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

My kids are very familiar with guns and the damage they can do. They also are familiar with gun safety and to never touch one without my permission. I had them shooting .22’s at the age of four all on their own. I trust them around guns.

 

Your question did not make room for nuance. I find when anyone demands that you ignore nuance when giving an answer they are pushing an agenda. You like jokes, it seems. Remember this oldie?

“Do your parents know you’re gay?”

So like I said a parent doesn’t have a right to abuse their child, even if they think they do.

The Fed/state government does not have the ability to tell you how you can raise your child.

And then there’s a million intricacies between those two statements. Welcome to American law.

 

That’s a hyperbolic statement. You’re describing safe use. Safe storage would dictate where the firearm is and its ready state when not in use.

 

Do you lock up your firearms when no one is home? Approximately 600,000 guns are stolen from lawful owners every year in the US. They’re hot ticket items that are generally used down the road to perpetrate further crimes.

 

I think yours is a very good point, though probably not in the way you had in mind. This is because I think that @DaveBN also had a good point, about 18 year olds interacting, hanging out, with younger people, as peers. Again, I took from that post something different than Dave's main concern: I do not see strawman purchases, here, as necessarily the biggest risk, but just the passing of this gun around, as a curiosity, among those without any familiarity with firearms; or of younger friends, perhaps with a bit of alcohol aiding in their really feeling their oats, wanting to play with it, while the group is partying together. It doesn't take much of an imagination to foresee many tragic accidents. And yet, if this is already the practice throughout the country, do these accidental shootings not happen?

My thought was going to be that, to counter the peer pressure to allow the gun to be carelessly handled, as a novelty item, strict laws assigning responsibility for accidents to the gun owner, might be a good way to emphasize in the young person's mind that his gun should not be treated as a toy, & so he (or she) needed to responsibly control whenever it was in others' hands. For those who would, by nature, already show this mature attitude, the law should not ever come into play.

 

Yes, but not all can afford a gun safe

 

To store something is to place something that can later be disposed or used, is it not? Then why does storing a round in a pistol that’s in your hand not storage for later use?

 

Not all can afford a gun.

There are costs associated with the ownership of firearms and everyone should do so safely.

 

Everyone who has a gun should have someplace safe to store it.
However, a legal requirement that he do so violates the constitution.

 

Was the topic of safe storage directed at individual rounds or at the firearm(s) in its entirety?

And if we want to get really technical we were discussing safe storage. One only needs look at the definition of Safe to know your argument falls flat.

 

I disagree, but I know you and I have already had this argument so no need to hop back on this merry-go-round unless you just really feel like it.

 

The costs of owning a gun are no where near the costs of a safe. The constitution also does not say that the people’s right to keep and bear must include a safe

 

You can disagree all you want - the court cannot be more clear.

 

And like I said, that’s a subjective term. Would you like my definition of safe storage again as a reminder?

 

Gun safes can cost as little as $200. That’s pretty reasonable if you have the money to burn on firearms and all the associated costs.

The constitution leaves a lot up to interpretation.

 

Okay.

 

I prefer objective definitions over subjective, but thanks for the offer.

 

And how did the court interpret the constitution?

The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional

 

What part of the Constitution grants the gov the power to dictate how you store your own property?

 

What cost are those? Some ammo and cleaning kit?

 

You ever disagree with a court ruling before

 

None that I’m aware of.

But then there are plenty of laws on the books that aren’t explicitly informed by the constitution.

 

Feel free to disagree - it just means you're wrong.
The constitution prohibits a legal requirement for a gun owner to lock up his guns - your opinion to the contrary means nothing.

 

Sure, those would be associated costs. I suppose you could add in repair work, replacement parts, accessories, etc., but we can keep it surface level for sake of the discussion.

 

You didn’t answer my question. Have you ever disagreed with the outcome of a court case?

I agree that my opinion means nothing as it relates to how he or anyone else lives their lives. If I gave the impression that I thought otherwise then my bad.