General Discussion

Raine1967

(11,676 posts)

63. As I said most; I am not well versed in gun laws.

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 12:06 PM

Apr 2013

But I'm not sure about 21 being the age able to buy a gun -- handgun or otherwise.

Someone pointed to me a link that led me here, about Vermont:

Section 4007. Furnishing firearms to children A person, firm or corporation, other than a parent or guardian, who sells or furnishes to a minor under the age of sixteen years a firearm or other dangerous weapon or ammunition for firearms shall be fined not more than $50.00 nor less than $10.00. This section shall not apply to an instructor or teacher who furnishes firearms to pupils for instruction and drill.

Section 4008. Possession of firearms by children A child under the age of sixteen years shall not, without the consent of his parents or guardian, have in his possession or control a pistol or revolver constructed or designed for the use of gunpowder or other explosive substance with leaden ball or shot. A child who violates a provision of this section shall be deemed a delinquent child under the provisions of chapter 11 of Title 33.

Vermont law doesn't seem to make distinct lines about handguns and other firearms.

It appears to me that a 16 year old can have a gun. I guess, I would be willing to debate the idea of allowing the age limit lowered with complete parental consent and responsibility. Concealed carry should be out of the question for minors -- under the age of 18.

As you said: I'm not rah-rah on overturning Hughes; I brought it up as an example

I want you to know, I'm not rah-rah either about the examples I proposed. I think your OP is a good place to discuss.

I will say honestly that I am very tentative about moving backwards. I don't want any law that does that.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

77 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Sausage making: what are you willing to concede in return for background checks? [View all] Recursion Apr 2013 OP

Why should the majority who aren't gun fanatics concede on background checks? Hoyt Apr 2013 #1

Because I would like universal background checks to pass? Recursion Apr 2013 #18

What do you want to concede? Everything, so that the legislation makes Wayne LaPierre giddy. Hoyt Apr 2013 #57

Speaking for myself, I'd concede nationwide concealed carry reciprocity Recursion Apr 2013 #59

You can tell those who promote more guns in more places, by what they are willing concede. Hoyt Apr 2013 #61

"house trading that would email" DURHAM D Apr 2013 #2

"Horse". Sorry. Android keyboard. Recursion Apr 2013 #6

"horse trading that would email"? DURHAM D Apr 2013 #7

$&%^. "entail". Sigh (nt) Recursion Apr 2013 #9

No way on either count. geek tragedy Apr 2013 #3

It sounds like you don't fully trust the background checks kudzu22 Apr 2013 #10

I don't trust any person with a gun when they're near me. geek tragedy Apr 2013 #19

Canada's firearms ownership rate is roughly the same as the US per capita Recursion Apr 2013 #21

Canada has strict gun registration with audits. geek tragedy Apr 2013 #24

Not anymore, though they did for years Recursion Apr 2013 #27

handguns are still required to be registered, geek tragedy Apr 2013 #29

Yes, true, and handguns are also more tightly controlled in the US than long guns Recursion Apr 2013 #31

That makes sense. geek tragedy Apr 2013 #43

You know, that never occurred to me, but it's worth doing some numbers on Recursion Apr 2013 #44

less than half of the NRA's money comes from individual gun owners geek tragedy Apr 2013 #47

Dodd was a little ahead of the facts there Recursion Apr 2013 #50

No, it's not. It is much lower. DanTex Apr 2013 #64

We don't really know because we don't know how bad compliance with the late registry was Recursion Apr 2013 #66

I am willing to give up the entire current Congress, replace them all, if that's what it takes. nt bemildred Apr 2013 #4

I don't believe there's anything that can be put in that would pacify the NRA or the el_bryanto Apr 2013 #5

OK, that's a valid argument, but that's a different question Recursion Apr 2013 #15

What should I offer them? What do gun owners want that they don't have? el_bryanto Apr 2013 #62

Have you asked? Has the party polled this question? (nt) Recursion Apr 2013 #65

It frankly seems like a non-sensical question - and kind of a dishonest one el_bryanto Apr 2013 #68

Because edhopper Apr 2013 #8

If the 10% are legislatively powerful and the 90% want legislation to pass, yes. Recursion Apr 2013 #11

What you don't get is edhopper Apr 2013 #17

I mentioned two things. There are probably more. Recursion Apr 2013 #20

The bill was already a compromiose edhopper Apr 2013 #26

Only in our minds, I think Recursion Apr 2013 #30

I cannot think of a single legislation the other side wants edhopper Apr 2013 #33

Most people also think the AWB bans assault rifles and machine guns Recursion Apr 2013 #37

I would want far more than just edhopper Apr 2013 #39

Armor piercing bullets are banned under 18 USC 921 Recursion Apr 2013 #41

Chicken wings. (n/t) Iggo Apr 2013 #12

Reinterpretation of the 2nd. Then let the new 2nd forever decide it. graham4anything Apr 2013 #13

So I fear this is the left's version of the right's decades-long crusade to overturn Roe v. Wade Recursion Apr 2013 #23

A false analogy edhopper Apr 2013 #28

Background checks is not an overturning of Heller and McDonald Recursion Apr 2013 #32

Oops. You were reply to something else edhopper Apr 2013 #35

I don't care. The NRA don't care when 90% wanted what they didn't. graham4anything Apr 2013 #77

What did Congress concede to us in exchange for doing nothing on guns? n/t Orsino Apr 2013 #14

Well, they took a lot of money and time from us in exchange for doing nothing Recursion Apr 2013 #16

Here's my proposal kudzu22 Apr 2013 #22

I love the Federal Firearm Operators License (or whatever we should call it) idea Recursion Apr 2013 #25

On background checks? Nothing. I would rather fight that out in the public sphere Tom Rinaldo Apr 2013 #34

I think limiting magazine size is a much better idea than regulating grip shape Recursion Apr 2013 #38

Sausage making was already attempted. Unfortunately, it failed. Tommy_Carcetti Apr 2013 #36

Nobody proposed a ban on semi-automatic rifles. This is part of the problem: you think DiFi did Recursion Apr 2013 #40

Nothing. Time and tide change all. Ikonoklast Apr 2013 #42

Nothing. We don't need to trade anything for background checks. XRubicon Apr 2013 #45

You clearly do if you actually want them to become law Recursion Apr 2013 #46

No, only you think that is true. XRubicon Apr 2013 #49

You may have 90% support kudzu22 Apr 2013 #56

Keep telling yourself that XRubicon Apr 2013 #60

It's always about the gun control side giving in, isn't it? Paladin Apr 2013 #48

I don't recall gun control proponents offering anything at any point here Recursion Apr 2013 #54

I stand by my comments. Paladin Apr 2013 #74

Recursion, Raine1967 Apr 2013 #51

I'm not rah-rah on overturning Hughes; I brought it up as an example Recursion Apr 2013 #52

As I said most; I am not well versed in gun laws. Raine1967 Apr 2013 #63

Yeah, there's a difference in purchase and ownership Recursion Apr 2013 #69

Nothing. I gave at the office, thanks. Robb Apr 2013 #53

Fewer senseless mass shootings. morningfog Apr 2013 #55

Not to go on a tangent, but I think that's the wrong goal Recursion Apr 2013 #58

Tangent noted. It is not the sole goal. morningfog Apr 2013 #72

Nothing. I'd concede something for a national gun registry. DanTex Apr 2013 #67

OK, that's a good goal too Recursion Apr 2013 #70

I'd concede a lot. For example, Hughes and conceal carry reciprocity. DanTex Apr 2013 #71

My concept of what it needed RantinRavin Apr 2013 #73

Not a damned thing. Warpy Apr 2013 #75

How will it cost Baucus? Recursion Apr 2013 #76