Federal judge rules handgun laws violate Second Amendment

I mean democrats need to get their **** together and figure it out.

If you want less guns on the street and less people carrying, then you need a stronger police presence and better policing.

Defunding police while at the same stripping away people's right to defend themselves leads to situations like we had recently with the veteran choking out a crazy homeless guy and killing him.

As the Mello Guy said earlier in this thread, the people in this party don’t have any principles.

 

So, can't dispute what was said so you just resort to strawmen. Not surprised.

 

Hell, that was all to apparent when the three year old nonsense broke out LMFAO

 

Look over Able-Bodied, maybe that will explain a lil for ya
what is able bodied - Search (bing.com)

 

sooooo - you are OK with 12 year olds driving?

as I said mental health is not as strong a correlate as DV

 

Since we are discussing the age at which someone can be proficient with a gun, I believe that it is noteworthy that 12 year old Alfred Czech was awarded the Iron Cross during WW2 and he was not the youngest German soldier.

US forces in Vietnam encountered child soldiers just as Africa is replete with children in arms.

I suspect that age was less of a determining factor than size and physical strength when it came to choosing child soldiers .

Today, we just use a "one size fits all" number and hope for the best but I can't think of a more practical way at the moment.

Can anyone else?

 

The hole concept of determining maturity level by age is unfortunate, given that different people mature at drastically different rates depending on a lot of factors including their genetics, their intelligence, their education, their parents and home environment, their life experience. Learning disabilities can play a huge role as well. Using age is a bureaucratic approach that oversimplifies a complicated challenge. However, the alternative would be an in depth physical, mental and emotional evaluation of each individual, probably multiple times, to determine when they havn't vs have reached a level of maturity for independence. And that would be extremely expensive.

 

allows what? the determination by state of 'age of majority'? The constitution allows everything that it doesn't forbid.

 

Some 12 year olds are fantastic drivers.

https://abc7news.com/race-car-driver-cam-carraway-black-state-champion-nascar/12292241/

He had already been driving for 6 years at the time of this article. That’s more experience than the vast majority of 16 year olds who are allowed to drive.

 

Driving isn't a right.

 

The same part that allows Congress to conscript 18 years into the armed forces.

 

However many are not. And the bottom line is that the brain only slowly matures over time. Laws are not based on exceptions but in statistics.

https://www.cdc.gov/transportations...that every day,and hundreds more were injured.

 

What does driving have to do with a legal adults right to bear arms?

 

Many over 16 are terrible drivers as well. I don’t think age necessarily plays into it.

 

That ain't no ****.

 

After jumping through nine types of hoops and keeping them in a locked cabinet at a gun club and being told by the government that they have no need for handguns because self-defense is not a legitimate use.

Although their leaders who neutered them, think that handguns are just peachy keen for their bodyguards and they're great for defending their sorry asses

 

Neh! I like our system, for the most part. It'll be better when the NFA and GCA are repealed.

 

Great Post!!

 

"Mostly." "We." So, if tinkering suits you than it is okay. But if the same tinkering makes common sense, but does not suit you, it is not okay.

Nah.

The 2nd is either full on absolute, or subject to the whims of the day, and I guess 'whims' = the majority view of the day, yes......and NOT subject to the whim of ONE person of the day, yes?

 

Placing guards in schools in no way effects the rights of citizens. It just protects kids. Your spin is kinda silly.

Protecting children helps solve the problem without violating the rights of citizens. Your response proves beyond all doubt that your primary concern is NOT the protection of children. You only want to disarm America.

 

If you discovered that the people killing the people were doing so by driving them over a cliff, would you not fence off the cliff, remove people access to it?

 

And they can't say that non adults may own weapons, either, yes?

 

Wrong. The viability of Constitutional amendments remains strong. That's evidenced by the fact that we have 27 amendments with more pending.

 

Freedom consists of MANY things and yes, among them is the right to bear arms.

 

In general that would be difficult, given that non-adults can't contractually own any property, technically 'their property' is actually owned by their guardian. I suppose they could prolly lower the age to purchase a firearm to include emancipated minors (which might actually make sense since emancipated minors don't have anyone protecting them...), but other than that, I don't see how minors owning firearms would be legally protected in court, since they can't really 'own' anything by themselves anyway in any meaningful sense.

Now, if you're talking about possession of firearms, then, sure, many states allow minors to physically possess firearms (almost always with adult supervision), and since minors do not have a 'right to bear arms', there's all sort of variances in regulations as to what firearms they may possess and under what circumstances, varying widely from state to state. In my state, for example, a minor may carry a firearm at 14 years old, if they are accompanied by a responsible adult in an outdoor setting away from the public, or in a designated shooting area like a public range, or on private property where they're permitted to carry a firearm, again away from occupied public spaces (crowds of people). Or, at least, that's what it was when my kids were ~14. I havn't looking into it for some years, might have changed now. I also recall it was different for long guns vs pistols regarding accompanied minors, but in all cases, it was with the provision that they were accompanied by a responsible adult. By 'responsible' it doesn't mean someone who has any special training or certification, rather the 'responsible adult' is the adult who will be held legally responsible for the actions of the minor they have armed. The inference being that the adult is really the one legally 'bearing arms', not the minor, as far as liability is concerned.