General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBreaking -US Supreme Court Tells NRA to 'eff off re guns for minors
http://www.northjersey.com/news/national/US_Supreme_Court_rejects_NRA_appeals.html<snip>
The Supreme Court has turned away appeals from the National Rifle Association which complained about resistance by governments and judges to the high court's recent seminal rulings declaring that Americans have a constitutional right to own a gun.
The justices on Monday let stand rulings that upheld a federal law that prevents young adults ages 18-20 from purchasing a handgun or ammunition from a licensed federal firearms dealer and a Texas regulation that prohibits most 18-to-20 year olds from carrying a handgun outside the home.
The NRA said the laws make it difficult, if not impossible, for young adults to exercise their Second Amendment rights.
RC
(25,592 posts)Anyway this is a good thing.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)More often than not, minors are usually considered those under 18 years of age.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_%28law%29
So, if they can vote, and be sent to fight in wars, etc., and live out on their own, one might ask why should they not also enjoy second amendment rights?
However, are they really going to be smart and experienced enough to be responsible when, clearly, so many older folks are not?
This is where I think a training/safety/screening requirement might be wise.
I don't think we should prevent them from owning in a blanket way, but I don't think they (or anyone) should just get all the guns they want without some safeguards.
sarisataka
(20,418 posts)Had a little" victory fever" thinking they couldn't loose.
Good decision, I don't see the restrictions to be unreasonable.
1awake
(1,494 posts)but maybe not in the way you might think.
If an 18 year old CAN die for their country, vote in an election etc... then this makes no sense. Pure bull poo. maybe serving in the military should be raised until 21?
sarisataka
(20,418 posts)But see this restriction as a parallel to alcohol sale.
In a military situation we do arm 18 year olds but they get training and are under supervision. Civilians are unsupervised and usually not required to get (eenough) training.
Many times military discipline is what an 18 year old needs. Perhaps instead restrict combat service to 21 and older. Three years of training should ensure all troops in combat are high quality.
1awake
(1,494 posts)and though I support gun ownership, I would have no issue with the waiting for 21 if this was the case (not sure I have an issue with it either way but I don't like double standards lol).
Was just covering this and said it wasn't so much a settled issue, but that the SCOTUS was letting it bounce around the lower courts before it possibly will make it back to the SCOTUS some time in the future.
hlthe2b
(105,114 posts)billh58
(6,640 posts)an NBC News report:
- Snip -
"In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to possess a gun at home for self-defense. Since then, the lower courts have split over the nature of gun rights beyond the home."
- Snip -
"The Obama administration defended the federal law restricting handgun sales to minors. Congress acted after finding that young offenders were especially prone to misusing firearms, the government says. The federal law was meant to prevent minors from crossing state lines to buy guns that they could not get legally in the own states, it says."
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/court-passes-challenges-restricting-handguns-young-adults-n37196
Even though the pro-gun lobby believes that it has won the battle on CCW, SYG, and guns-for-everyone -- it clearly has not. The matter of an absolute right to carry concealed lethal weapons in the public venue is yet to be decided, and no matter the outcome the various states will retain the option for stiff CCW regulations and penalties for non-compliance.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)spanone
(137,284 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)Photo: A little girl carrying her pink Crickett on her back AP photo
Do children need pink and blue guns?
May 2, 2013
...The story itself is heartbreaking. A five-year-old Kentucky boy accidently shot his two-year-old sister to death with a .22 caliber rifle he had received as a birthday present last year. It was a Crickett rifle, especially made for kids.
The county coroner Gary White told the local paper that the gun was kept in the corner of a room and the family didnt realize there was a bullet in it. The toddler died from a single gunshot wound to her chest. The mother was outside on the front porch at the time of the shooting.
The Crickett is marketed as My First Rifle, coming in a variety of colors, including blue and pink and even a camouflage pink. It is manufactured by Keystone Sporting Arms LLC, based in Milton, Pa.
The rifle is touted on the companys website as just the right size for my 5- and 7- year-olds. They are awesome and couldnt be happier. The company brags it sold 60,000 Cricketts and its cousin the Chipmunk in 2008, the last year sales figures are listed...
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/ad-lib/2013/may/2/do-children-need-pink-and-blue-guns/
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)Open the bolt and look at the chamber to make sure it is unloaded. Close bolt and turn rifle over. Insert key and depress lock. Remove key. Bolt is now locked in place.
This is more failure of a parent to properly check the rifle and lock the bolt closed on an empty chamber. Safety locks only work if properly used by the ADULTS.
pnwmom
(109,391 posts)Especially since the NRA also thinks it's just fine if alcoholics and drug abusers own guns.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)malaise
(275,538 posts)Beyond crazy
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Packerowner740
(676 posts)Lost_Count
(555 posts)idendoit
(505 posts)In 2010 in McDonald v Chicago, I believe that faccia di culo Scalia wrote the opinion: "Unless considerations of stare decisis counsel otherwise, a provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the Federal Government and the States." Which I take to mean you can have all the guns you want until the state says you can't.