For a while, the drinking age on base was 21 unless the base was located in or within a certain distance (50 miles? 100 miles?) that had a lower age limit, in which case the drinking age on base would be the lower limit. The limit now is 21 years old for United States servicemembers regardless of where the base is located. For example, in South Korea, the drinking age is 18; however, the age for our military, both on and off base, is 21.
Why not? It’s a family heirloom that can be lethal. Are parents or relatives the best judges of what their kids are capable of? The Klebolds, the Harrises, Nancy Lanza and Celia Gonzales weren’t.
Should be the same rule for all firearm transfers, regardless of the status of the weapon or the relationship between the parties.
As someone who stands to inherit a large number of firearms, I’m of two minds about the transfer.
## What if I inherit a firearm?
As a general rule, if you want to transfer a firearm to a resident of a different state, you must involve an FFL. But what if grandpa lived in a different state? A firearm inheritance from a will is one of the exceptions to the interstate transfer laws, so long as the receiver is not a “prohibited person” ineligible to possess firearms. Once there is a signed order naming the executor of the will, it is legal for you to bring grandpa’s guns back to your home state without going through an FFL dealer.
Which is indeed one of the loopholes in the current transfer laws, although a pretty limited one compared to others. What I would think would be a worthwhile compromise would be that future legislation required a FFL transfer and registration, contrary to current requirements, but the government instead covered the cost. While it varies dramatically, a single transfer is normally $30-60, + $5/10 per firearm after the first.
Some may balk, but it’s probably a better compromise than the current situation with zero registration, zero verification that the inheriting party is compliant, and of course, zero cost to the party inheriting. I am speaking entirely of federal requirements, as state requirements may different of course.
Yes, not uncommon, but it is not done by individuals.
It can be done by an individual in my state for $25. It would not be unduly burdensome to require it for a private gun transfer.
It may be different today but when I was in the navy it was a royal PITA to own a firearm. You had to keep it and the ammunition for it in the armory and go down there to withdraw both when you wanted to use it. No casual, “Hey! Let’s go down to the quarry and plink some cans with a .22.”
IANA hunter but I believe that’s for bird hunting.
@puzzlegal, if you’re replying to my post, it varies dramatically per FFL. I mean, terrifyingly so. And some of the cheaper ones are out of the way, or have such limited hours to make it nearly worthless.
In my neck of the woods, one of the cheapest ones does it as a side business to their restoring old (10+ year) Macs - so you walk into a used computer / computer repair store, go to the back, and wait until they’re done with whatever else they’re doing.
Even so, not burdensome for a single firearms, agreed. But at last count, my FIL owns around 30 (not including the 10ish or so of his I’m keeping for him). It gets expensive fast in largeish numbers. And again, I suggested this as a compromise between the current requirements which is verifiable heir and that’s it.
I guess I’m confused why you need to get a separate check for each firearm if you are buying/inheriting them all at once. What would show up on one that doesn’t show up on the others? I only need to update my background check for tutoring once a year, not every time i interact with a new kid.
I can see if you were buying from different merchants, getting a new check for each merchant. But for each gun? That feels like busywork, not like anything useful.
I don’t write the laws, I just abide by them!
And as I posted, most FFL folks will charge a much smaller fee for every item after the first, and there are some reasons, mostly paperwork, and compensation for time and effort. I also know some FFLs won’t transfer largish #s because it does get to be both a PITA and not worth the time and effort.
Once again, I’m all for a more rational, federal level of standards, but more than this is probably a better fix for the Minmaxing thread.
It sounds like there may be 10 Senate Republicans willing to move forward with some measure of gun control…
I read a related article, and it looks like it won’t have the features the OP is about, but what probably brought the Republicans around is that it mostly focuses on Red Flag and juvenile mental health based restrictions, so they can spin it to the old argument that mass shootings are more about the mentally misadjusted.
Still, it is a help, and Red Flag laws are a good idea that I support - if properly implemented.
Yeah, I knew that the 21 age wouldn’t get past the Senate.
Key senators announced a framework agreement on new gun legislation Sunday, marking a breakthrough on a collection of measures to combat gun violence, including “red flag” laws and enhanced background checks on gun buyers…A centerpiece of the Senate deal is to provide substantial resources for states to implement “red flag” laws, which allow individuals like police or family members to petition courts to keep firearms away from people deemed a risk to themselves or others.
…
The agreement also establishes a more rigorous process for background checks on people between 18 and 21 years old, with an enhanced review that includes contacting state and local law enforcement for criminal records that could be disqualifying, and to appropriate state organizations for mental health information that could affect the decision.
The proposal also seeks to clarify ambiguities over who must register as a federally licensed firearm dealer for the purposes of conducting background checks.
None of that is a bad idea. I will have to see the details on that last, cracking down on the strawman sellers, but that could be very good.
How, exactly, could a red flag law be effective in any way?
It’s impossible to know how many guns an individual owns.
You take away some nuts guns out of his house. How do you know he doesn’t have one in a safe deposit box at his bank? Or at his mothers house? Or hidden in his garage.
there’s no way of knowing how many guns he has access to. And now you took some of them and he’s pissed about it.
Another thought: if a person is clearly a danger to himself an/or others, why take his guns. Why not institutionalize him? Being a danger to ones self or others is a justified reason for commitment.
But, really, how would you know that you collected all his guns?
- Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Imagine you have a friend who has strongly hinted they may suicide using sleeping pills today. You go to their house and find a bag of 200 sleeping pills. Are you suggesting that there is no point taking the bag away, because, hey, they might have others?
- In the case of mass shootings, it can be thousands of dollars of firearms, rounds and body armor. Considering most school shootings are carried out by young people, yeah, there’s a good chance they do not have spares of all this stuff. It might take months to buy it all back, which they should find more difficult to do. A lot of time to cool down.
I am also dubious that being angry about having guns seized would be the thing to push someone to go and shoot up children.
What are you basing that on?
As if there is a rational reason to go shoot up anybody.
I think the more these red flag laws get activated the more people who are afraid they might be subject to it are go to make sure they have a spare somewhere you won’t find.
And depending how they are written, eventually SCOTUS is going to kick the shit out of them.
The argument immediately preceding the bit you quoted.
That the materials to carry out a mass shooting are expensive, and mass shootings at schools are typically carried out by people 18-20 years old. Sure, maybe some have the disposable income and foresight to buy thousands of dollars worth of spares just in case. But I doubt that this is going to be the norm. And if the policy only works once, it’s already better than nothing.
Exactly. And that’s why your argument of “now you took some of [his guns] and he’s pissed about it” was fatuous. There’s no reason to think that taking some of someone’s toys away is a reason that would motivate them to go shoot up kids that wouldn’t have if he had his complete collection.
As it should. Imagine the outcry if “Red Flag Laws” were enacted to infringe on other rights.
Your being one dimensional. And making a lot of assumptions.
They’re also going to use this on the krunky old man that makes threatening remarks to his neighbor. They take away his hunting rifle, shotgun, and revolver. But oops, never found the 1911 .45 that he’s had forever.
You’re.
What assumptions? Remember, I am not arguing that this will always be effective, it only needs to be effective some of the time to be worth doing, particularly within a package of other reforms.
Meanwhile, your “What-ifs” / hypotheticals are implicitly conceding that the policy can be effective, because you wouldn’t need to add on these suppositions otherwise.
Finally, you’re trying to shift to talking about the “krunky old man” because you have no argument against the point that the young people, who typically carry out this kind of mass shooting, are in most cases not going to have thousands of dollars worth of spares.