Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: NRA Challenges Constitutionality Of Federal Handgun Ban For Law Abiding 18-20 Year-Ol

  1. #1
    Regular Member Ajetpilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Olalla, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,410

    NRA Challenges Constitutionality Of Federal Handgun Ban For Law Abiding 18-20 Year-Ol

    Last edited by Mike; 09-13-2010 at 08:09 AM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Somewhere over run with mud(s)
    Posts
    791
    very interesting...I was honestly wondering how long it was gonna take for this arguement to be brought to court.

    My only fear (while kinda a fear I guess) is that they will then have to extend the right to be stupidly and annoyingly drunk in public and creating a huge nuisance to those 18 yrs of age...

    However I have NO problems with RESPONSIBLE 18-21 yr olds owning handguns, or even consuming alcohol. Key word is RESPONSIBLE though...
    "And shepherds we shall be, for Thee, my Lord, for Thee.
    Power hath descended forth from Thy hand, that our feet may swiftly carry out Thy command.
    So we shall flow a river forth to Thee and teeming with souls shall it ever be.
    E nomine Patri, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti."


    "If the rest of the world says: 'War,' I can only say: 'Very well. I do not want war, but no one, however peaceable, can live in peace if his neighbor intends to force a quarrel.'" - Adolf Hitler...

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Richland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    387
    Anytime I see people start mentioning certain people, i.e. "responsible" or "privilaged", ect., I see it as pre-crime legislation. The argument is always if we lower the age then people will be irresponsible or people will get hurt. Either you are an adult or you are not. If you are an adult, then you should have all the privilages and responsibilities associated with it. You should not deny someone certain rights based on what people claim could happen or may happen.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Somewhere over run with mud(s)
    Posts
    791
    That is not even CLOSE to what I was implying. I was just trying to state that certain people, REGARDLESS of age can be irresponsible and that I am not comfortable with them being allowed to pick their own nose, much less carry a firearm or drink alcohol or anything else of that magnitude.

    The comment in relation to the alcohol age is due to the prevalence of DUI's around colleges and universities (mostly 18-20 yr olds) and the vast majority of partying involving alcohol that occurs in those locations and amongst that age group.

    No not everyone is like that, however to deny the facts of the matter would be rediculous. Would I vote down a bill to lower the legal drinking age to 18? Absolutely not! I was 17 yrs old while I was being trained to kill. I couldnt smoke, or drink, or own a handgun, and I even had to work special hours because the place I lived in (Waukegan, IL) had a curfew for anyone under the age of 18 REGARDLESS of any circumstances...

    No we should not deny someone rights or privelges just because of what people "fear" might happen. However the punishments and PREVENTATIVE measures should be in place to minimize the effects of ANYTHING that could happen. Military calls it ORM (Operational Risk Management).

    On a side note I believe that if the state required (yes state required) all cab companies to use mobile credit card machines that there would be a lot less DUI's (regardless of what the legal drinking age may be).

    However in the end, it all boils down to being responsible. Or holding someone responsible for their actions if they cannot be responsible for themselves...
    Last edited by devildoc5; 09-12-2010 at 10:41 PM.
    "And shepherds we shall be, for Thee, my Lord, for Thee.
    Power hath descended forth from Thy hand, that our feet may swiftly carry out Thy command.
    So we shall flow a river forth to Thee and teeming with souls shall it ever be.
    E nomine Patri, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti."


    "If the rest of the world says: 'War,' I can only say: 'Very well. I do not want war, but no one, however peaceable, can live in peace if his neighbor intends to force a quarrel.'" - Adolf Hitler...

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Renton, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,201
    Quote Originally Posted by devildoc5 View Post
    That is not even CLOSE to what I was implying. I was just trying to state that certain people, REGARDLESS of age can be irresponsible and that I am not comfortable with them being allowed to pick their own nose, much less carry a firearm or drink alcohol or anything else of that magnitude.

    The comment in relation to the alcohol age is due to the prevalence of DUI's around colleges and universities (mostly 18-20 yr olds) and the vast majority of partying involving alcohol that occurs in those locations and amongst that age group.

    No not everyone is like that, however to deny the facts of the matter would be rediculous. Would I vote down a bill to lower the legal drinking age to 18? Absolutely not! I was 17 yrs old while I was being trained to kill. I couldnt smoke, or drink, or own a handgun, and I even had to work special hours because the place I lived in (Waukegan, IL) had a curfew for anyone under the age of 18 REGARDLESS of any circumstances...

    No we should not deny someone rights or privelges just because of what people "fear" might happen. However the punishments and PREVENTATIVE measures should be in place to minimize the effects of ANYTHING that could happen. Military calls it ORM (Operational Risk Management).

    On a side note I believe that if the state required (yes state required) all cab companies to use mobile credit card machines that there would be a lot less DUI's (regardless of what the legal drinking age may be).

