Thu May 12, 2022, 12:16 PM
ripcord (2,944 posts)
California violated the Second Amendment with semiautomatic rifle age restriction, court finds Read
Source: The Sacramento Bee
California’s 2019 law prohibiting people under 21 from buying semiautomatic rifles violates the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Wednesday. “America would not exist without the heroism of the young adults who fought and died in our revolutionary army. Today we reaffirm that our Constitution still protects the right that enabled their sacrifice: the right of young adults to keep and bear arms,” wrote Judge Ryan Nelson, who was named to the court by President Donald J. Trump. The panel reversed a district court ruling, saying that it “erred in not enjoining an almost total ban on semiautomatic centerfire rifles,” according to the opinion. The case in question, Jones v. Bonta, was brought before the court by the Firearms Policy Coalition, a gun advocacy organization, which hailed the court’s ruling in a statement. Read more: https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article261355502.html Are people adults at 18 or 21?
|
49 replies, 2463 views
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
ripcord | May 12 | OP |
Hoyt | May 12 | #1 | |
FalloutShelter | May 12 | #2 | |
onecaliberal | May 12 | #3 | |
OnlinePoker | May 12 | #6 | |
onecaliberal | May 12 | #10 | |
Mr.Bill | May 12 | #26 | |
EX500rider | May 12 | #36 | |
24601 | May 12 | #40 | |
malthaussen | May 12 | #4 | |
dpibel | May 12 | #12 | |
maxsolomon | May 12 | #5 | |
malthaussen | May 12 | #14 | |
maxsolomon | May 12 | #16 | |
24601 | May 12 | #42 | |
SmittyWerben | May 12 | #7 | |
Post removed | May 12 | #8 | |
maxsolomon | May 12 | #20 | |
The Mouth | May 12 | #23 | |
maxsolomon | May 12 | #35 | |
Samrob | May 12 | #9 | |
bucolic_frolic | May 12 | #11 | |
jaxexpat | May 12 | #13 | |
Hieronymus Phact | May 12 | #15 | |
rolypolychloe | May 12 | #17 | |
maxsolomon | May 12 | #19 | |
marie999 | May 12 | #32 | |
rolypolychloe | May 12 | #37 | |
marie999 | May 12 | #38 | |
cstanleytech | May 13 | #45 | |
llashram | May 12 | #18 | |
secondwind | May 12 | #21 | |
jmowreader | May 12 | #22 | |
cstanleytech | May 12 | #25 | |
marie999 | May 12 | #33 | |
cstanleytech | May 12 | #24 | |
Mr.Bill | May 12 | #27 | |
cstanleytech | May 12 | #29 | |
Happy Hoosier | May 12 | #28 | |
cstanleytech | May 12 | #30 | |
madville | May 12 | #43 | |
cstanleytech | May 13 | #44 | |
former9thward | May 12 | #39 | |
Hugh_Lebowski | May 13 | #47 | |
former9thward | May 13 | #48 | |
samsingh | May 12 | #31 | |
melm00se | May 12 | #34 | |
Grins | May 12 | #41 | |
Dial H For Hero | May 13 | #46 | |
J_William_Ryan | May 14 | #49 |
Response to ripcord (Original post)
Thu May 12, 2022, 12:19 PM
Hoyt (54,770 posts)
1. Gun-humpers aren't adults.
Response to ripcord (Original post)
Thu May 12, 2022, 12:20 PM
FalloutShelter (8,894 posts)
2. Here we go again with this "originalist" bullshit.
This is not the 18th century, when young people were adults with adult responsibilities at 18... they were lucky to live to 50.
Sick of this antique thinking. |
Response to ripcord (Original post)
Thu May 12, 2022, 12:21 PM
onecaliberal (24,341 posts)
3. So we don't think they're responsible enough to drink alcohol at 18, but a deadly weapon, no problem
WHAT could possibly go wrong.
|
Response to onecaliberal (Reply #3)
Thu May 12, 2022, 12:42 PM
OnlinePoker (5,084 posts)
6. Well, they're considered to be responsible enough to join the military at 18. n/t
Response to OnlinePoker (Reply #6)
Thu May 12, 2022, 12:49 PM
onecaliberal (24,341 posts)
10. Indeed. Such a backwards country.
Response to OnlinePoker (Reply #6)
Thu May 12, 2022, 02:56 PM
Mr.Bill (16,645 posts)
26. The age limit law in California
did have an exception for members of the military and law enforcement.
|
Response to OnlinePoker (Reply #6)
Thu May 12, 2022, 05:39 PM
EX500rider (7,955 posts)
36. Actually you can join at 17 with parental permission nt
Response to EX500rider (Reply #36)
Thu May 12, 2022, 11:15 PM
24601 (3,866 posts)
40. This is an interesting question. I know you can join at 17 (as were some of my West Point
Classmates); however, international law would prohibit actual deployment for fighting until age 18. Otherwise, provisions with respect to "Child Soldiers" would be in effect.
By the time a 17-year old enlistee completed basic training and their branch's Advanced Individual Training, it's highly unlikely her or she would be under 18. It's still possible but not probable. I'm almost 68 and still believe if you can fight for your country, you should be able to drink a toast to it. |
Response to ripcord (Original post)
Thu May 12, 2022, 12:34 PM
malthaussen (15,037 posts)
4. Funny, the 9th circuit is on the liberal side.
There is absolutely no logic in permitting semi-automatic weapons and prohibiting automatic weapons. Neither is needed for hunting or home protection (for which latter, you should have a shotgun if you must have a firearm).
-- Mal |
Response to malthaussen (Reply #4)
Thu May 12, 2022, 12:55 PM
dpibel (1,866 posts)
12. Much less liberal than it used to be
Trump stuffed a whole bunch of Federalists onto the 9th Circuit bench. Including the author of the fatuous quote in the OP.
So there are going to be plenty of three-judge panels including two Trumpists. Will be interesting to see if this gets taken up en banc. |
Response to ripcord (Original post)
Thu May 12, 2022, 12:35 PM
maxsolomon (27,631 posts)
5. What's so magic about 18? Why not at the Age of Consent?
What's so magic about semi-automatics? Why are full-automatics infringed?
Why would we need an organized Militia if everyone carries a full-automatic rifle at all times? Wolverines! This is clearly the scenario the founding fathers envisioned. More freedom! ![]() |
Response to maxsolomon (Reply #5)
Thu May 12, 2022, 12:57 PM
malthaussen (15,037 posts)
14. 18 *is* the Age of Consent in California. n/t
Response to malthaussen (Reply #14)
Thu May 12, 2022, 12:59 PM
maxsolomon (27,631 posts)
16. Finally our laws make sense.
Maybe I should have suggested 16, when you can legally drive? Or 12, when you can stay home without adult supervision?
|
Response to maxsolomon (Reply #5)
Thu May 12, 2022, 11:30 PM
24601 (3,866 posts)
42. 2nd amendment protected individual rights to own what was essentially the accepted state-or-the-art
infantryman's weapon.
In 1776, that was a flintlock musket. For those who believe in a living/evolving Constitution, in 2022, that would be an M-4, which has a selector for full automatic mode. In reality, we don't allow that without a specific federal license and semi-automatic (one round for each trigger pull) has effectively become the private-citizen standard. |
Response to ripcord (Original post)
Thu May 12, 2022, 12:42 PM
SmittyWerben (781 posts)
7. Also at that time 13 year old girls were getting married to much older men.
So...weird foundation on which to make your argument. The founders also intended that the 2nd Amendment only applied to the national government, not state or local. How about a compromise, we don't allow 13 year olds to get married, and in California, 18 year olds can own American Revolution era weapons for their hunting and defense needs, which they can upgrade to assault style (sporting) weapons at 21. Reasoning seems, er, solid.
|
Response to ripcord (Original post)
Post removed
Response to Post removed (Reply #8)
Thu May 12, 2022, 01:09 PM
maxsolomon (27,631 posts)
20. You sound like a nice person.
Schadenfreude is SHAMEFUL joy in the misery of others. It's not something you should be proud of.
|
Response to maxsolomon (Reply #20)
Thu May 12, 2022, 01:47 PM
The Mouth (2,599 posts)
23. The misery of those who would take away
what I consider my rights is sweet to me. Gun grabbers, censors, anti-abortionists, anti marriage equality homophobes, drug warriors, and all suchlike.
People who consider it any of their business what I put in or have in my body, who I have as a partner, what kind of art I create or consume, or what measures I take for personal protection can all go straight to hell as far as I am concerned. |
Response to The Mouth (Reply #23)
Thu May 12, 2022, 05:37 PM
maxsolomon (27,631 posts)
35. No one's taking anyone's guns in either of our lifetimes.
There has been no "gun grabbing", despite the anguished fantasies of SOME gun CONTROL advocates. All efforts, even modest ones, at CONTROLLING rampant gun violence in this nation have failed utterly, and you know it. gun laws are only being liberalized.
You should realize when your side has won. Gloating is a bad look. |
Response to ripcord (Original post)
Thu May 12, 2022, 12:47 PM
Samrob (1,171 posts)
9. Why can't semi-automatic and other high assault weapons be banned. That bars no one from owning
another type of gun. If not this, then there should be laws to ban or limit ammunitions, clips, types of bullets etc.
|
Response to ripcord (Original post)
Thu May 12, 2022, 12:50 PM
bucolic_frolic (31,877 posts)
11. America will experience a boomlet in psychiatrists
Response to ripcord (Original post)
Thu May 12, 2022, 12:55 PM
jaxexpat (3,367 posts)
13. "Are people adults at 18 or 21?". That's a good, but not great, question.
The great question is, what is the constitutionally guaranteed proper age for people to arm themselves to wage war "for their country"?
Another good question: Are homicides more or less lethal when the shooter is underage? |
Response to ripcord (Original post)
Thu May 12, 2022, 12:57 PM
Hieronymus Phact (63 posts)
15. so now what about all those other laws?
Many states have age differentials on how old you need to be to buy a pistol vs. a long gun, 21 vs 18 mostly. Is that all unconstitutional now? And it seems from above they didn't ban semiautomatic rim-fire rifles in the first place, so how effective was that supposed to be? This is why as a gun owner, I hate where this has all gone from both angles.
|
Response to ripcord (Original post)
Thu May 12, 2022, 01:02 PM
rolypolychloe (47 posts)
17. A well regulated militia!!
The second amendment "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" On its face this means that if the state's militia is not well regulated, as in mass shootings by said militia, then the federal government would be within its rights to infringe on the right to bear arms.
The state should be able to do whatever it feels is necessary to ensure that its militia is "Well regulated" |
Response to rolypolychloe (Reply #17)
Thu May 12, 2022, 01:07 PM
maxsolomon (27,631 posts)
19. Yeah, that ship has sailed.
"Well-Regulated" is an anachronistic phrase that means "well-equipped" and "functional". It doesn't mean the Unorganized Militia can be regulated.
America = fucked up. |
Response to rolypolychloe (Reply #17)
Thu May 12, 2022, 04:55 PM
marie999 (3,334 posts)
32. According to the Supreme Court there are two parts to the 2nd Amendment.
Because of the where the commas are in the wording the first part is about a well regulated militia and the second part is about the right of the people. Commas are very important in understanding what a sentence means.
|
Response to marie999 (Reply #32)
Thu May 12, 2022, 05:50 PM
rolypolychloe (47 posts)
37. A tortured interpretation
yes, it was a 5-4 opinion in 2008. Prior to that, there was no federal right to individual gun ownership, only the right for a state to maintain its own militia. 5-4 is not exactly slam dunk, not black and white. Since the SC is now comfortable revisiting prior descisions, maybe this one will be overturned also
|
Response to rolypolychloe (Reply #37)
Thu May 12, 2022, 06:47 PM
marie999 (3,334 posts)
38. Not with the Supreme Court we have now.
Response to rolypolychloe (Reply #37)
Fri May 13, 2022, 12:40 AM
cstanleytech (23,779 posts)
45. Dred Scott was 7-2 which proves a super majority court is not always right either.
Response to ripcord (Original post)
Thu May 12, 2022, 01:04 PM
llashram (4,864 posts)
18. guns, guns, guns
in the hands of the unprepared, unqualified and in extreme cases stupid and mentally unfit. Rittenhouse comes to mind. Racist clowns under the authority of badge and uniform. Sad indeed. Goes to SC, I feel I know where this one will end...
|
Response to ripcord (Original post)
Thu May 12, 2022, 01:18 PM
secondwind (15,395 posts)
21. AND WHERE ARE OUR RIGHTS... TO BE FREE FROM GUNSHOTS, ETC?
This makes me sick to my stomach...
|
Response to ripcord (Original post)
Thu May 12, 2022, 01:19 PM
jmowreader (47,280 posts)
22. I sometimes wonder...
If a lawmaker in one of our Blue States were to write a law that states:
1. The militia and non-infringement clauses of the Second Amendment were inseparable, therefore 2. Anyone wishing to own a gun in their state must join an official militia that effectively operated as a state-owned gun club with mandatory quarterly meetings for firearms training ...how quickly would that law be rendered unconstitutional by the courts? |
Response to jmowreader (Reply #22)
Thu May 12, 2022, 01:54 PM
cstanleytech (23,779 posts)
25. Firearms training and the requirement to securely store all firearms away when not on your person.
Response to jmowreader (Reply #22)
Thu May 12, 2022, 04:58 PM
marie999 (3,334 posts)
33. The Supreme Court would find the law unconstitutional. See my post 32.
Response to ripcord (Original post)
Thu May 12, 2022, 01:52 PM
cstanleytech (23,779 posts)
24. Modify the law to hold a driver's license with a provision
that to hold said license is contingent on not buying or owning such a gun until the age of 21. After all being granted a drivers license is not a Constitutional right is it?
|
Response to cstanleytech (Reply #24)
Thu May 12, 2022, 03:09 PM
Mr.Bill (16,645 posts)
27. California law very clearly
defines driving a car as a privilege and not a right.
|
Response to cstanleytech (Reply #24)
Thu May 12, 2022, 04:20 PM
cstanleytech (23,779 posts)
29. Plus the stae can argue that to declare such a law unconstitutional
would mean that laws that have a minimum age for anything such as to drink liquor should be thrown out.
|
Response to ripcord (Original post)
Thu May 12, 2022, 03:51 PM
Happy Hoosier (4,186 posts)
28. So... does this mean a 21 drinking age is Unconstitutional? NT
Response to Happy Hoosier (Reply #28)
Thu May 12, 2022, 04:22 PM
cstanleytech (23,779 posts)
30. Not to mention the age of consent to have sex laws.
Response to cstanleytech (Reply #30)
Thu May 12, 2022, 11:34 PM
madville (6,787 posts)
43. Age of consent is 16-17 in most of the US
[url=https://ibb.co/K7mtJcH][img]
![]() |
Response to madville (Reply #43)
Fri May 13, 2022, 12:36 AM
cstanleytech (23,779 posts)
44. Yup but it could be argued that any such age limitations imposed upon a person
unless specified by the Constitution are in effect an over reach by the government and therefore unconstitutional.
|
Response to Happy Hoosier (Reply #28)
Thu May 12, 2022, 09:17 PM
former9thward (26,223 posts)
39. Drinking is not a Constitutional right.
In fact we did away with it (legally) for a while.
|
Response to former9thward (Reply #39)
Fri May 13, 2022, 11:49 AM
Hugh_Lebowski (26,809 posts)
47. Well, it sorta is, cause prohibition was done by constitutional amendment ...
And then of course UNdone by a subsequent one.
Ergo ... drinking is a constitutional right ![]() |
Response to Hugh_Lebowski (Reply #47)
Fri May 13, 2022, 11:52 AM
former9thward (26,223 posts)
48. No, the selling of alcohol was prohibited.
Drinking was never banned federally.
|
Response to ripcord (Original post)
Thu May 12, 2022, 04:40 PM
samsingh (16,806 posts)
31. stupid repug judges. they may also bring us back to a time when children under 10 could be married
Response to ripcord (Original post)
Thu May 12, 2022, 05:01 PM
melm00se (4,554 posts)
34. the age of majority should be set nationwide for all rights
and for voting that has already been done with the 26th amendment (which is also the fastest ratification of a constitutional amendment).
|
Response to ripcord (Original post)
Thu May 12, 2022, 11:27 PM
Grins (4,991 posts)
41. They went to court because not enough minors had semi-automatic weapons?
Dafuc???????
|
Response to Grins (Reply #41)
Fri May 13, 2022, 01:37 AM
Dial H For Hero (2,971 posts)
46. A 20 year old is not a minor.
Response to ripcord (Original post)
Sat May 14, 2022, 04:38 AM
J_William_Ryan (1,253 posts)