https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/0...year-olds/index.html

Justice Thomas’ decision last year does chsnge this analysis.

This is in conflict w a DC Circuit case that was decided after Heller and McDonald.

The conflict should bring this to the S. Ct.

To me, the more intellectually interesting decision would be to see how the Court would crave out upholding the ban on transfers and possession by 18-20 year olds.

An opinion that the prohibition must be declared unconstitutional seems mandatory given the New York decision. Unless, we see some kind of erosion. I think that is possible to peel one or two if the conservative viewed Justices off if the liberal viewed Justices will give on Strict Scrutiny.

Very interesting.

Would popular opinion to expand the Court membership increase if the restriction on transfer and possession to 18 -20 year olds is held by the S. Ct. unconstitutional? If so, is it really a win.

If it's constitutional to prevent 18-20 year olds from buying or consuming alcohol, why can't they restrict purchases of firearms for those same people?

I'm a Second Amendment supporter, but we have to do something to prevent this and most of the shooters are in that age frame. Also, while I've done a number of face-to-face transfers without an FFL, all as a purchaser, that could be outlawed constitutionally in my opinion. That would at least require the purchaser to go through the background check and every sale that didn't involve an FFL could be a felony. That would give the prosecutors something to work with if a firearm was later used in a crime.

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
If it's constitutional to prevent 18-20 year olds from buying or consuming alcohol, why can't they restrict purchases of firearms for those same people?

I'm a Second Amendment supporter, but we have to do something to prevent this and most of the shooters are in that age frame. Also, while I've done a number of face-to-face transfers without an FFL, all as a purchaser, that could be outlawed constitutionally in my opinion. That would at least require the purchaser to go through the background check and every sale that didn't involve an FFL could be a felony. That would give the prosecutors something to work with if a firearm was later used in a crime.

Thanks. I was beginning to think no one here could think about the situation involving mass shootings rationally.

Are 18-20 year olds acquiring handguns to use in mass shootings from the private sector?

How would banning private sales reduce mass shootings?

so if they can't have a rifle or pistol who is gonna shoot the enemy during a war?

a ban is a ban.
I know I couldn't carry a revolver/pistol till I was 21, I had one issued to me, but it sat in A.F. jail till I was 21

so if they can't have a rifle till 21 how's that gonna work?

you can't put a constitutional ban on something and exempt it too.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
Are 18-20 year olds acquiring handguns to use in mass shootings from the private sector?

How would banning private sales reduce mass shootings?

Uvalde has shown 18 year olds are purchasing semi auto, external box magazine fees, button release, centerfire rifles to commit mass murder. 18 year olds who because of their youth fall through the background check system. The Arlin of choice appears not to be handguns for this age group bc transfer is illegal. However, ARs are available and being used.

18-20 year olds if they get handguns get them most likely from home or friends.

Those are interesting facts, LHeym, but they don't answer my questions about private sales.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
Are 18-20 year olds acquiring handguns to use in mass shootings from the private sector?

How would banning private sales reduce mass shootings?

I think we can ask that question about every single gun control proposal being considered. We're not going to know until we try to do something. Even then, we won't know....there's no way to quantify whether this or that gun restriction prevented a massacre if the massacre never happened, right? I guess a drastic reduction in the number of massacres over time would tell us but that would take a while.

Frankly, the only thing that is certain to work is banning firearms or imposing European style restrictions. And, that's not going to happen. And, before everybody jumps down my throat, I'm not advocating it. Frankly, even if I was, it's just not a doable thing at this point. Too many guns in circulation and too many people that are not going to willingly give them up.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
Those are interesting facts, LHeym, but they don't answer my questions about private sales.

I get it. You are asking about transfers between individuals, and not FFL dealers.

Fed Law and most states have a near identical sister law the make it a crime to transfer or possess a handgun to 18-20 year olds even s a “private transaction.” There are specific exemptions in the Fed law.

I do not have the data. My gut feeling based on what I have seen w minors is the e “baby adults” her weapons from home, friends home, or steal them them mostly.

The question becomes is are mass killings committed by 18-20 year olds dome in a significant number more with described rifles or handguns. I think it is the described rifles.

I am willing to be wrong.

Sorry, I was too dense to get the prompt of your question the first time.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
If it's constitutional to prevent 18-20 year olds from buying or consuming alcohol, why can't they restrict purchases of firearms for those same people?

I'm a Second Amendment supporter, but we have to do something to prevent this and most of the shooters are in that age frame. Also, while I've done a number of face-to-face transfers without an FFL, all as a purchaser, that could be outlawed constitutionally in my opinion. That would at least require the purchaser to go through the background check and every sale that didn't involve an FFL could be a felony. That would give the prosecutors something to work with if a firearm was later used in a crime.

Thanks. I was beginning to think no one here could think about the situation involving mass shootings rationally.

The problem is criminals do not follow laws. That is why they are criminals. Same goes for the mentally ill. I do not know the solution to either of those issues but making laws to rein in those who already abide by them isn't rational and will not fix the problem.

quote:

Too many guns in circulation and too many people that are not going to willingly give them up.

The same needs to be said about ARs.