    However in the end, it all boils down to being responsible. Or holding someone responsible for their actions if they cannot be responsible for themselves...

    I agree with you. There is no magical age at which one becomes responsible. Some people grow up, some just grow older. The laws against under age drinking or smoking will not deter those who are determined to drink or smoke. It might make it harder for them to do so, but if they are determined, they will. I know, I was that age once and I can speak from experience. Young people will always want to do that which is forbidden, it's a taste of the adulthood they haven't quite reached. Some people are mature and responsible at an early age and some never are, regardless of age.
    Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world; it's the only thing that ever does.- Margaret Mead


    Those who will not fight for justice today will fight for their lives in the future,

    Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote. Benjamin Franklin

  6. #6
    Regular Member joejoejoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    321
    The one thing I don't like about the argument is that this man was JROTC and a marksman. He shouldn't win based on the fact that he can shoot a handgun accurately. He should win because it's a right to "keep and bear arms."

    Secondly, I could care less if alcohol goes to 18-year-olds. Not my child... The argument that someone who is irresponsible shouldn't have the ability to drink is the same as saying we should ban guns because criminals shoot people. People were drinking by age 13 when I was in school. I have been to foreign countries where there is no age limit. The fact of the matter is (with both guns and booze), we gotta stop handing the responsibility over to the State. It is our job to keep our neighborhoods safe and responsible. We have Mayors, police, teachers, and PTA meetings. If responsibilities were left to the towns like the Republic calls for, then we might see a change in how our neighborhoods are run WITHOUT restrictions on our liberties. One of the members on this site has a riffle for his toddler. He said when hes old enough, he is going to teach him. Gogo has two children both capable of handling a firearm.

    "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good" -- George Washington

    Joe~

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Somewhere over run with mud(s)
    Posts
    791
    I too have been to various countries where there is no legal limit (the first time I drank alcohol was at age 16 in a bar in Venice)

    The problem with everything even coming close to having to do with responsibility is that responsibility is something that is learned...

    How many people have a neighbor or friend of a friend or know someone who just lets their kids run buck wild? In order for kids to LEARN responsibility they have to be taught by their parents, unfortunately (in my neighborhood at least) most parents are too busy getting high/drunk/pimping each other out/stealing/being gangbangers to even care about what their kids are doing.

    The minute parents (some do, but those numbers are dwindling right now unfortunately) start taking RESPONSIBILITY for their kids, their kids will learn to be responsible and more productive in society. Heaven forbid parents actually CARE about their kids (again I know most, if not all of the parents on here do, however that is the minority now a days unfortunately...)
    "And shepherds we shall be, for Thee, my Lord, for Thee.
    Power hath descended forth from Thy hand, that our feet may swiftly carry out Thy command.
    So we shall flow a river forth to Thee and teeming with souls shall it ever be.
    E nomine Patri, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti."


    "If the rest of the world says: 'War,' I can only say: 'Very well. I do not want war, but no one, however peaceable, can live in peace if his neighbor intends to force a quarrel.'" - Adolf Hitler...

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Kenmore
    Posts
    71
    If they are old enough to die for you.
    Then they are old enough to carry to protect themselves.

    And old enough to have a drink.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666

    Yes, and I would like my little girls to be able to protect themselves.

    When legal cases are choosen by the NRA and SAF, they carefully choose plaintiffs that will survive media scrutiny. Don't worry about his qualifications, they will not be a part of the question that the court answers.

    Quote Originally Posted by joejoejoe View Post
    The one thing I don't like about the argument is that this man was JROTC and a marksman. He shouldn't win based on the fact that he can shoot a handgun accurately. He should win because it's a right to "keep and bear arms."

    <snip> One of the members on this site has a riffle for his toddler. He said when hes old enough, he is going to teach him. Gogo has two children both capable of handling a firearm.

    "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good" -- George Washington

    Joe~
    My girls...





    Quote Originally Posted by Lucky_Dog View Post
    If they are old enough to die for you.
    Then they are old enough to carry to protect themselves.

    And old enough to have a drink.
    Live Free or Die!

  10. #10
    Guest
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    808
    I learned to fire pretty young myself. I was 17 in the Army and had a rifle and was carrying it, LOADED, in the defense of our country! My son is 13 and will be firing for the first time on a real gun Wednesday. He's fired his pellet rifle and the like and learned how to handle that. Now that he's safe, I'm moving him up. If I was in the country, he'd have been firing and carrying by now. I personally think the PARENTS should decide, not someone in the Capital who thinks they know my family better than I do.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    AFAIK an 18yo can own a pistol, they just can't buy one from an FFL.

    A minor can legally drink alcohol, in their own home with their parents. No law against that in WA at least afaik.

