I just got off the phone w KSP and the ATF. They confirmed that a juvenile adjudication for a public offense that would be a felony is not reported for purposes of firearm background checks.

That is because these results are not convictions for felonies by state law.

Thus, I believe we need to raise the age to purchase to 21. Give young adults a chance to demonstrate responsibility or lack thereof.

Better would be to insist said adjudications be reported.

Past violence is the single best statistical indicator of future violent behavior.

Maybe

That would completely uproot the basic assumptions and common law juve proceedings are based on. The reasons for these distinctions. However, I might so vote for that.

I agree with you guys as it is simply not good when judicial system hides violent crimes of minors which can and probably is indicator of future behavior

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Better would be to insist said adjudications be reported.

Past violence is the single best statistical indicator of future violent behavior.

Yep.

.

A false assumption made above is that all felonies or public offenses that would felonies if committed by an adult are violent.

Like most adults, such are not.

Also, the drive is to make more juvenile issues less punitive across the county.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
A false assumption made above is that all felonies or public offenses that would felonies if committed by an adult are violent.

Like most adults, such are not.

Also, the drive is to make more juvenile issues less punitive across the county.

and yet the rate of recidivism still exists

Yet the case law post Bruen is invalidating bans that are not violent.

See Tyler v. Hillsdale Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t

Make violent acts disqualifying while dropping non-violent felonies altogether.

A guy cheating on his taxes doesn't really make him a risk if he buys a gun ten years after he's released.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Better would be to insist said adjudications be reported.

Past violence is the single best statistical indicator of future violent behavior.

Seems like a no brainer too me.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I just got off the phone w KSP and the ATF. They confirmed that a juvenile adjudication for a public offense that would be a felony is not reported for purposes of firearm background checks.

That is because these results are not convictions for felonies by state law.

Thus, I believe we need to raise the age to purchase to 21. Give young adults a chance to demonstrate responsibility or lack thereof.

Isn't that penalising the majority who are not violent in thier teens and quite capable of adult behaviour with firearms?

If the new standard is only violent crimes, fine.

But just because you were under 18 when you did it shouldn’t get an automatic pass.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
Make violent acts disqualifying while dropping non-violent felonies altogether.

A guy cheating on his taxes doesn't really make him a risk if he buys a gun ten years after he's released.

dah, tovarish, the youth that cheats on this taxes (hint, that's a TRIVIAL % of all youths) is merely a white collar criminal, and may not yet be a republican. once proven to be a republican, then you, tovarish, want them executed -- we get it -- you support antisemitic politicians and hate all republicans due to political crimes

so you get your stipend in a wire transfer or in bitcoin? just wondering

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
Make violent acts disqualifying while dropping non-violent felonies altogether.

A guy cheating on his taxes doesn't really make him a risk if he buys a gun ten years after he's released.

dah, tovarish, the youth that cheats on this taxes (hint, that's a TRIVIAL % of all youths) is merely a white collar criminal, and may not yet be a republican. once proven to be a republican, then you, tovarish, want them executed -- we get it -- you support antisemitic politicians and hate all republicans due to political crimes

so you get your stipend in a wire transfer or in bitcoin? just wondering

You have now devolved to gibberish, and can join Bluefish on my Ignore list.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:


You have now devolved to gibberish, and can join Bluefish on my Ignore list.

poor little tovarish - i know i am on his political enemies list .. oh, i guess i was

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
Make violent acts disqualifying while dropping non-violent felonies altogether.

A guy cheating on his taxes doesn't really make him a risk if he buys a gun ten years after he's released.

No shit. We've cheapened the meaning of a felony to the point where it no longer describes a heinous act.

Sorry I disagree. If you are a felon, you should forfeit your Constitutional rights, including the right to vote and buy a gun. Is Madoff any less dangerous because he didn't actually kill anyone?

The Courts post Biden and leading up to it are not agreeing w you.

The Taylor, 6th Circuit case deals with the probation against those who are committed to mental hospital. The Court rules it did not satisfy Strict Scrutiny bc not all such persons are currently violent. That the historical prohibition was on violent people. This case and its sisters are currently pending bf the S. Ct.

The violent felony cases are now pending before the S. Ct. Barrett will have to revise as she ruled invalidating the felon prohibition as a lower court Judge.

No one can explain to me how Martha Stewart not having firearms makes anyone safer.

Now in KY Attempted Murder and Assault 2nd by statute can be non violent crimes. That is a state legislative problem the GOP supermajority does not want to fix.

Most juve would be felonies I see are thrift and property damage crimes. That does not include arson.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I just got off the phone w KSP and the ATF. They confirmed that a juvenile adjudication for a public offense that would be a felony is not reported for purposes of firearm background checks.

That is because these results are not convictions for felonies by state law.

Thus, I believe we need to raise the age to purchase to 21. Give young adults a chance to demonstrate responsibility or lack thereof.

Isn't that penalising the majority who are not violent in thier teens and quite capable of adult behaviour with firearms?

The risk of not knowing is worth the inconvenience of waiting 3 years. It is already the law for handguns, that was upheld by the appellate courts about 6 years ago. Now, do I believe this S. Ct., majority would uphold that law if given the chance? In a word, no.

You guys seem to be on a remarkably similar, parallel course to requiring a licence to own guns. Here at 16 you sit a test, get some references and go through a background check and you can own a firearm.
21 is far too old to be starting that process.