Either the law does something or it doesn’t. If the practical effect is zero, then it does not infringe on anyone’s rights. If it makes it even a little less likely that a crazy hormonal 18 year old gets his hands on a semi-automatic, then I think it is a (perhaps very small) win.
Is it easier to walk into your shop and buy the guns off of your shelf, even order things that you don’t have in stock, or to go around to dozens of basements, hoping that the next person has the gun that you need to kill a bunch of children?
Why do gun stores even exist, if you think it’s so easy to purchase them from private sales?
I needed to allow a background check on me to accompany my child on a field trip to a public place. I think if that’s an acceptable infringement, so is running a background check on your kid before you give him your civil war revolver.
Also, someone who doesn’t make their living off of selling guns may take a second look at this 18 year old so desperate to buy these guns that they refuse to sell their private collection.
Can I assume that as a licensed firearms dealer, you’d be in support of making it illegal to do private sales? I’m sure it would help your business.
I don’t see it as an infringement on the 2nd Amendment in any way to block private sales (because guns will still be available through dealers), and it should greatly help regulate things.
I’m not aware of efforts right now to put that into federal law, but I’d absolutely support it. I live in Washington State just like @Johnny_L.A and it is indeed the law here already.
Eh, it wouldn’t, because even as an FFL, he can still sell out of his private collection to people who are not eligible to buy from an FFL(federally, state laws vary).
It’s probably a pretty lucrative side business, so I can understand why he wouldn’t want to have it shut down.
I didn’t think of that possibility.
That’s funny because the so called “gunshow loophole” is what the left is constantly claiming how criminals are obtaining guns. If criminals can easily get guns from private sellers why can’t an 18 year old with no criminal record?
And it’s easy to find unlicensed sellers. Just browse Armslist or any other the other gun websites. There are plenty of private sellers in your locale.
Again:
I would not sell to someone that was ineligible to possess a firearm and I do not sell out of my personal collection to people I don’t personally know. I generally don’t sell out of my personal stock period. If I didn’t want the gun it wouldn’t be there in the first place.
It is a way that criminals get guns. And it is something that they have tried to close, but is fought tooth and nail by people like yourself.
Along with the fact that we would like to shut down that loophole federally, and there are quite a number of states that have done so, it is still much easier for someone to walk into your shop and pick out things on the wall than to browse through classifieds and try to buy from sketchy “private sellers”.
When you open up “Armslist” website, the very first thing that comes up is a popup where you verify that you are at least 21 years old.
Sounds like armslist has a higher standard than you do. They do not allow sales to people under 21.
I mean, that’s how a lot of gun owners are, which is why it is a bit harder for someone to purchase a gun through a private seller than through a gun store.
Once again, if you think it’s so easy to buy from a private seller, how do you stay in business?
ETA: interestingly, after browsing Armslist a bit, I see that most of the guns offered for sale on the classifieds section are actually sold directly by local gun stores. I assume that those would also have to abide by FFL regulations.
The others are mostly pawn shops. I don’t know if you have to have an FFL to sell guns at a pawn shop(ETA ETA: looking it up, I believe they do). If so, then it still doesn’t get you around FFL regulations. If not, then they really should.
Anyway, I went through the first 5 pages, and didn’t find a single actual individual seller. Maybe it’s not as easy as @pkbites insists that it is.
I did the exact same thing for my locality. And I found ZERO individual sellers.
Again, I refuse to believe that the Uvalde shooter could have easily purchased his weapons and ammo if he could not legally do so in Texas.
There are plenty of private sellers on the gun sites. I know a few that do it and I have bought from private sellers. The sites have to cover their legal ass by putting the over 21 warning. But they are not involved in actual transactions. I don’t like Armslist changes requiring buyers to have a paid membership. As an advertiser I didn’t mind paying but buyers shouldn’t have to.
The reason private sellers are not a threat to a dealer is because a dealer gets his inventory at wholesale prices while a private seller either inherited their supply or paid retail for it and thus cannot beat a dealers price.
Some gun buyers prefer to buy from a private seller because they don’t want the government involved in their gun purchases and are willing to pay extra for that bit of privacy.
Or they are looking for a model that local dealers don’t carry. There are a lot of perfectly legit reasons for buying from a private party.
ETA: Last fall I bought a Ruger P93 from a private seller I found on Armslist. The weapon was still sealed in the original container and was brand new. Ruger hasn’t made this model for several years and I would not have found this without Armslist. There are used ones out there but not ones that were never opened.
It used to be 21 until early in WWII in fact. And as I understand it, they typically draft 20 year olds first, then up to 26, then they start with 18 and 19 year olds.
I’d say that 21 ought to be THE age of majority for drinking, guns, contracts, conscription, and so on. 21 year olds are much less idiotic and more responsible than 18 year olds. If they need 18 year old soldiers, then create temporary legislation to make it possible, and then rescind it when the draft is over.
Except for most of that stuff it isn’t. Things need to be dealt with by how things currently are and not how you want them to be. Wish in one hand, poop in the other and see which fills up faster.
Idunno. When I took Civics in school, we learned about the various ways that these kind of things actually could be changed.
Some of them are the topic of this thread, in fact.
They can still own and fire all sorts of guns. Bolt action, lever action, etc. This is like a law that says you have to be 21 to buy hard liquor.
I will assume the law makes an exception for .22 rimfire rifles. The CA law did so.
AMENDMENT XXVI - Passed by Congress March 23, 1971. Ratified July 1, 1971.
Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
Mitch McConnell will say no.
Mitch McConnell can’t let any bill pass that would look like an accomplishment for Biden. He needs Joes approval rating as low as possible.
If you read the opinion, they state clearly it was not an issue in their case.
However, another Appeals court has overruled that:
But the school paid for and did it?
In general Private citizens can not perform a background check of the sort we are talking about.
Mind you, I am in favor of requiring background checks on all sales, with a few exclusions.
Well, you see- strawman buyers buy in bulk cheap, then drive to say, Chicago, then sell to known gangsters at a huge markup. Some kid won’t know how to arrange this.
No, the state did. I think. I mean, the state does the check, I’m not sure who paid. But I need a criminal background check to do anything involving kids and schools. Or scouts. Or lots of other stuff. Maybe that’s not done in other states? It comes up all the time here.
That covers the roght to vote. That does not mean all other rights have to kick in then. If anything, it implies voting is a special case.
The Constitution also requires that one must be at least 21 to be a member of the House of Representatives, 30 to be a member of the Senate and 35 to be President. Does it follow that those age restrictions should be lowered to 18 because that’s the voting age?