    18 is the age of responsibility. You can vote, be drafted, drive a car, sign a binding contract, etc. So yes, imho you should be able to walk into an FFL and by a pistol, just like you can a rifle.

    Either make 18 the legal age for everything, or make some other age the legal age for everything. This patchwork of ages is bs imho.

    And when it comes to 'maturity,' some people are mature at 18 (or younger) and some people will never be mature. That has little to do with the issue at hand imho.
    Last edited by Dave_pro2a; 09-13-2010 at 12:48 AM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member amzbrady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,522
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_pro2a View Post
    AFAIK an 18yo can own a pistol, they just can't buy one from an FFL.

    A minor can legally drink alcohol, in their own home with their parents. No law against that in WA at least afaik.

    18 is the age of responsibility. You can vote, be drafted, drive a car, sign a binding contract, etc. So yes, imho you should be able to walk into an FFL and by a pistol, just like you can a rifle.

    Either make 18 the legal age for everything, or make some other age the legal age for everything. This patchwork of ages is bs imho.

    And when it comes to 'maturity,' some people are mature at 18 (or younger) and some people will never be mature. That has little to do with the issue at hand imho.
    +1, Just to add, you shouldnt have to wait till your 65 to retire either, I'm ready now and think I am responsible enough and old enough to not to work. :*P
    Last edited by amzbrady; 09-13-2010 at 02:00 AM. Reason: forgot a thought. BTW GOGO, you really need to feed your kids... :*P
    If you voted for Obama to prove you are not a racist...
    what will you do now to prove you are not stupid?

    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas

    "They who can who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve niether liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Bellingham, Washington, USA
    Posts
    133
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_pro2a View Post
    AFAIK an 18yo can own a pistol, they just can't buy one from an FFL.

    A minor can legally drink alcohol, in their own home with their parents. No law against that in WA at least afaik.

    18 is the age of responsibility. You can vote, be drafted, drive a car, sign a binding contract, etc. So yes, imho you should be able to walk into an FFL and by a pistol, just like you can a rifle.

    Either make 18 the legal age for everything, or make some other age the legal age for everything. This patchwork of ages is bs imho.

    And when it comes to 'maturity,' some people are mature at 18 (or younger) and some people will never be mature. That has little to do with the issue at hand imho.
    Agreed that the patchwork of ages is arbitrary bovine scat. If not for the 18/21 split in what defines a minor, I would've never been arrested for transporting my firearms from my apartment in Bellingham to my parent's house that I was supposed to be house sitting.

  14. #14
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

  15. #15
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by k.rollin View Post
    Agreed that the patchwork of ages is arbitrary bovine scat. If not for the 18/21 split in what defines a minor, I would've never been arrested for transporting my firearms from my apartment in Bellingham to my parent's house that I was supposed to be house sitting.
    What? When? And under what basis if you are allowed to own you are allowed to transport, where they clearly visible? Was that the reason?

  16. #16
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by amzbrady View Post
    +1, Just to add, you shouldnt have to wait till your 65 to retire either, I'm ready now and think I am responsible enough and old enough to not to work. :*P
    You don't have to wait till you're 65 to retire. You can retire ANY TIME you can AFFORD it. Want to retire before 65, either work harder, or work smarter.

    And you should NEVER recieve any tax payer funded retirement subsidy* from the government, and you should NEVER be required to pay into a government run retirement pyramid scam.

    * possibly with the exception of true disability relief (and I'm not talking welfare momma's or people whose arms and legs work, but they don't).

  17. #17
    Regular Member Whitney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    449

    Supressors

    Why do you suppose it is illegal to use supressors (silencers) in the state of Washington, yet you can own one? Since this is a criminal statute, does it not imply pre-crime legislation?

    Where two reasonable constructions of a criminal statute are possible, a court is required to adopt the interpretation most favorable to a person accused of violating the statute. State v. Gore, 101 Wn.2d 481, 681 P.2d 227 (1984). http://www.atg.wa.gov/AGOOpinions/Op...rchive&id=8666


    9.41.250 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.a...9.41&full=true
    Dangerous weapons — Penalty — Exemption for law enforcement officers.

    (1) Every person who:

    (a) Manufactures, sells, or disposes of or possesses any instrument or weapon of the kind usually known as slung shot, sand club, or metal knuckles, or spring blade knife, or any knife the blade of which is automatically released by a spring mechanism or other mechanical device, or any knife having a blade which opens, or falls, or is ejected into position by the force of gravity, or by an outward, downward, or centrifugal thrust or movement;

    (b) Furtively carries with intent to conceal any dagger, dirk, pistol, or other dangerous weapon; or

    (c) Uses any contrivance or device for suppressing the noise of any firearm, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW.

