21 To Buy A Handgun

Status
Not open for further replies.
you can at ease that crap right now, this is an all volunteer military, no body is getting drafeted so that argument dosen't work there highspeed. strip you of what rights? please explain. Hey maybe if you were in the arena of willing to make the ultimate scrifice then i might fill sorry for you, but hey i don't! How do you think i feel, i spent all that time trying to stay alive, and come back to stateside and can't even have a drink to celebrate, get over it just like i did! heck american coke was enough for me after drinking there "coke". The bubbles kicked my butt, no telling what alchol would have done to me!You are not making any argument that i haven't heard before!
Click to expand...

It may be now but what happens when a mushroom cloud appears over some major city, or some terrorist gets his hands on some goold ole VX?

What rights? Did you even read what Jamie posted?

I don't want your or anyone elses pitty. Nor do I want to fight and die as a second class citizen for the rights of a first class citizen. ;)
 
yeager,
simple solution don't fight then, be a good citizen and pay your taxes and everyone else will do the dirty work!
 
I'm not one to interrupt a good pissing match but y'all are drifting the heck out of this thread.

Maybe you could try using the PM function for the whole "who's more patriotic" thing and get back on point.
 
So now I'm a bigot, and both my experience and the experience and research of other far more educated people than me (and I suspect most of you) is a "crock"?

I guess maybe I am a bit "off", 'cause I find that more than a little amusing. *g*

Oh, and as for lawmakers seeing things the same way I do, or the general public, for that matter... take a look at these 3 news stories:

Four Suspects Arrested In Hopkinsville Killing

City Touts Gun Buy-Back Program

Local Mall To Begin Youth Policy

Keep in mind these 3 are from the last 2 days.... and there have been many before them with pretty much the same theme... youth violence, and what to do about it.

Now.... apply a bit of that critical thinking Mr. Quick mentioned, and think about what John Q. Public is going to make of the apparent trend shown with these stories, and what they, the Brady camp, and our own elected officials are most likely going to do and say.


Edit: I should probably add that although I'm quite sure many of the under-21 year olds here are indeed the "exception to the rule"..... it's not the exception that the rules are written for.



J.C.
 
nothing like a college kid that has no idea about the real world! being in the army and hatted by the local cops because we are military and the college kids are the ones they let off for speeding and such, and always target us, if there is a fight at the local club, no matter who started it the solider is going down town! we really don't take lightly to college kids. blasting off at the mouth, with no regards to the people that they are bashing. That person, might just be somebody that puts there life on the line to allow you to have the freedoms you don't deserve but by the Blood of all those before have gainned, think about it. I do what i do so you can say and do what the law allows and, on the flip side i am allowed to say what i wish, you don't have to agree. check out myspace maybe somebody there will, have your same outlook!
Click to expand...

Just because I am in college and you are supposedly in the military doesn't mean I don't support the military. In my town Marines, soldiers, sailors, and airmen get out of tickets and trouble alot more easily than anyone else. Sounds like you just live in the wrong place.

Don't guilt trip me about going to college and not enlisting straight out of high school. I have my own reasons for the path of my life and just because you were deployed doesn't give you the right to pass judgement on my support or the armed forces or this country.

My father was in the Marines for 22 years, I know all about the military and sacrifices and bleeding for our country.

I wasn't bashing anyone, especially not you but since you want to blast off at the mouth also, you can take your "I'm a vet" guilt trip and stick it up your ass. Just because you did one honorable thing that I respect does not mean that you don't escape a bashing if you turn out to be an ass hole. Being in the military doesn't make you special. Anyone can be in the military. It is all about how you make SELFLESS sacrifices and risk life and limb for the USA and the love of your country. Not about being able to have stories about how dangerous your tour in wherever was so you can guilt others into saying that they owe you something.

My father was in the Marines for 22 years and fought in Vietnam and countless other engagements all over the world and he never asks anyone for respect or acts like he is owed anything because he made a choice for a cause that he believed in. He didn't do it for bragging rights. Those are the only kind of vets I respect.


How did this go from asking about the relevancy of the handgun age limit to a patriot pissing contest? This thread needs to be locked. No constructive discussion is coming out of here.
 
carebear wrote:
jamie,

Don't we have all sorts of other laws to handle those minors who commit a crime with a handgun?

You know, the same ones we use to control OVER-21 yr olds who misuse handguns?

The same ones we use to control those over 18 who misuse long guns?

Etc, etc, etc.

You remember those, laws that only criminalize behavior that actually, directly interferes with the rights of others?
Click to expand...

