-
Welcome to our legal community! Click here or the create new topic button to ask a question and receive answers and comments from our friendly and helpful legal community.
Articles that answer frequent legal questions are in our Law Guide. Important legal news is reported in The Law JournalYou can find a lawyer near you in the Lawyer Directory. If you know that you need to hire an attorney, you can submit a case review from a lawyer.
Military weapons begin to appear in street crimes.
- Thread Starter army judge
- Start date
Redemptionman
Active Member
Always funny to see reports like these, criminals are always going to be able to get guns with or without any kind of gun regulations. AP news is no the most credible of news agencies, and no amount of propaganda on their part will take away the 2nd Amendment.
army judge
Super Moderator
Amen...
BTW, the latest TWO (so called) mass shooters were juvies.
One is 17, the other 15-16.
Under federal law, it is illegal to sell:
(1) long gun ammunition to anyone under age 18 and
(2) handgun ammunition to anyone under age 21 (18 USC 922(b)(1), 27 CFR 478.
Federal law says people under 21 cannot buy a handgun from an FFL, but they can buy one from a private individual.
Now it gets very bizarre.
A person under age 21 can be gifted a handgun.
However, if your parents buy you a handgun, and you pay them for it, that is a straw purchase regardless of whether you could have legally bought the gun yourself.
Does a customer have to be a certain age to buy firearms or ammunition from a licensee?
Yes. Under the Gun Control Act (GCA), shotguns and rifles, and ammunition for shotguns or rifles may be sold only to individuals 18 years of age or older. All firearms other than shotguns and rifles, and all ammunition other than ammunition for shotguns or rifles may be sold only to individuals 21 years of age or older. Licensees are bound by the minimum age requirements established by the GCA regardless of State or local law. However, if State law or local ordinances establish a higher minimum age for the purchase or disposition of firearms, the licensee must observe the higher age requirement.
[18 U.S.C. 922(b)(1) and (b)(2); 27 CFR 478.99(b)]
Does a customer have to be a certain age to buy firearms or ammunition from a licensee? | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
Tax Counsel
Well-Known Member
I disagree. I can imagine a number of gun regulations that would likely significantly reduce gun violence in this country, if the second amendment didn't pose a barrier to enacting them. Most developed countries in the world have far, far fewer gun related deaths per capita than the US. And their regulation of firearms plays a significant role in that. They don't have to contend with the second amendment, however, as the US does.
No, but continued gun violence may erode support for the second amendment. The most ardent of gun rights advocates curiously offer no real solutions to the gun violence problem and instead just jump up and down screaming any time ANY gun related legislation is proposed, even when the restrictions imposed would not meaningfully impair the rights of law abiding persons.
I'll say again what I've said before: I support the right of law abiding persons to own guns, but also support reasonable regulation of those rights. If we can't reduce gun violence in this country without doing away with the second amendment, I could be persuaded to side with repealing that amendment. I'm not alone in that. So if you want to preserve that right, be more proactive in offering solutions to reduce the gun violence that actually work.
army judge
Super Moderator
More about the juvie Austin mass shooter:
Central Texas high school student arrested after deadly mass shooting in Austin
Central Texas high school student arrested after deadly mass shooting in Austin
Redemptionman
Active Member
The laughable part is that there are people in this country who believe the 2nd amendment is problematic and is the issue rather than crime and the people who commit it.
Putin doesn't care who wins blue or red, all they care about is seeding division and discontent/ hate to collapse the United States, which is working. Divide and instigate on both sides.
Guns doesn't commit the crimes, the people who use them for wrong do.
Putin doesn't care who wins blue or red, all they care about is seeding division and discontent/ hate to collapse the United States, which is working. Divide and instigate on both sides.
Guns doesn't commit the crimes, the people who use them for wrong do.
Tax Counsel
Well-Known Member
But those people who commit the crimes have an easier time of it because access to guns is so easy in this country. Simply repeating the mantra "guns don't kill people, people kill people" doesn't make the problem go away. Unless 2nd amendment die hards can come up with truly effective ways to reduce gun violence in this country that do not involve limiting access to firearms then it may indeed be necessary to go down that path. If you don't want that "horror" of limiting gun access then become part of the solution. I have little respect for those who oppose all efforts at trying to reduce gun violence in this country and yet at at the same time refuse to offer any ideas of their own that will actually work. Doing nothing is not, IMO, acceptable.
While true, the gun debate in this gun country is not one of Putin's making. That difference of view has existed for a long time, sharpened by ever more increasing mass shootings.
Last edited:
PayrollHRGuy
Well-Known Member
The original AP story simply means that we must ban firearms from our military.
And what you want to bet that there isn't a bin, case, or another storage area on any US base marked as " automatic assault rifles" as the story calls them?
And what you want to bet that there isn't a bin, case, or another storage area on any US base marked as " automatic assault rifles" as the story calls them?
Tax Counsel
Well-Known Member
Nothing so absurd as that. What that story means is that the military should do a better job of keeping track of its guns and ensuring they don't go missing, only to end up in the hands of criminals. I don't think that's too much to ask, do you? And the military keeping better track of its guns is certainly no violation of the 2nd Amendment, so you have no argument against the military taking that common sense step on that ground, right?
Redemptionman
Active Member
Specifically those news sources use the term BAN to elicit a response. It is so sad for accurate news you have to go to UK and Australian news sources.
No amount of BANs on firearms is going to reduce guns or mass killings. If anything they increase mass shootings since more people have less firearms and the potential to eliminate threats. Anyone has the potential to harm and do harm with things other than firearms. You eliminate one you create another. When someone wants to do another harm it doesn't matter what they do it with. Look at Europe, they don't have guns then they use bombs and machetes.