  18. #18
    Regular Member joejoejoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    321
    Quote Originally Posted by Goose View Post
    I learned to fire pretty young myself. I was 17 in the Army and had a rifle and was carrying it, LOADED, in the defense of our country! My son is 13 and will be firing for the first time on a real gun Wednesday. He's fired his pellet rifle and the like and learned how to handle that. Now that he's safe, I'm moving him up. If I was in the country, he'd have been firing and carrying by now. I personally think the PARENTS should decide, not someone in the Capital who thinks they know my family better than I do.
    Amen to that!

    Also, Gogo.. that's just awesome, lol.

    Joe~

  19. #19
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Whitney View Post
    Where two reasonable constructions of a criminal statute are possible, a court is required to adopt the interpretation most favorable to a person accused of violating the statute. State v. Gore, 101 Wn.2d 481, 681 P.2d 227 (1984). http://www.atg.wa.gov/AGOOpinions/Op...rchive&id=8666
    Now find a test case that involves the civilian use of a silencer. Oh wait, afaik there isn't one.

    But if you want, I can talk to a police officer I know and see if he's willing to take you to a range, watch you use a silencer, and then arrest you -- so you can argue Stave v. Gore

    Read the AG opinion letter and form your own conclusion about if you might lose (he cites the 'ordinary meaning' of the words 'use'):
    http://www.atg.wa.gov/AGOOpinions/Op...rchive&id=8666

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Somewhere over run with mud(s)
    Posts
    791
    from what I have read from the AG opinion it means that you can have a suppressor installed as long as it is not "brought into operation" (fired/used).

    Anyone else get that feeling?
    "And shepherds we shall be, for Thee, my Lord, for Thee.
    Power hath descended forth from Thy hand, that our feet may swiftly carry out Thy command.
    So we shall flow a river forth to Thee and teeming with souls shall it ever be.
    E nomine Patri, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti."


    "If the rest of the world says: 'War,' I can only say: 'Very well. I do not want war, but no one, however peaceable, can live in peace if his neighbor intends to force a quarrel.'" - Adolf Hitler...

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Bellingham, Washington, USA
    Posts
    133
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    What? When? And under what basis if you are allowed to own you are allowed to transport, where they clearly visible? Was that the reason?
    I'll tell you all about it at the BBQ on Sunday. It's quite a story to type out, and it's probably better in person.
    Last edited by k.rollin; 09-13-2010 at 08:11 PM.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Whitney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    449

    Silly Laws

    Quote Originally Posted by devildoc5 View Post
    from what I have read from the AG opinion it means that you can have a suppressor installed as long as it is not "brought into operation" (fired/used).

    Anyone else get that feeling?
    That is exacty what I interpret. And as Dave says there is no test case. I damn sure dont want to be the first one, regardless of the AG opininon. But more to the point of the OP, what is the reasoning here for such a law. It does not make any sense to allow the ownership of such a device and then prohibit the use of it.

    It makes as much sense as banning 18-21 year old "responsible" (sarcasam) adults from purchasing hanguns.

    I guess what I'm trying to get at is how are these "silly laws" derrived? I dont mean to sound phillisophical in nature. Who gets to decide this?

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Somewhere over run with mud(s)
    Posts
    791
    some "bright" congressman or other such representative that "we" elect to discharge "our wishes." "they" then decide that "they" have "incredible" ideas about how to "prevent" violence and other such things. "they" then enact these laws and proceed to tell "us" what we can and cannot do for "public safety"....
    "And shepherds we shall be, for Thee, my Lord, for Thee.
    Power hath descended forth from Thy hand, that our feet may swiftly carry out Thy command.
    So we shall flow a river forth to Thee and teeming with souls shall it ever be.
    E nomine Patri, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti."


    "If the rest of the world says: 'War,' I can only say: 'Very well. I do not want war, but no one, however peaceable, can live in peace if his neighbor intends to force a quarrel.'" - Adolf Hitler...

  24. #24
    Regular Member Tomas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    University Place, Washington, USA
    Posts
    705
    Heh. When I was in tenth grade I was dating a French gal, and the few times I had dinner at her parent's house, there was wine with dinner, including us.

    In the 18-21 age range I was trained in weapons, got a TS security clearance, worked on B-52Fs, B-58s, and one broken SR-71. Oh, yeah, I also got married.

    It wasn't 'til I was older, though, that they shipped me off to a war zone - but not THAT much older.

    Maturity is not necessarily related to age. I've have met youngsters who were mature well beyond their tender ages, and I have me middle aged adults that I would not trust to do anything reliably.

    After all that is said, Heinlein got it right, in my opinion... "Beings must never be judged by categories, but only as individuals."
    Last edited by Tomas; 09-14-2010 at 01:09 AM.
    No tyranny is so irksome as petty tyranny: The officious demands of policemen, government clerks, and electromechanical gadgets. -- Edward Abbey

    • • • Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Faciémus!• • •

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •