# Appeals Court Holds 18 to 20-year-olds Have Second Amendment Rights



## The Purge (Jul 23, 2021)

On 13 July, 2021, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, a three-judge panel issued an opinion that held 18-20-Year-Old people have Second Amendment rights. To people who have studied the Second Amendment and the supporting documents at the Founding, this is an unsurprising conclusion.  From the decision, p. 24:





> _As with any matter of constitutional interpretation, “our inquiry begins with the text of the Constitution.” Altman v. City of High Point,330 F.3d 194, 200 (4th Cir. 2003). Both the text and structure of the Second Amendment, along with its place within the Constitution as a whole, reveal that it protects 18- to 20-year-olds. First, nothing in the text of the Second Amendment limits its application by age. Second, the most analogous rights to the Second Amendment, those in the First and Fourth Amendments, similarly contain no age limits. Third, most other constitutional rights are not age limited. And fourth, the few rights that may not apply to those under 18 or that change by age are not analogous to the Second Amendment, and most of those rights become applicable at age 18, not 21._


On page 29:

(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...

The opinion is beautifully written. So is the dissent. The opinion holds the Constitution must be followed. The dissent holds we must find ways to get around constitutional restraints.

If they can vote or serve in the military, they should have full rights.

The minimum age to

Buy alcohol
Buy tobacco
Buy guns
Vote
Join the Army
Rent a car
Be drafted
Serve on a jury
Get married

Should all be the same age.


----------



## White 6 (Jul 23, 2021)

The Purge said:


> On 13 July, 2021, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, a three-judge panel issued an opinion that held 18-20-Year-Old people have Second Amendment rights. To people who have studied the Second Amendment and the supporting documents at the Founding, this is an unsurprising conclusion.  From the decision, p. 24:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Correct.  The Constitution and rule of law are still in effect.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 29, 2021)

An 18yr-old can legally purchase and possess an M-60 machine gun - how is it both necessary and effective to deny them the right to purchase a handgun?


----------



## White 6 (Jul 30, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> An 18yr-old can legally purchase and possess an M-60 machine gun - how is it both necessary and effective to deny them the right to purchase a handgun?


In some states it is illegal, period to personally buy and possess a machine gun.  In other, it is so government regulated, time-consuming, and expensive that it is beyond practicality for 18-year-olds to own, store, transport, and train on their personally owned machine gun.  For all practical purposes you can consider it illegal in even gun friendly states for personal use, and not be too far off base.
They should not be denied the right to purchase a handgun, but even that deserves some regulation if 18 years old or older.


----------



## meaner gene (Jul 30, 2021)

The Purge said:


> The minimum age to
> 
> Buy alcohol
> Buy tobacco
> ...



Interesting concept.  Some states allow people to drive at 16 years old, but not vote until they're 18 years old.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 5, 2021)

White 6 said:


> In some states it is illegal, period to personally buy and possess a machine gun.  In other, it is so government regulated, time-consuming, and expensive that it is beyond practicality for 18-year-olds to own, store, transport, and train on their personally owned machine gun.


Just like the law discussed in the OP, I'm talking about federal law.
Under federal law, any 18yo who can legally own  gun can own an M60.


----------



## White 6 (Aug 5, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Just like the law discussed in the OP, I'm talking about federal law.
> Under federal law, any 18yo who can legally own  gun can own an M60.


What good is owning it, if you cannot take it into the state you live in or the number of hoops to jump through and pay to jump through is almost echelons above reality for 99.9% of 18-year-olds in the country?  Just how many 18-year-olds do you know that legally have and train with one.  Get real dude. You never wondered why.  It is effectively illegal, where not strictly illegal and not at all worth the effort or expense for private ownership.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 5, 2021)

White 6 said:


> What good is owning it, if you cannot take it into the state you live in....


Fact remains:
An 18yo can legally own an M60; that he cannot wone a handgun is insane.


----------



## White 6 (Aug 5, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Fact remains:
> An 18yo can legally own an M60; that he cannot wone a handgun is insane.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 6, 2021)

White 6 said:


>


And yet, the fact remains.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 6, 2021)

The Purge said:


> On 13 July, 2021, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, a three-judge panel issued an opinion that held 18-20-Year-Old people have Second Amendment rights. To people who have studied the Second Amendment and the supporting documents at the Founding, this is an unsurprising conclusion.  From the decision, p. 24:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Preaching to the choir. 

Few if any take issue with the ruling.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 6, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Preaching to the choir.
> Few if any take issue with the ruling.


^^^^
Another lie.


			https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/07/18/federal-appeals-court-decisions-handguns-opens-door-more-violence/
		









						Editorial: 18-year-olds shouldn't have the right to buy guns
					

A federal appeals court ruled that laws can't keep 18- to 20-year-olds from buying guns. But age restrictions for something this dangerous make perfect sense.




					www.latimes.com
				











						Opinion | Handguns for 18-Year-Olds? (Published 2010)
					

The N.R.A.’s argument that people 18 to 20 years old have a constitutional right to buy weapons and carry them in public is breathtakingly irresponsible.




					www.nytimes.com
				



et al


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 7, 2021)

17 year olds can enlist in the military and in 14 weeks can be sent around the world to kill for the United States.  When they get home they cant own a gun ro protect their family.  State sanctioned killing is okay, personal defense is out of bounds…..the democrats are insane


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 7, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> ^^^^
> Another lie.
> 
> 
> ...


Again, this is a non-issue; the court is correct, and few disagree.

Prohibiting 18- to 21-year-olds from purchasing firearms would do little reduce gun crime and violence.

That’s one of the reasons why Florida Republicans enacted the same measure after the Parkland shooting; it was a way to placate those demanding ‘something be done’ without actually doing anything.


----------



## Coyote (Aug 7, 2021)

The Purge said:


> On 13 July, 2021, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, a three-judge panel issued an opinion that held 18-20-Year-Old people have Second Amendment rights. To people who have studied the Second Amendment and the supporting documents at the Founding, this is an unsurprising conclusion.  From the decision, p. 24:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I actually agree.  If you are old enough to join the army and shoot a gun but not old enough to own a gun - that's a bit bizarre.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 7, 2021)

2aguy said:


> 17 year olds can enlist in the military and in 14 weeks can be sent around the world to kill for the United States.  When they get home they cant own a gun ro protect their family.  State sanctioned killing is okay, personal defense is out of bounds…..the democrats are insane


At least you’re consistent at being ignorant and wrong.

The 1968-gun control act concerns solely the selling of firearms by Federally licensed dealers (FFLs) to 18- to 21-year-olds; it does not prohibit 18- to 21-year-olds from possessing firearms, it does not prohibit them from purchasing firearms in a private intrastate sale with another private person, and it does not prohibit an 18- to 21-year-old from being gifted a firearm provided the 18- to 21-year-old isn’t a prohibited person.

Consequently, your post is a lie and ridiculous demagoguery - 18- to 21-year-olds have ample alternative means to lawfully acquire firearms for personal self-defense other than an FFL.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 7, 2021)

Coyote said:


> I actually agree.  If you are old enough to join the army and shoot a gun but not old enough to own a gun - that's a bit bizarre.


Purchase a firearm from an FFL, actually; 18- to 21-year-olds are allowed to own/possess firearms.

But yes, the prohibition concerning FFLs is ridiculous and does little to address gun crime and violence.

And you’re with the great majority of other Americans who agree with the ruling.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 8, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Again, this is a non-issue; the court is correct, and few disagree.


I just gave you a list of disagreements,.   I can give you more.


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 15, 2021)

White 6 said:


> They should not be denied the right to purchase a handgun, but even that deserves some regulation if 18 years old or older.


No it doesn't.  It deserves no regulation at all.


----------



## LuckyDuck (Aug 17, 2021)

I've always believed that if you can serve in the military and be handed a firearm, you should be able to own one.  I do believe though, that first time gun buyers should have a safety class and sign an agreement to abide by the safety rules.


----------



## Colin norris (Aug 17, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> An 18yr-old can legally purchase and possess an M-60 machine gun - how is it both necessary and effective to deny them the right to purchase a handgun?



Again, why would that kid need that gun? 
Oh sorry, because he can.  I forget that.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 17, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Again, why would that kid need that gun?
> Oh sorry, because he can.  I forget that.


It’s not really a matter of ‘need’ but the fact that 18- to 21-year-olds have easy access to firearms other than via an FFL, which is why this is pretty much a non-issue.

Indeed, it’s only an ‘issue’ for FFLs to whom the 18- to 21-year-old market is unavailable.

And most 18- to 21-year-olds don’t have the cash for a new gun, they’re obtaining used firearms through private sales and new guns via gifting.


----------



## Colin norris (Aug 17, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> It’s not really a matter of ‘need’ but the fact that 18- to 21-year-olds have easy access to firearms other than via an FFL, which is why this is pretty much a non-issue.
> 
> Indeed, it’s only an ‘issue’ for FFLs to whom the 18- to 21-year-old market is unavailable.
> 
> And most 18- to 21-year-olds don’t have the cash for a new gun, they’re obtaining used firearms through private sales and new guns via gifting.


 
Are you stupidly using that crap as justification for young idiot lunatics getting access to guns? 

You people never give up on your pathetic justification for guns. Are you all mad?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 17, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Are you stupidly using that crap as justification for young idiot lunatics getting access to guns?
> 
> You people never give up on your pathetic justification for guns. Are you all mad?


Not ‘justifying’ anything.

Simply pointing out the fact that 18- to 21-year-olds have always been able to possess firearms, that 18- to 21-year-olds have always been able to acquire firearms via private sales and gifting, and that consequently prohibiting 18- to 21-year-olds from purchasing firearms from FFLs does little to prevent young idiot lunatics from getting access to guns.

Hence the insignificance of this court ruling, it’s a tempest in a teapot, being contrived into something that it isn’t for purely partisan reasons.


----------



## AMart (Aug 17, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Again, why would that kid need that gun?
> Oh sorry, because he can.  I forget that.


Oh are we back to "need" again. lol.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 17, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Again, why would that kid need that gun?


You know full well your requirement to show some need to exercise a right is nonsense.


----------



## Colin norris (Aug 17, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> You know full well your requirement to show some need to exercise a right is nonsense.



That's exactly what I've been saying. 
You have them because you can. Nothing else. It's also your right to be  gun nut. 
You're welcome to it.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 17, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> That's exactly what I've been saying.


No,  its not.
You've been saying there's no demonstable need.
You refuse to understand there need not be a demonstrable need.


Colin norris said:


> You're welcome to it.


As if you could do something about it.


----------



## Colin norris (Aug 17, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> No,  its not.
> You've been saying there's no demonstable need.
> You refuse to understand there need not be a demonstrable need.
> 
> As if you could do something about it.



You don't get it.  
Why would anybody need those  weapons? 
Because it's their right to have one. It makes you feel powerful . They have no need other than that. Their peers like you advise them to share the testosterone boost when they hold it. It's like a penile extension. 
But it's your right to be a gun nut.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 17, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> You don't get it.
> Why would anybody need those  weapons?


You refuse to understand there need not be a demonstrable need.


Colin norris said:


> It makes you feel powerful . They have no need other than that. Their peers like you advise them to share the testosterone boost when they hold it. It's like a penile extension.


^^^
Infantile nonsense, masquerading as petulance. 


Colin norris said:


> But it's your right to be a gun nut.


And there's nothing you can do about it.


----------



## Colin norris (Aug 17, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> You refuse to understand there need not be a demonstrable need.
> 
> ^^^
> Infantile nonsense, masquerading as petulance.
> ...



Why would I want to change the greatest opportunity to ridicule the gun nuts, post the mass slaughter your guns cause, use an international forum coaxing you idiots to publicly declare you don't have to have a reason other than we can. 

It would appear you have mental constipation when It comes to gun justification. You don't get it. 
Here you are attempting to justify it all. 

