But if possession and private sales aren’t prohibited then it won’t be a roadblock. Just the opposite. It will create a market of private sellers supplying semi-autos to 18-20 year olds legally, but sans your precious background checks the left is so fond of.
I was being facetious, in that my point was that the compromise bill offered up by Republicans would actually expand access to guns, but offering the fig leaf of limiting howitzers to people 21 and over.
So, does that mean that you are for closing the private sale loophole?
No. I am saying that once again the Democrats have screamed “we have to do something” and then propose a bill that does really nothing. Then if it were to pass they’ll crow that they did something when in reality it will have the opposite effect of what they want. Ridiculous.
I believe the bill is an infringement upon the rights of 18-20 year olds and a U.S. court of appeals in California agrees with me.
Maybe Democracts would be able to do something if Republicans didn’t scream that every meaningful restriction was
Eta: not that this bill will do anything since Moscow Mitch will ensure it never passes the Senate.
You do get that’s the whole point though right? That nothing ever gets passed or changed.
I think Democrats want to pass something that Republicans will agree to. I would love to pass sweeping legislation assuring and protecting abortion rights, to have ‘free’ education at state universities, assuring that LGBQ+ people may marry freely and not be second-class citizens, to protect the rights of minorities, and most of all to have a National Healthcare System supported by taxes. But that isn’t going to happen. It’s better to take a small step than to try to finish a journey in a single step.
I do not agree that it’s an infringement. Can you elaborate on the California decision?
FWIW, all firearms sales in Washington (state) must be transacted through a licensed firearms dealer. Also, black-powder firearms – all but one of which I bought through the mail because it’s legal under Federal law – are treated as ‘firearms’ by Washington, and require dealer-transfer, waiting period, etc.
I would love to liquidate almost all of my collection, and Washington’s laws make it difficult for me to get rid of them. But there are other ways, such as firearms auction sites.
Hmm, I wonder why no bill that does do something ever gets anywhere?
Now I remember.
Saying something infringes on someone’s rights isn’t an end to the discussion. Lots of things infringe on our rights and are perfectly appropriate. Taxes infringe on my property rights, for example. The police infringe on lots of rights when they place someone under arrest–but that’s fine because it’s being done for a purpose.
There is no history in the United States of rights being absolute, and a simple declaration that something is a right, meaning it is now an unlimited right not subject to restriction or regulation.
The Appellate Court ruling on the California law isn’t anything to do with the constitution, that’s to do with the judiciary being a super-legislature controlled by the Republican party. People need to more openly call that out as bullshit–judges have literally no legitimacy on controversial political issues. They should be seen as nothing more than political operatives, and there should be a goal to reduce and neutralize judicial power to strike down legislation broadly speaking, as it is not good practice in most cases.
Also keep in mind the innate stupidity and clear political nature of that shitty appellate court ruling–these same judges for example haven’t suggested the Federal regulation on the purchase of handguns for people under age 21 is invalid. That is a law that has been upheld repeatedly by the Federal courts. This is literally two Trump appointees playing politics, which, again, judges are politicians and should be afforded no special imprimatur of legitimacy when they strike down legislation, which is a political action.
Thank you for the link.
That, of course is a state law. If it is not an infringement under federal law to ban the sale of handguns to people under 21, then it can’t be an infringement to ban the sale of semi-automatic, centerfire rifles to people under 21.
As I have repeatedly stated, if the law only bans licensed dealers from selling to those under 21 and not private sellers or possession itself, than the law is pointless to begin with. It doesn’t stop those under 21 from quite easily acquiring such weapons. Can you at least recognize that?
So there’s no infringement of their rights…
…and this is the “infringement” that you are really concerned with?
Sure, but can you explain how what you’re doing is not concern trolling? You’ve already said you don’t approve of this bill because it goes too far, but are also suggesting that Democrats come up with a bill that goes even farther because at least that bill will be more effective? Even though you’re also not going to approve of that bill. So you don’t actually care about the fact that this bill doesn’t address private sales.
So you’re saying that if this law had been in effect in Texas, then the Uvalde shooter still would have been able to ‘quite easily’ purchase his weapons and ammo? As easily as he actually did so?
I refuse to believe that, and I doubt if you can back up your statement.
I would agree the law is less effective if it only applies to private sellers, but disagree that it is pointless. A reduction in ease of access probably still has some effect on how prone an emotionally unstable kid is likely to acquire a gun, just because lots of kids like that are also not particularly good at following through on things. Even a small barrier could lead them to go back to playing video games or crying on Snapchat or whatever it is they do.
Incidentally, the gun shop in the photo is Martin B. Retting in Culver City. It’s about a mile and a half from where I lived. I bought my first ‘AR-15’ lower receiver for my first build (which I still have) there just before California’s 1989 ban. I also bought my Winchester Model 1892 rifle (24-inch octagonal barrel and rifle stocks, built in 1897) there.
What creates this market is people preventing us from closing the ridiculous private sale loophole. That loophole neuters anything resembling control over who can and can’t buy guns, and it’s comical that we act like it makes any sense to have both federally licensed dealers and people who can sell the same things to anyone they want anytime they want, with no controls at all.
Right, private gun sales should largely be regulated the same as from gun dealers. We don’t carve out a lot of special law letting people sell alcohol and cigarettes to underage kids as long as it is a “private sale” and we shouldn’t for guns, either. Private sales should largely have to comply with most or all of the regulations that apply to professional gun dealers.
I’m a little less enthusiastic on tightly restricting the private transfer of a firearm, at least say, among family members. I’d be fine with a licensure or registration needing to be updated in that circumstance, but someone shouldn’t have to run a background check on their son to give him a family heirloom.
It wouldn’t do nothing. Most mass shooters do buy their guns from an FFL, so they would have an obstacle in their way.
Now, yes, the loophole that the Republicans insist on keeping open keeps that from being 100% effective, as a shooter could find someone that has the guns they want and buy them from them, but that would be much more difficult than just buying them off of your shelf.
And if they ask someone to buy a gun for them to purchase, that is illegal, so they have to choose from what happens to be available from those who are willing to sell to them.
I don’t see it as having the opposite effect. It may have a limited effect, but the idea that it would have the opposite is, as you say, ridiculous.