Hey Carebear... Sorry I missed this the first time around.

If you'll go back and read the articles I linked to in my earlier posts concerning brain development, you'll notice that the argument is that those "other laws" that govern how all the rest of us are treated concerning criminal behavior shouldn't and can't be applied to minors, people with "mental defects", etc. In other words, doctors and lawyers are saying that there's a certain group that are outside of the usual laws.

Now, if you can't prosecute them for their actions or hold them accountable because it's "not their fault", and you can't keep the items they mis-use out of their hands.... what do you do?

Personally I believe that anyone who commits murder or any other violent crime should be held to the same standard as anyone else, no matter what their age or mental state. But apparently that is no more popular an opinion than restricting access to guns and other weapons to anyone under 21 is.



J.C.
 
Last edited:
Are you putting people under 21 into the category of mental defect because of some articles you read?
 
Are you putting people under 21 into the category of mental defect because of some articles you read?
Click to expand...

The simple answer here is "no".

The long-winded answer is that not having the mental capacity or capability to make decisions in the same manner a fully-mature adult is supposed to be able to can be a defect, if a person is past the physical age where the brain and corresponding ability should be fully developed.

It is not a defect to simply be too young to not have that development yet.

However, in most cases, the courts and the law treat both instances in the same manner.
The crime committed has to be pretty severe, and/or there be some sort of mitigating circumstances for a minor to be tried as an adult, for instance.

As for "some articles you read".... My wife and I could flood this forum with links and scans of medical documents and texts concerning brain development, neurology, child psychology/psychiatry, etc.

This is because of, as I've said elsewhere, my step-daughter's medical problems. She has epilepsy, Asperger's syndrome, and a couple of other neurological/behavioral issues.

We have had to do a lot of study and research, as well as spend many hours with doctors, in an attempt to understand what's going on with her, and how best to handle much of what we encounter with her.

The bottom line is that no, I am not basing my opinions on nothing more than a "couple of articles" I've read.


J.C.
 
Okay, I just wanna clear somthing up, my buddy at the store is 19, he wants to buy my baby eagle (9mm), someone I know who is a cop said I could sell it to him but I dont know if I trust this guy! I am pretty sure it is legal but I just need to clear so confusion. Is it legal in Jersey for someone under 21 to buy a handgun from a private owner???
 
Carebear said:
That's not quite correct. It used to be ATF's ruling that it was only a straw purchase if you bought a handgun for someone who was ineligible to purchase themself (under 21, felon etc). If you look on the FAQ for "straw purchse" they show that they dropped the "ineligible" interpretation a few years back.
Click to expand...

Carebear,

The material I provided was a paste from the ATF FAQ on Straw purchases and it clearly stated that a father could buy a firearm for a juvenile.
B14) May a parent or guardian purchase firearms or ammunition as a gift for a juvenile (less than 18 years of age)? [Back]

Yes. However, possession of handguns by juveniles (less than 18 years of age) is generally unlawful. Juveniles generally may only receive and possess handguns with the written permission of a parent or guardian for limited purposes, e.g., employment, ranching, farming, target practice or hunting.
Click to expand...

I don't get how this interp from ATF isn't pretty clear or in conflict. A father or guardian may purchase a firearm to give to child. The minor child may possess the handgun if written permission is given. I know we're dealing with interpretation or regulations and that doesn't always have to be logical, but I don't understand how this can be viewed as not allowing a father to purchase a handgun to give to anyone under the age of 21 since the parent is the actualy purchaser and can't be engaging in a straw purchase.
 
JamieC. said:
Sorry folks, but things are different now than they were in 1968. Very different. And no, I don't know exactly what has changed but it's pretty obvious that it's not for the better.
Click to expand...

J.C.,

Either society has devolved somehow due to the incomplete development of the frontal lobes of young adults these days or I've missed your point altogether. If you and I and Byron and many of us that were young adults in 1968 (and earlier) were capable of safely using firearms with our still developing brains, why does that incomplete development in current youth have any bearing on their safe handling of firearms? Do their brains somehow develop slower than ours did? Did your's and mine develop quicker? Or is it solely that we were were raised differently than a lot of kids these days?

If nothing has changed in our biology, then age has nothing to do with whether a 16, 17, 19 or 20 year old is incapable of handling a firearm safely. It has to do with culture, training and how much responsibility the individual can handle.
 
Personally I think all that frontal lobe stuff is a bunch of crap that proper parenting can fix.
 