I don't care if you have a hundred guns but don't give me those pathetic excuses. 
Get yourself more guns if you like. Kill more innocent people. Buy another of  ammo to put with the other just in case a tyrant enters the WH. In the extremely unlikely case a villain invades your house, blows your head off before you decide which gun is appropriate to defend yourself. It must be a helluva decision to decide which gun to take to the supermarket with mum.  It must be warm commradery discussing the features of your weapons and have that lityle competition who has the better.  Theres so many reasons to keep  them and more.  If tanks and bazookas  were freely available you would get them too. You'd love that big noise wouldn't you? That's like a ballistic orgasm for you freaks.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 17, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Why would I want to change the greatest opportunity to ridicule the gun nuts, post the mass slaughter your guns cause, use an international forum coaxing you idiots to publicly declare you don't have to have a reason other than we can.


Translation:
You enjoy embarrassing yourself.
Go with that you know, I guess.


Colin norris said:


> It would appear you have mental constipation when It comes to gun justification. You don't get it.
> Here you are attempting to justify it all.


^^^
This is a lie.


Colin norris said:


> I don't care if you have a hundred guns


^^^
This is a lie.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 17, 2021)

The Purge said:


> Appeals Court Holds 18 to 20-year-olds Have Second Amendment Rights


Actually, this isn’t accurate.

18- to 21-year-olds have always had Second Amendment rights – the right to possess and own firearms.

At issue was the extent to which those rights could be regulated by government, in this case prohibiting 18- to 21-year-olds from purchasing handguns from an FFL; and according to this court, that prohibition is not consistent with the Second Amendment.

The law is invalid both on the grounds that it violates the Second Amendment and that the law does little to prevent 18- to 21-year-olds who are prohibited persons from obtaining firearms.


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 17, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Again, why would that kid need that gun?
> Oh sorry, because he can.  I forget that.



To protect his family.  To go hunting.
 To target shoot.  To compete in competition.  And the most important reason?  It’s none of your business.


----------



## Colin norris (Aug 17, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Translation:
> You enjoy embarrassing yourself.
> Go with that you know, I guess.
> 
> ...



Oh dear.  The hypocrisy is dripping from your lips when you mention lies. 

The embarrassment is on you how I showed the world just how addicted to guns you are for no reason. 
Because I can ay? 
You also have the right to accept the reduction of guns could reduce mass slaughters . That itself is a pathetic justification for your expanded ego. 

You like the vast majority have never used you guns for which they were made and never will. It's  Pure testosterone and ego is the correct reason.  It's that powerful feeling.  it's the loud noises. Its the sense you are superior to all your inner  hatreds. 
The only  right you have is to be as ignorant as a stump and I think that is work out.  

Enjoy your guns Rambo.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 17, 2021)

2aguy said:


> To protect his family.  To go hunting.
> To target shoot.  To compete in competition.  And the most important reason?  It’s none of your business.


All of which 18- to 21-year-olds were able to do prior to the ruling.


----------



## Colin norris (Aug 17, 2021)

2aguy said:


> To protect his family.  To go hunting.
> To target shoot.  To compete in competition.  And the most important reason?  It’s none of your business.



The most important thing  is that I pointed out the pathetic justifications  and I shouldnt be concerned with it.  Is it the business of innocent people and kids that were slaughtered to enquire like me?
Maybe they should shut up and let the gun nuts run the country.  

As for hunting etc, don't make me laugh. Those excuses failed years ago. 
To protect his family? From what? Himself  and other lunatics like you? 
To compete in competition to be a national lunatic.  That doesn't need practice.  You're doing it now with no training. 

Aren't you pleased you shoved your ignorant nose in? I am.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 17, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> reduce mass slaughters


Which is a laudable goal – provided the means by which that goal is realized comports with Second Amendment jurisprudence.


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 17, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Oh dear.  The hypocrisy is dripping from your lips when you mention lies.
> 
> The embarrassment is on you how I showed the world just how addicted to guns you are for no reason.
> Because I can ay?
> ...



Are you this dumb in real life or just when you post?


----------



## Colin norris (Aug 17, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Are you this dumb in real life or just when you post?


Is that the best you've got?
You don't like a bit if stick and can't take it so out comes the obligatory childish put down as.  
Every time you reply I get another whack at you. Kerp going.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 17, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Oh dear.  The hypocrisy is dripping from your lips when you mention lies.


^^^
This is a lie.


Colin norris said:


> The embarrassment is on you how I showed the world just how addicted to guns you are for no reason.


Please - at least TRY to be original.


Colin norris said:


> You also have the right to accept the reduction of guns could reduce mass slaughters .


So could the elimination of gun-free zones.


Colin norris said:


> That itself is a pathetic justification for your expanded ego.


^^^
This is a lie.


Colin norris said:


> You like the vast majority have never used you guns for which they were made and never will


^^^
This is a lie.


Colin norris said:


> It's  Pure testosterone and ego is the correct reason.  It's that powerful feeling.  it's the loud noises. Its the sense you are superior to all your inner  hatreds.


^^^
This is a lie.


Colin norris said:


> The only  right you have is to be as ignorant as a stump and I think that is work out.


^^^
This is a lie


Colin norris said:


> Enjoy your guns Rambo.


And there's nothing you can do about it.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 17, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> The most important thing  is that I pointed out the pathetic justifications  and I shouldnt be concerned with it.  Is it the business of innocent people and kids that were slaughtered to enquire like me?


^^^
This is a lie.


Colin norris said:


> As for hunting etc, don't make me laugh. Those excuses failed years ago.


^^^ 
This is a lie


Colin norris said:


> To protect his family? From what? Himself  and other lunatics like you?


If gun violence is so bad that we need more gun control, then gun violence is bad enough to justify the possession of a gun for self-defense.


Colin norris said:


> To compete in competition to be a national lunatic.


^^^
This is a lie


Colin norris said:


> That doesn't need practice.  You're doing it now with no training.


^^^
This is a lie


Colin norris said:


> Aren't you pleased you shoved your ignorant nose in? I am.


I am - he gave me the opportunity to point out more of your lies.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 17, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Is that the best you've got?
> You don't like a bit if stick and can't take it so out comes the obligatory childish put down as.


If it weren't for "obligatory childish put downs" you'd never post.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 17, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Are you stupidly using that crap as justification for young idiot lunatics getting access to guns?


^^^
obligatory childish put down


> You people never give up on your pathetic justification for guns. Are you all mad?


^^^
obligatory childish put down


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 17, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Their peers like you advise them to share the testosterone boost when they hold it


^^^
obligatory childish put down


Colin norris said:


> It's like a penile extension.


^^^
obligatory childish put down


Colin norris said:


> But it's your right to be a gun nut.


^^^
obligatory childish put down


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 17, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Why would I want to change the greatest opportunity to ridicule the gun nuts


^^^
obligatory childish put down


Colin norris said:


> It would appear you have mental constipation when It comes to gun justification. You don't get it.


^^^
obligatory childish put down


Colin norris said:


> It must be warm commradery discussing the features of your weapons and have that lityle competition who has the better.


^^^
obligatory childish put down



Colin norris said:


> That's like a ballistic orgasm for you freaks.


^^^
obligatory childish put down


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 17, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> That itself is a pathetic justification for your expanded ego.


^^^
obligatory childish put down


Colin norris said:


> It's  Pure testosterone and ego is the correct reason.


^^^
obligatory childish put down



Colin norris said:


> It's that powerful feeling.  it's the loud noises. Its the sense you are superior to all your inner  hatreds.


^^^
obligatory childish put down


Colin norris said:


> The only  right you have is to be as ignorant as a stump and I think that is work out.


^^^
obligatory childish put down


Colin norris said:


> Enjoy your guns Rambo.


^^^
obligatory childish put down


----------



## Colin norris (Aug 17, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> ^^^
> obligatory childish put down
> 
> ^^^
> ...



Now you are  out of ammo completely. When I turn up the heat you do it again. You can't a bit of stick Rambo. You're just another brain dead gutless red neck gun nut.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 18, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Now you are  out of ammo completely.


^^^
This is a lie.


Colin norris said:


> You can't a bit of stick Rambo. You're just another brain dead gutless red neck gun nut.


^^^
obligatory childish put down


----------



## Colin norris (Aug 18, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> ^^^
> This is a lie.
> 
> ^^^
> obligatory childish put down



Definately no  petulence there..


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 18, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Definately no  petulence there..


^^^
obligatory childish put down


----------



## Colin norris (Aug 18, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> ^^^
> obligatory childish put down


Do you know what petulence means? 
Check it and see if it applies to your answers.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 18, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Do you know what petulence means?
> Check it and see if it applies to your answers.


^^^
obligatory childish put down


----------



## Colin norris (Aug 18, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> ^^^
> obligatory childish put down



You obviously didn't check it.  
You poor soul.   Nothing but intellectual oblivion awaits you. 
Petulence indeed. 

Now, watch this numbskull reply with exactly the same.


----------



## JohnDB (Aug 18, 2021)

A civilian can still legally own any machinegun that was created PRIOR to May, 1986 as long as they get approval on the ATF form 4 discussed above. Remember that no civilian can possess a machinegun manufactured AFTER May 1986 except for law enforcement and military so there is a finite quantity available. 

Class 3 /SOT FFA permits are traditionally impossibly difficult to obtain during Democratic Party control. They become more reasonably difficult during periods when Republicans are in charge. 

Now this usually doesn't affect most firearm dealers. But it usually does affect the specialty small independent gunsmiths. 

These are the type of firearms that I happen to prefer. The ones made by hand and custom built by machinists to a level of precision unheard of in mass produced junk. They do not appear in any pawn shop and only extremely rarely appear in gunshops open to the public. These are almost always collectors items. 
The difference between them and zip guns is the federal serial number.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 18, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> You obviously didn't check it.


^^^
This is a lie.


Colin norris said:


> You poor soul.   Nothing but intellectual oblivion awaits you.


^^^
obligatory childish put down


----------



## Colin norris (Aug 18, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> ^^^
> This is a lie.
> 
> ^^^
> obligatory childish put down



I told you so.  
He s just learnt how to read and write. 
His mother's off shopping and he's got her password. 

Now watch. He'll do the same again.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 18, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> He s just learnt how to read and write.


^^^
This is a lie and an obligatory childish put down        


Colin norris said:


> His mother's off shopping and he's got her password.


^^^
This is a lie and an obligatory childish put down


----------



## Colin norris (Aug 18, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> ^^^
> This is a lie and an obligatory childish put down
> 
> ^^^
> This is a lie and an obligatory childish put down



I told you so.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 18, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> I told you so.


^^^^
Oh look.  Petulance.


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 19, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> It’s not really a matter of ‘need’ but the fact that 18- to 21-year-olds have easy access to firearms other than via an FFL, which is why this is pretty much a non-issue.
> 
> Indeed, it’s only an ‘issue’ for FFLs to whom the 18- to 21-year-old market is unavailable.
> 
> And most 18- to 21-year-olds don’t have the cash for a new gun, they’re obtaining used firearms through private sales and new guns via gifting.



Bull crap.  What about any 18 to 21 year old member of the military?  They've not only proven they can follow rules, they have trained on the rules.  THey have the money, the training, the experience.  But, ever since Obama declared them so, they're terrorists.

But guns, as expensive as they are these days, are still relatively cheap.  I can build ARs all day long for about $500 bucks.  That's a week's wages for any 18 to 21 year old today.

I can, or could before the Democrats bought up the entire gun supply in 2020 in response to rioting and spikes in crime, buy a pretty decent 9mm pistol for about $250.  In fact, Ruger has a 9mm for under $200 and Hi-Point has one for about $150.  Both are good shooting guns.


----------



## justinacolmena (Sep 12, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Just like the law discussed in the OP, I'm talking about federal law.
> Under federal law, any 18yo who can legally own  gun can own an M60.


Hell no. The feds are always shopping for jurisdiction and they just bring these cases to a state and local district courts for prosecution.


----------

