User Tag List

Page 84 of 129 FirstFirst ... 3474828384858694 ... LastLast
Results 831 to 840 of 1290

Thread: The Gun Control Debate Thread

  1. #831
    Senior Member fortsbest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    3,029
    Yeah, because supporting an actual constitutional right is bad. Bit stupid activist judges ruling against an obvious presidential power regarding immigration, that's a good thing. Or places like California and other places violating federal laws regarding immigration, those are all fine.

  2. #832
    Senior Member fortsbest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    3,029
    YOu don't think that asses in Florida wrote this law knowing it was going to get overturned do you? Oh noes, that sort of wasted effort would be silly wouldn't it?

  3. #833
    Senior Member mschmidt64's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    13,931
    Quote Originally Posted by BipolarFan View Post
    Props to Florida for some common sense gun laws today.

    Raise the age to purchase a firearm to 21 from 18

    Require a three-day waiting period for firearm purchases, with some exceptions

    Ban the sale or possession of bump fire stocks, which allow a semiautomatic weapon to fire more like an automatic weapon

    Ban people deemed "mentally defective" or who have been committed to a mental institution from owning or possessing firearms until a court grants relief, adding to a current ban on gun purchases for the same people

    Let a law enforcement officer temporarily seize firearms from someone they're already taking into custody for an involuntary mental health assessment

    Provide additional funding for armed school resource officers and mental health services

    Enact the Coach Aaron Feis Guardian Program, which would allow some teachers to be armed if both the local school district and local sheriff's department agree

    But there are several caveats to the program that would arm some teachers:

    - Teachers who "exclusively perform classroom duties as classroom teachers" won't be allowed to carry guns on campus, unless they have military or law enforcement experience or if they teach a Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps program;

    - The program is voluntary; no one will be required to carry a gun; and

    - Qualified staff members who want to carry a gun must take 144 hours of training.
    Don’t think you’d see many people complain about most of these changes.

  4. #834
    Senior Member BipolarFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Up my ass
    Posts
    9,481
    Quote Originally Posted by mschmidt64 View Post
    Don’t think you’d see many people complain about most of these changes.
    Well, the NRA already has filed suit to stop it.

  5. #835
    Senior Member fortsbest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    3,029
    Because of the removing the ability to own a gun at 18. If you are an adult at 18, can vote at 18, serve in the military at 18, then you should be able to own a weapon at 18. It's not like we're are wanting to give 16 year olds the right to vote is it. And before you go on with they can't buy alcohol etc at 18, those are not Constitutionally supported rights. So yes, except for that one they might not have sued.

  6. #836
    Senior Member L.T. Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    16,244
    Quote Originally Posted by fortsbest View Post
    Because of the removing the ability to own a gun at 18. If you are an adult at 18, can vote at 18, serve in the military at 18, then you should be able to own a weapon at 18. It's not like we're are wanting to give 16 year olds the right to vote is it. And before you go on with they can't buy alcohol etc at 18, those are not Constitutionally supported rights. So yes, except for that one they might not have sued.
    For clarity purposes for me......Does the proposal bar anyone under 21 from owning a weapon (gun) or is it aimed at barring anyone under 21 from purchasing a weapon?
    Since Day One

  7. #837
    Senior Member fortsbest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    3,029
    Quote Originally Posted by L.T. Fan View Post
    For clarity purposes for me......Does the proposal bar anyone under 21 from owning a weapon (gun) or is it aimed at barring anyone under 21 from purchasing a weapon?
    I've heard it both wasy so I'm not sure. But barring purchase would be the easy way to go for them. Confiscation or requiring them to transfer guns they already own would by nightmarish. Regardless, this law won't stand.

  8. #838
    Senior Member Cowboysrock55's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    23,428
    Quote Originally Posted by L.T. Fan View Post
    For clarity purposes for me......Does the proposal bar anyone under 21 from owning a weapon (gun) or is it aimed at barring anyone under 21 from purchasing a weapon?
    How would you differentiate between ownership and just possession. Certainly they aren't planning on banning anyone under the age of 21 from possessing a firearm, so how would you determine ownership in those cases? It would be impossible.

    So my guess is it is just purely about purchasing the firearm. Which then sort of becomes a joke because any 21 year old could buy a gun and turn around and hand it to his friend for cash.

    The rest doesn't seem bad although I'm not a fan of allowing officers to seize firearms. Just seems like a matter of time before it's abused by an overzealous officer.

  9. The following user likes this post:


  10. #839
    Senior Member bbgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    2,039
    My guess is that the NRA will lose the SCOTUS appeal of the new Florida law. Judges are affected/influenced by the news just like anyone else, and bumping the minimum age limit to 21 is unlikely to be deemed "unreasonable."

  11. #840
    Senior Member L.T. Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    16,244
    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboysrock55 View Post
    How would you differentiate between ownership and just possession. Certainly they aren't planning on banning anyone under the age of 21 from possessing a firearm, so how would you determine ownership in those cases? It would be impossible.

    So my guess is it is just purely about purchasing the firearm. Which then sort of becomes a joke because any 21 year old could buy a gun and turn around and hand it to his friend for cash.

    The rest doesn't seem bad although I'm not a fan of allowing officers to seize firearms. Just seems like a matter of time before it's abused by an overzealous officer.
    That would be my guess as well but I havent actually seen the proposal. It doesnt seem reasonable that you could keep anyone from owning or possessing a gun if you were under 21. How would you even make that derermination in the first place.
    Since Day One

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •