Indeed. It is complete BS to selectively apply past precedent from when 21 was the age of legal majority to argue that young adults in the 18-21 age don't really have Constitutional rights as adults.
United States 2nd Amendment Legal Cases and Law Discussion
- Thread starter bullethead
- Start date
bintananth
behind a desk
I'll trust a random 18yr old before I'll trust a congress critter. The 18yr old is much more likely to show up and do what they've promised to do.
Blasterbot
Well-known member
10% is more than .01% true.
Age restrictions on tht 2nd fail the common use of firearms history test. In the 18th century saying a 14 year old couldn't bear arms they would have laughed and laughed and laughed and then asked what temperature you'd like the tar at and if you had any bird allergies.
Minors were commonly allowed to use firearms, but weren't allowed to *own* them because at that point in time, a minor was quite unambiguously not a legal person in the first place and thus self-evidently had no ability to possess *anything* in the eyes of the law.
Vetrom
war
Barring barrister barratry then, you'd at that point have to dig back to common law to find an answer id guess unless theres somethibg funky in the 18th or 19th century on that. Specifically, which part of which laws take precedence? Laws of ownership, or laws about the age of majority? Is the invention of splitting the age of majority a purely 20th century convention? In this case, I mean the accession of certain natural rights at differing ages vs a all or nothing accession to majority.
Fifth Circuit rules against Pistol Brace Ban
Article: FPC WIN: The Fifth Circuit has ruled that we are likely to win on the merits of our APA claim against the ATF's pistol brace rule, and has remanded the case to the district court with instructions to reconsider our motion for preliminary injunction: https://firearmspolicy.org/mock
Article: Judge Willett concurs, saying that the pistol brace rule likely also violates the Second Amendment. Stay tuned for more info!
Article: heh
Article: "Plaintiffs observe that ATF Director Steve Dettelbach provided inaccurate testimony to the House Judiciary Committee on the operation of this portion of the Final Rule..."
Article: "If the government is correct, and the rule is only interpretive, millions of Americans were committing a felony the entire time they owned a braced pistol."
Article: "The ATF’s main rebuttal is that 'were an individual to be charged with unlawful possession, a court would determine whether the statute—not the Rule—covered the conduct.' That is too clever by half."
Article: "Under the Final Rule, it is nigh impossible for a regular citizen to determine what constitutes a braced pistol..."
Article: They have to remand. The appeal was interlocutory. Now we can work quickly. But don’t be surprised if they ask SCOTUS for relief like they did in our frame or receiver case.
PeaceMaker 03
Well-known member
This is an interesting case that may have a secondary and tertiary blast radius for the federal government, and the unconstitutional use of Federal Administrative Agencies. (FAA)
FFA have been given power of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. All this power in the hands of unelected bureaucrats.
FFA have been given power of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. All this power in the hands of unelected bureaucrats.
DarthOne
☦️
Let’s hope it does, though I don’t have much hope
PeaceMaker 03
Well-known member
Thanks for moving my post to the appropriate thread.
Morphic Tide
Well-known member
Case regarding the Department of Ecology forcing fishers to bring inspector aboard and pay them for the privilege, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, is making it to the Supreme Court. Pile of gun rights organizations filed an amicus brief suggesting the underlying Chevron Deference, which hands near-total decision-making over ambiguities in law to the executive regulatory agencies, be pitched as Unconstitutional in full.
This is where the ATF's "a shoestring is constructive possession of a firearm" and "an arm brace counts as a stock to turn a pistol into an SBR" bullshit comes from, and the argument given for its Unconstitutionality given is that it encourages the legislative and judicial branches to be lazy and leave the fine details to Executive bureaucrats, which violates separation of powers.
DarthOne
☦️
7-Eleven Clerks Being Investigated For Assault In California After Defending Their Store From Would-Be Robber
dcenquirer.com
7-Eleven Clerks Being Investigated For Assault In California After Defending Their Store From Would-Be Robber
Two clerks who defended their 7-Eleven from a brazen robbery in Stockton, California are now being criminally investigate...
dcenquirer.com
Blasterbot
Well-known member
I can't believe California would be so racist and disrespectful to an immigrants culture. guess it really shows how their hierarchy currently stacks up.7-Eleven Clerks Being Investigated For Assault In California After Defending Their Store From Would-Be Robber
7-Eleven Clerks Being Investigated For Assault In California After Defending Their Store From Would-Be Robber
Two clerks who defended their 7-Eleven from a brazen robbery in Stockton, California are now being criminally investigate...
And 20 years hence they will wonder why immigrants keep assasinating left wing prosicutors.
DarthOne
☦️
I don't think it will take that long.
you might just be correct.
If the government of California continues to answer their people's pleas for redress of these harms with more harm...well, that government ceases to be legitimate.
No government is legitimate. Remember, your government hates you. Some governments are just less evil than others. And California is aiming for a gold in evil.
Is this an absolute statement, or just a statement about current governments in existence?