No amount of BANs on firearms is going to reduce guns or mass killings. If anything they increase mass shootings since more people have less firearms and the potential to eliminate threats. Anyone has the potential to harm and do harm with things other than firearms. You eliminate one you create another. When someone wants to do another harm it doesn't matter what they do it with. Look at Europe, they don't have guns then they use bombs and machetes.
Tax Counsel
Well-Known Member
That's BS, to be totally frank. Bans certainly would reduce the number of guns out there. There is no question about that. And done correctly it certainly would make it harder for people to do mass killing events. You make something harder to do, less people will do it. That's been human nature since the first human walked the earth.
Are you in that camp of those that don't give a damn that others die as long as you can have whatever guns you want without any requirements, restrictions, or limitations? Or do you actually care about those who die to gun violence? If the latter, then are you offering real, workable solutions to the problem other than bans? If not, why not?
And they have far, far fewer deaths to violent acts than the U.S. does. So that hardly helps your argument.
Redemptionman
Active Member
Gee, I have more restrictions, limitations, and requirements than I should have. I have a CCW and promise you if someone wants to kill you then they will succeed whether or not that have the big bad gun or not.
What kind of BAN of guns are you suggesting? You rattle cages, get emotional, blame others for your own faults and then point a finger at the right and say you are the problem. If all those particular cities want to BAN guns like New York or California then more power to them. It is not going to eliminate their problems. Criminals will always have the ability to get more and their is no social program in the USA that can eliminate it.
Zigner
Well-Known Member
If someone wants to kill some other specific person, then they are quite likely to succeed. However, if someone wants to indiscriminately kill tons of people at the same time, then it's much more likely to happen if they have a gun.
PayrollHRGuy
Well-Known Member
Actually, the 2nd Amendment doesn't give the military the right to own any guns at all. But while my post was obviously a joke those who want to remove guns from the hands of law-abiding citizens often say that a ban on them would also keep them out of criminal hands.
Zigner
Well-Known Member
Why are you trying to deflect? There was no mention made either way on that subject.
Tax Counsel
Well-Known Member
I'm not suggesting any bans, actually. At least not yet. I support other measures short of bans that may help curb gun violence. Unfortunately, too many of the most fervid gun owners are unwilling to support ANY restrictions related to guns even if those will help lower the deaths to gun violence in this country.
My only point was to challenge your statement that bans never work, not that I want bans. I think it's pretty clear that bans can and do reduce gun violence. I'd much rather we find solutions to the problem of gun violence in this country that don't involve outright bans. But my position is that if we can't do that — if the most ardent gun rights advocates can't find good solutions to suggest to achieve that — then we may have to resort to bans.
So I say if you want to keep your guns and avoid bans, be active in promoting effective solutions to the problem that do not involve bans instead of simply being one of those who scream "don't infringe my 2nd amendment rights" and fail to offer anything constructive.
LOL, you clearly don't know me at all then and instead are simply projecting onto me your general feelings about those who advocate for some restrictions on guns. I've been a lifelong conservative. I have used guns and owned them. My father has been a lifelong gun collector. I have no particular problem with guns themselves. But I am getting fed up with gun violence in this country. I actually care about those who needlessly die to the insanity and criminality of others and want to find ways to reduce that. I would hope you would too. And the numbers of those who feel like I do are growing. That is to say, there are more and more people who have supported the right to own guns whose views are changing because what we've done so far clearly isn't working. That should be a warning to you about the risk to your gun rights. If I and other conservatives like me can be persuaded to shift positions then over time we may reach a tipping point where the 2nd amendment is truly at risk of repeal. That may seem impossible to gun rights advocates today, but over time that could happen if we can't otherwise get a handle on the problem. I'd prefer not to ever have that happen, but to achieve that, we need to do SOMETHING that will be effective to reduce gun violence. Just doing nothing in the name of preserving the 2nd amendment is not tolerable to me.
Tax Counsel
Well-Known Member
Correct. But of course, the Constitution does by implication allow for that in Article I, Section 8 by granting the Congress the powers to declare war, to raise an army and navy, and provide for calling forth the militia.
I'd say that just as the military needs to secure its weapons, so do law abiding citizens need to secure theirs as well. If they do that, less guns will fall into the hands of criminals.
I agree that a ban on weapons would not prevent ALL criminals from getting guns, but it certainly would significantly reduce the number of weapons that criminals have. The experiences of other countries in that regard are instructive. As I said in my reply to Redemptionman, I don't advocate banning weapons. At least not yet. But I also don't consider simply doing nothing to address the problem of gun violence in this country as acceptable either.
mightymoose
Moderator
I have always believed that people are far less likely to pull a gun and start shooting if they have reason to believe others around them might promptly do the same and put an end to the stupidity.
A gun on the hip reinforces good manners.
A gun on the hip reinforces good manners.
army judge
Super Moderator
One has only to review the behavior and manners exhibited by our progenitors who settled and opened this continent to the west during the last half of the 19th century to understand just how revealing that belief is.
Having served four combat tours in Nam, packing a standard issue M1911 and an M4 Carbine, I can assure there is great merit in your thoughts.
Disabled Vet
Well-Known Member
As a veteran.... As a combat veteran.... As a veteran that has daily life issues because of my service to this country. Freedom isn't cheap. Nor is it a perfect system. Before any attacks on the 2nd Amendment. I would like to see laws that will reduce the number of people killed by drunk drivers. Once we get drunk drivers under control.... then maybe I would see the light by taking peoples firearm rights away. One of the reasons the United States hasn't been attacked by others is simple. We have the world's largest armed population just in hunters from Wisconsin.
Share this page