Hso, you said earlier:

'I would not allow my own son to have unsupervised access to a firearm before the age of 21..."

Why is that?

You also said:

"If nothing has changed in our biology, then age has nothing to do with whether a 16, 17, 19 or 20 year old is incapable of handling a firearm safely."


Am I seeing a bit of a contradiction between your two statements, or is my tinfoil hat letting me down again? :uhoh:

Also, what determines this one?
"how much responsibility the individual can handle."

Isn't it biology and maturity?

Now, as to what has changed, or what has gone wrong, from the time you, I, and many others were kids... I'm not entirely sure. However, I think this, from the first news article I linked to back in one of my first posts today, might offer a clue:

Teague’s mother, Joan Jones, said she had been sitting by the phone waiting to hear something from her son.

Jones said officers came to her home and picked Teague up Tuesday afternoon. That's when she learned her son was wanted for murder.

“Austin didn't do nothing like that, not my son. I can see if Austin was a wild kid, but he never was, he always stayed to himself,” she said.

Jones said her second shock of the day came when an officer returned to her home with a search warrant, and went to her son's room and found what police believed to be the murder weapon.

“He went on back in there and got it and I said ‘Wow I've been in my house and there's a gun in my house, what in the world is a gun doing in my house?” she said.
Click to expand...

These kinds of statements and reactions are all too common these days, in my opinion. And for me, it points to the parents, and their negligence in doing what they should, both for and with their kids, as being the real problem.

But then, as I said, that's just my opinion. *shrug*


J.C.
 
hso,

That FAQ refers to a gift. If his dad was to give him the gun then there's no problem whatsoever. Giving is legal, as is possession of the gun as the receiver is over 18.

What was being discussed was not a "gift" though. It was a "buying for", where money changes hands from the receiver to the seller.

Even that sale would be legal if his dad bought it for himself with no prior intention of selling it to his son.

The "straw man" (and illegality) comes in if, prior to or at the time of purchasing the gun, the father (and son) have the intention that it is actually being purchased by the father to be sold to the son. This is a "straw" transaction because when the father fills out the 4473 he is checking the box stating that the "purchaser is the intended recipient" of the firearm. If he's decided to sell it at the time of purchase, that statement isn't true. To a certain extent he's also engaged in dealing without a license.

Here's teh ATF circular (for the industry) addressing the issue

http://www.atf.treas.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/geninfo.htm

15. "STRAW PURCHASES"


Questions have arisen concerning the lawfulness of firearms purchases from licensees by persons who use "straw purchasers" (another person) to acquire the firearms. Specifically, the actual buyer uses the straw purchaser to execute the Form 4473 purporting to show that the straw purchaser is the actual purchaser of the firearm. In some instances, a straw purchaser is used because the actual purchaser is prohibited from acquiring the firearm. That is to say, the actual purchaser is a felon or is within one of the other prohibited categories of persons who may not lawfully acquire firearms or is a resident of a State other than that in which the licensee's business premises is located. Because of his or her disability, the person uses a straw purchaser who is not prohibited from purchasing a firearm from the licensee. In other instances, neither the straw purchaser nor the actual purchaser is prohibited from acquiring the firearm.

In both instances, the straw purchaser violates Federal law by making false statements on Form 4473 to the licensee with respect to the identity of the actual purchaser of the firearm, as well as the actual purchaser's residence address and date of birth. The actual purchaser who utilized the straw purchaser to acquire a firearm has unlawfully aided and abetted or caused the making of the false statements. The licensee selling the firearm under these circumstances also violates Federal law if the licensee is aware of the false statements on the form. It is immaterial that the actual purchaser and the straw purchaser are residents of the State in which the licensee's business premises is located, are not prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms, and could have lawfully purchased firearms from the licensee.

This article does not purport to cover sales to persons who purchase firearms with the intent of making gifts of such firearms to other persons. In instances such as this, the person making the purchase is indeed the true purchaser. There is no straw purchaser in these instances. The use of gift certificates would also not fall within the category of straw purchases. The person redeeming the gift certificate would be the actual purchaser of the firearm and would be properly reflected as such in the dealer's records.
 
jamie said:
Hso, you said earlier:

'I would not allow my own son to have unsupervised access to a firearm before the age of 21..."

Why is that?

You also said:

"If nothing has changed in our biology, then age has nothing to do with whether a 16, 17, 19 or 20 year old is incapable of handling a firearm safely."

Am I seeing a bit of a contradiction between your two statements, or is my tinfoil hat letting me down again?
Click to expand...

There's no contradiction whatsoever. hso was clearly referring specifically (and only) to his own son. He could have any number of reasons other than age for not wanting that particular person to have unsupervised access.

However, that does not mean he has to think there needs to be a law to keep all persons under 21 from having such possession.

Personal responsibility versus nanny-stateism.
 
Personally I think all that frontal lobe stuff is a bunch of crap that proper parenting can fix.
Click to expand...

Well, if it were crap, then a frontal lobotomy and certain types of head/brain injuries wouldn't cause such a profound change in people's personality and behavior.

As for proper parenting... yes, it can certainly help. But the thing is, "proper parenting" involves paying attention to the child, learning what he/she's strong or weak in, where they are likely to use poor judgment, etc., and keeping them away from, or restricting access to, certain things or situations until they can be taught to deal with them. This last part may only come with age and the maturity brought on by their own development.

There's also the problem that sometimes, with some kids, the "raising just don't take".

Then there's the other problem of what do you do when, for one person that does do a "proper" job of raising and teaching their kids, there's a hundred, or even a thousand, that don't?

Do you pass more laws? If so, concerning what?


J.C.
 
jamie,

You do what has already been done, pass laws that punish the behaviour, not that attempt (with blatant failure every time it's tried) to preempt it.

Preemptive gun laws don't prevent a kid who wants a gun from getting one.

They don't prevent a kid who wants to commit a crime (a very distinct thing from just wanting to own one) with that gun from committing the crime.

They are prima facia useless.

Think of it this way. I live in Alaska. You can now, if over 21 and not barred from possession, carry a concealed weapon without a permit. However, if you are under 21 and/or not barred, you can carry without a permit too, just not legally.

The net difference to society in those two groups of carriers? ZERO.

That is, zero until they commit a real violent crime. At that point I don't care if they were legal or illegal to carry the weapon before, they have just now, and not before, actually caused a real problem.

At that point, they are eventually going down on a conviction that makes misdemeanor carry meaningless.

So the carry law does not do one thing to make us safer. The legal carriers aren't a problem and even the illegal carriers aren't a problem until they actually do something illegal with the weapon.

Until that point, assuming they know how to carry, society will never know. In fact, the only way to make carry laws meaningful is to give the police the ability to stop and search people for weapons at will.

They are a functionally useless preemptive law. Just like juvenile possession laws are.
 
These kinds of statements and reactions are all too common these days, in my opinion. And for me, it points to the parents, and their negligence in doing what they should, both for and with their kids, as being the real problem.

But then, as I said, that's just my opinion. *shrug*
Click to expand...

Am I the only one here who sees how ridiculous this argument is? Damnit, that's the EXACT same line of reasoning used by every single gun control organization: gun violence is too common these days, and thus their ownership should be restricted. Where are the statistics? Where is the evidence linking the legal possession of firearms by 18-20 year-olds to increased crime? Absolutely anyone who has ever had even the slightest amount of education in the field of logic and debate will tell you that citing one example as evidence for your argument doesn't prove anything, and in this case it's just an emotional appeal.
As for proper parenting... yes, it can certainly help. But the thing is, "proper parenting" involves paying attention to the child, learning what he/she's strong or weak in, where they are likely to use poor judgment, etc., and keeping them away from, or restricting access to, certain things or situations until they can be taught to deal with them. This last part may only come with age and the maturity brought on by their own development.
Click to expand...
Why is 21 the magic age that suddenly brings enlightenment and self-control? Why is it that before that day, humans are assumed to be second-class citizens who must be protected and sheltered, but after midnight it changes? And explain how it is that keeping firearms away from legal adults teaches them anything. Your logic is unclear on how restricting access consequently leads to responsibility, indeed, I think many would argue that the very opposite is true.

You won't care what I say, or you won't believe me, but for what it's worth I keep a 1911 with a loaded magazine in my computer desk, and have for some time. At no time when I am home am I more than a few seconds away from a loaded firearm. In fact, I'm the only one in my home who even knows how to get into the safe, simply because it's my responsibility to maintain, store, and supervise the firearms of the household. One of my old classmates from highschool is the manager of a retail store. Two of my closest friends just got done with their summer job at a camp, supervising children with disabilities. Another friend of mine has been living on his own for more than a year now, holding a job, attending a university full-time, and participating in ROTC. All of us are younger than 21, and by your definition we all lack responsibility and the capability to make decisions. I could go on with examples, but what's the point. As they say, arguing on the internet...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top