NRA sues Florida over gun law that raises minimum age to buy firearms - Polidicks

[QUOTE]The National Rifle Association has filed a federal lawsuit over [URL="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gov-rick-scott-signs-compromise-gun-control-bill-parkland-florida-shooting/"]gun control legislation Florida Gov. Rick Scott[/URL] has signed, saying it violates the Second Amendment by raising the age to buy guns from 18 to 21. The new measures come in the wake of the Feb. 14 shooting at [URL="https://www.cbsnews.com/feature/parkland-florida-school-shooting/"]Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School[/URL] in Parkland, Florida, that killed 17 people. [B]The lawsuit came just hours after Gov. Scott, a Republican, signed the compromise bill Friday afternoon. It was passed by the House and Senate earlier this week. [/B] Lawyers for the NRA want a federal judge to block the new age restriction from taking effect. The new legislation raises the minimum age to buy rifles from 18 to 21. The bill, which provides new mental health programs for schools and provisions to keep guns away from people who show signs of mental illness or violent behavior, [URL="http://www.wctv.tv/content/news/Gov-Scott-signs-school-safety-bill-in-wake-of-Parkland-shooting-476403123.html"]CBS Tallahassee affiliate WCTV reports[/URL]. It extends a three-day waiting period for handgun purchases to include long guns and bump stocks that allow guns to mimic fully automatic fire. The legislation also includes a controversial provision, which would allow "dual role" teachers - teachers who have a role in the school outside of the classroom, such as a coach - or others with military or law enforcement background, to volunteer to carry a weapon on school campuses. [URL="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/parkland-victim-meadow-pollack-father-andrew-pollack-face-the-nation-changing-gun-laws/"]Andrew Pollack[/URL], whose daughter [URL="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/florida-school-shooting-victims-identified-by-authorities/"]Meadow[/URL] was among those killed at the high school, pushed for the controversial provision, which is named for coach [URL="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/florida-school-shooting-victim-aaron-feis-shielding-students-gunman/"]Aaron Feis[/URL], who died charging the gunman, WCTV reports. [/QUOTE] [URL]https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nra-sues-florida-over-gun-law-that-raises-minimum-age-to-buy-firearms/[/URL]

oh haven't you people done enough already

It's a good bill you fuckwits. Leave it be.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53191258]By what grounds are they suing for this? Having the age to buy handguns at 21 doesn't violate the constitution, neither did this law. Hell, it was the best reform bill i've seen in years, my only complaint about it was the 3 days, and they even had loopholes in it. Of course they're going to sue over it though, cause they don't really give a fuck about rights, just looking right. This kind of shit makes even gun rights activists hate you, NRA, just saying. I honestly hope the federal judge laughs them out of the room.[/QUOTE] The grounds are they're a lobbyist organization for guns and this is anti-gun. It's not even about 'looking right'. It's literally about money. It's entirely about money.

The NRA doesn't care about gun owners. They care only about the gun makers and the profits they make from gun sales. It's sad to see so many people being literally brainwashed by the NRA to think that any sort of gun control legislation is equivalent to Hitler taking over Germany or something like that.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53191264]But its not anti gun. Legit. Not in the slightest, is it anti gun. They even grandfathered in the 18 year olds who already had guns. I like to think i'm pretty staunchly "pro gun", and EVEN I didn't have a problem with what florida did.[/QUOTE] It absolutely is - because it results in less guns being sold than more. To the NRA that [I]is[/I] 'anti-gun'. It's not about ownership or possession - it's about [I]sales[/I].

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53191271]I mean, maybe? Maybe it'd result in less guns being sold? I dunno, I didn't buy a gun at 18, I bought my first at 21, and bought like.. 3 in the first week. The NRA proves, yet again, that they care not for the rights of the common man, but rather for the industry. Which is also why they support import bans.[/QUOTE] Absolutely. If every man, woman, child, and dog in the US owned 2 firearms a piece they'd be advocating for a 3rd. That's their entire function - lobbying for the sale of guns. They don't want to see people armed - they want to see guns sold.

I do believe the age limit is unconstitutional and will be struck down. Because you can't put rights behind age limits other than the age of majority (18). The other stuff will most likely be considered constitutional.

[QUOTE=RichyZ;53191332]alcohol[/QUOTE] Which amendment was the Right to Drink Liquor added?

[QUOTE=Kigen;53191327]I do believe the age limit is unconstitutional and will be struck down. Because you can't put rights behind age limits other than the age of majority (18). The other stuff will most likely be considered constitutional.[/QUOTE] There are age limits for alcohol, tobacco and gambling, all three of which are dangerous. Guns are (arguably) more dangerous so why shouldn't there be an age limit for buying a weapon?

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53191335]Handguns are gated at 21, and no one questions that.[/QUOTE] Its been upheld since under 21 had access to rifles and shotguns. Now they will have access to nothing. The government cannot put a bar on a constitutional right beyond the age of majority. [editline]10th March 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=joshuadim;53191337]There are age limits for alcohol, tobacco and gambling, all three of which are dangerous. Guns are (arguably) more dangerous so why shouldn't there be an age limit for buying a weapon?[/QUOTE] Because one is a constitutional right while the rest are not. Whether you like it or not having access to arms is a constitutional right that all free citizens get in the US. And one's rights to cannot be put behind an age wall. Certainly nothing in the other bill of rights can be put behind an age restriction.

Fun fact: the first gun control legislation in the US was partially written by the NRA in 1938. They supported gun control legislation for years until recently (last few decades) in fact.

[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;53191389]Fun fact: the first gun control legislation in the US was partially written by the NRA in 1938. They supported gun control legislation for years until recently (last few decades) in fact.[/QUOTE] NFA was enacted in 1934

[QUOTE=helifreak;53191336]Which amendment was the Right to Drink Liquor added?[/QUOTE] Section 2 of the 21st amendment.

[QUOTE=doomkiwi;53191447]Section 2 of the 21st amendment.[/QUOTE] That wasn't an addition of a right to drink liquor, the 21st amendment simply abolished prohibition.

[QUOTE=helifreak;53191336]Which amendment was the Right to Drink Liquor added?[/QUOTE] Y'know, between this and healthcare and what-not, is it impossible to think that the founding fathers, who had the wisdom to predict (or possibly not care) the arrival of arms like the AR-15, wouldn't have also thought "Should we include X?" "What? Do we have to hold everybody's hands here? We're government, not nannies! Everyone knows X should be a right within reason!"? [editline]10th March 2018[/editline] -snip- [editline]10th March 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=UncleJimmema;53191460]That wasn't an addition of a right to drink liquor, the 21st amendment simply abolished prohibition.[/QUOTE] Because the constitution is designed to be changed [I]if it's deemed necessary[/I]. That's why we were able to enact prohibition, and why we were able to revoke prohibition. Anything that "takes away a right" to anything perceptibly dangerous that's temporary like age is ridiculous, especially since it's only 21. Yes, you can smoke and sign up for the army at 18, but that's because you're considered a legal adult, and doing such is really only dangerous for you, right? You won't get blacked-out on nicotine and swerve into a bus full of pre-schoolers, will you? No, but you could very well do so with alcohol as has been proven in the past, not necessarily with any actual bus full of said pre-schoolers, but "accidents/negligence" have happened, and so it's considered an additional danger to society, so it's bumped up to 21. Not necessarily old enough to be "wise" or whatever, but hopefully you've gotten the "wild child" out of you by now so you can just have a beer with the guys every now and then and everyone's perfectly happy and fine. Hopefully after having to go out in the world, and interact with other people (either through work or college, get out there, explore outside the bubble, so to speak) that hopefully you'll have either found something worth living for (hopefully reducing the chances you go postal on somebody, but that's also up to friends, family, and society to accept some responsibility), or something worth protecting. But then again naivety is my biggest weakness so maybe I'm putting too much hope in people's morals these days.

To be fair, if you can join the military at 16/17 I don't see why you can't purchase/own a firearm at 18. Doubt this will change much.

"we support all the parts that add more guns to the mix and enrich our donor network, but oppose the parts that control the sale of guns." [editline]10th March 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=GordonZombie;53191603]To be fair, if you can join the military at 16/17 I don't see why you can't purchase/own a firearm at 18. Doubt this will change much.[/QUOTE] there is an argument to be made similar to alcohol and already its illegal for someone under 21 to buy handguns from licensed dealers. though none of this bill is really supported by any sort of empirical studies because those don't exist. republicans love arming the teachers because texas says it works, but its basically a null hypothesis because school shootings are random and the number of actual armed teachers in all of texas is very likely still pretty low, so just because something hasn't happened doesn't mean its because of the armed teachers. And at the opposite side, democrat positions vary from simple background check tightenings all the way to total disarmament. if ever there was a sign of the battle against inconvenient research its on guns since all sides just want to go with their opinions and these scattershot bills always reflect that

[QUOTE=Kigen;53191357] Because one is a constitutional right while the rest are not. Whether you like it or not having access to arms is a constitutional right that all free citizens get in the US. And one's rights to cannot be put behind an age wall. Certainly nothing in the other bill of rights can be put behind an age restriction.[/QUOTE] The right to bear arms =/= the right to bear any arm that you want.

[QUOTE=phygon;53194499]The right to bear arms =/= the right to bear any arm that you want.[/QUOTE] I don't recall that part in the constitution

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;53194510]I don't recall that part in the constitution[/QUOTE] Do you remember the part where restrictions on weaponry exist in one form or another in most of the country, or how the constitution is/was intended to be a living document and not taken 100% literally and at face value? Or do you actually think that we should go off of the letter of the law and allow ten year olds access to pistols? Of course you don't, but if we were reading the constitution literally and at face value that's how it would work.

Constitutional or not the whole premise is stupid. We believe 18 year olds are mature enough to join the military, run around with real assault weapons, and go to war but don't believe they can buy regular rifles until they're 21. They're mature enough to vote, pay taxes, go to war, and given life sentances, but not enough to drink booze and own guns. If they raised the age of everything to 21 that would be fine by me, as that means we recognise that people are still immature at 18, but this "mature enough for this but not for that" is bullshit. You either are mature or you're not, pick one age to set the standard and be done with it.

[QUOTE=phygon;53194542]Do you remember the part where restrictions on weaponry exist in one form or another in most of the country, or how the constitution is/was intended to be a living document and not taken 100% literally and at face value?[/quote] 1) snip misread 2)Where are the constitutional amendments restricting the 2nd amendment? [QUOTE=phygon;53194542]Or do you actually think that we should go off of the letter of the law and allow ten year olds access to pistols? Of course you don't, but if we were reading the constitution literally and at face value that's how it would work.[/QUOTE] Actually a lot of 10 year olds know how to operate firearms, and even go hunting.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;53194547]Constitutional or not the whole premise is stupid. We believe 18 year olds are mature enough to join the military, run around with real assault weapons, and go to war but don't believe they can buy them until they're 21. They're mature enough to vote, pay taxes, go to war, and given life sentances, but not enough to drink booze and own guns. If they raised the age of everything to 21 that would be fine by me, as that means we recognise that people are still immature at 18, but this "mature enough for this but not for that" is bullshit. You either are mature or you're not, pick one age to set the standard and be done with it.[/QUOTE] I [I]mostly[/I] agree, except as the age of consent. 18 makes sense for that one. Actually, after giving this some thought, I'm not so sure. There are plenty of things finesse in application of age restriction makes sense, simply because not everything carries the same risk. [editline]11th March 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;53194550] Actually a lot of 10 year olds know how to operate firearms, and even go hunting.[/QUOTE] I meant to say "access to purchasing", although "unrestricted access" also applies. An unsupervised 10 year old has literally 0 business with a firearm unsupervised, even less so if (in this theoretical example) the firearm is a pistol.

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53191590] Oh god, is that why their latest ad [I]literally suggested[/I] that the Florida shooting survivors are [I]actors[/I]?! :disgust:[/QUOTE] They actually did that?

[QUOTE=GordonZombie;53191603]To be fair, if you can join the military at 16/17 I don't see why you can't purchase/own a firearm at 18. Doubt this will change much.[/QUOTE] It wont do anything. The last couple batches of mass shooters were all 21+, and the underage ones stole the weapons from elsewhere. Raising the age gate for rifles will have no appreciable effect on gun crime. As it stands today, rifles account for less than 1% of gun crime overall. Focusing on rifles is just a feel good measure to make soccer moms feel safer. Funnily enough, black democrats opposed the bill from the beginning: [Quote]Racial tensions flared last night during a House Democratic caucus dinner between black Democrats, who universally oppose the bill, and some white members considering supporting it. “You don’t do s--- for our community. ... White Democrats take us for granted,” one dinner attendee recalled to POLITICO.[/quote] By and large, this bill is just a cop out for both Ds and Rs to avoid having to do anything effective or substantial. This bill placates the angry mothers but at the same time doesnt affect the average gun owner. Its a lame duck bill and the Florida government should be ashamed.

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;53194561]They actually did that?[/QUOTE] I must've caught the last end of a clip that made me think that. But you have to admit it hardly comes across as some "calm voice of reason": [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrnIVVWtAag[/media] Like wow, so much for all the fear-mongering and divisive rhetoric, eh?