainly understand your point. That said, I’d offered a counter point to have that argument addressed.
Assuming the intent is to reduce minor access to handguns in the same way we reduce minor access to alcohol, what do you say to that? Doesn’t out way the assault on freedom? Not likely enough to happen that it should be a concern? I’m interested in your take?

 

Dave, will you explain parents rights as you see them?

1. The Feds have more rights to my children than I have?
2. I the parent have more rights to my children than the Feds or states have?

Pick one please.

 

They can defend others too if they want, assuming the situation calls for it.

 

This all seems to be hypothetical. I didn’t have state or federal laws in particular in mind when entering the conversation. If pressed for an answer I would lean towards state law though.

 

Handguns are far more popular and judges are not going to be inclined to have their children/grandchildren strapped with a felony based on something so innocuous and common IMHO.

 

The answer to this question isn’t a binary, so I would have to say it depends.

You don’t have a right to abuse your children. Federal law would allow for your children to be taken away and possibly for you to be imprisoned.

Federal law can’t dictate what you feed your kids. You could put them on a vegan diet, or you could skip veggies entirely. Fed has no say in the matter.

Hope that helps.

 

There was a bit of humor there Dave that you still do not understand. When I have to explain the joke to others, I suggest they ignore the joke.

 

I’ll take your word for it.

Consider it ignored.

 

Thanks Dave but it is Binary.
Next issue is I did not suggest you have a right to abuse your child.
Last issue I was not discussing diet.

Here to make it easier, Some believe in superman powers for the FEDS but for themselves more like they have few rights to their children.(FEDS will of course also mean state)

Many Americans see us all as peons of the Government. Some think we are all entitled to the same freedom of our Founders. I am in that group.
I believe in super power rights for parents.

 

IMHO cracks me up. I can just see some poster saying IMDHO

 

That’s a subjective term. I think safe storage is in your hand and only pointed at whatever is your intended target.