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

Not by the founders statements

 

And any that counter the Constitutional rights we have, ought be stricken from the books.

 

It might be the case that the ride is not very honest about the subject that doesn't mean the left by which I mean Democrat politicians have any knowledge they do not. Or the things they say seem to indicate that they do not.

Background checks me nothing registration is just an effort for later confiscation and nobody's going to buy that bill of goods because we already know enough about that not to. Ever wonder why these sorts of things always fail?

 

It also means nothing where a ruling to the contrary by the court is concerned.
Surely, you agree.

 

Which statements would those be?

 

I've had my cap n ball for many years, fired maybe 200 rounds. Never needed any repair. Home defense guns may not be fired for many years. Just face it, there are no large cost after the initial purchase, thus shooting a hole in your argument all gun owners should be able (or compelled) to run out and buy a safe. I have a better idea....those who think safes should be required by law, let them pay for them since it's their grand idea. A simple trigger lock is much cheaper and some policed dep. give them away for free. Will stymie all but the most mechanically inclined of kids. But like a safe, renders a gun all but useless for home defense.

 

Sure, I agree with that.

 

So you’re not going to answer my question then?

 

Well I agree that a trigger lock is consistent with safe storage practices. Glad we’re on the same page.

 

Ah. You -don't- agree that your opinion means nothing where a ruling to the contrary by the court is concerned.
Why?

 

I didn’t say that.

At this point I’m just wondering why you refuse to engage with my posts in their entirety while expecting me to engage with yours.

 

It does not matter how much you disagree with a ruling from the court - the court's ruling has force of law, and your opinion doesn't matter.
You may not like the fact, but it remains a fact.

 

I’ve not argued against that concept within this thread. If you believe I have then I’ll have to apologize for the miscommunication on my part.

That said I’m not a fan of this one way conversation.

 

Glad you also agree gun laws are unconstitutional. A gun can be safely stored loaded in an adults home. There are locks that go on doors and again.... trigger locks are like a safe, renders a gun all but useless for home defense.

 

Hey, so in the interests of discussing the topic of the actual thread, would you care to weigh in on my initial post?

 

Which is part of the plan to restrict gun ownership to only the elite.

 

Do you have any data showing such straw purchases to have been a signifigant problem?

 

I can probably find something for alcohol in areas where the legal drinking age is 18 if that’s what you’re looking for. Probably not as easily for firearms because of the decreased likely hood of 21 year olds having minors in their peer group vs 18 year olds.

Would that help?

 

Point is, it was a "solution" in search of a problem. One of the worst actions of Trump.

 

I'm chiming in here, just as a source of information, as I am taking your question at face value.
If government were to conclude that certain ways of storing guns posed undue risk to the general population (due to their easy accessibility to people other than the owner & his proxies), then the most basic functions of government, and rights of the people, listed in the Constitution's Preamble, could be cited: secure domestic tranquility...promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty (that among these rights, include life...).

 

Most of the time en banc does not take the case - usually only happens in the politically charged cases.

 

I think it's reasonable to call a locked home on private property, plenty secure. After all, if a thief will break into a locked home, they can break into a safe.

 

No, I don't wonder, as it is very clear why gun regulation has usually failed (there was the assault weapons ban that succeeded, & ran for the ten years covered by the legislation). That reason, btw, has not generally been lack of public support, or the push back from a preponderance of voters. It has been due to a very animated & vocal minority (which is, of course, their right), combined with NRA monetary contributions, either handed to those Congresspeople who toe the NRA line, or used to fund negative ads against those who don't, as well as to fund primary challengers to run against them.

 

Hunter Biden.

 

Scalia wrote the majority decision in Heller.