Republican Governor of Florida Rick Scott signs landmark anti-gun bill!

Status
Not open for further replies.
NIGHTLORD40K said:
Actually we dodged most of the shrapnel......for now.

Though I may not like it, the bill that was passed was the best outcome possible under the circumstances for us Floridians. By sacrificing the age limits and waiting periods, we managed to fend off an AWB, magazine limits, and the end of person to person transfers, all of which the urban leftists from Miami, Tampa, and Orlando were crying for.

This was a victory, of sorts, because it takes a lot of steam out of Dem Gov. Candidate Phillip Levine's campaign- which was SOLELY based on gun control. This guy MUST be defeated in the upcoming elections or we can kiss all our 2A rights goodbye in the Sunshine state. Levine will now have to add some other planks to his stump.......

Being at ground zero here for the Parkland fallout, Gov. Scott and our courageous Republican legislators bent, but did not break, to the massive hysterical media and ignorant social pressure heaped upon them. God Bless them, and please call and email them to let them know they did the best they could and we gun owners will support them!
Click to expand...


It is sad that you believe that the only recourse gun owners had is to surrender their gun rights.

Personally I would rather have a anti-gun Governor such as Phillip Levine than the RHINO Governor and Congresspersons you have now.

With a anti-2A Governor you know exactly where he stands which makes it easier to mobilize and fight his agenda. With your Governor Scott and current Congress persons you now know they support restricting your gun rights and you have no way of knowing what other gun restrictions they will support and pass. In fact the anti-2A folks are now empowered and organized to push for more restrictions.

The Republicans did this in only three weeks to prevent gun owners and organizations to get mobilized and mount a effective campaign against the restrictions.

Gun owners in Florida have lost important rights which they will most likely never get back.
 
Questions: How does a 19 year Florida resident now obtain a deer rifle for next fall? Can a parent gift him/her one? Are transfers among immediate family members exempt? What if his parents live out if state - a Florida dealer wouldn't' be able to do a transfer. Can he borrow one? Can he possess one in Florida if he buys it out of state? What if he was gifted one when he was 16 - is he ok possessing it now when 19? Sounds like an absolute nightmare for a young sportsman.

I am really curious how Florida hunters feel they can legally handle these challenges.
 
Waiting periods are nothing more than a successful anti-gun propaganda that is convincing that people who want to buy a gun are planning to commit a violent crime.
Click to expand...

What if a suddenly-suicidal person buys a gun and has to wait so long they become more deranged and decide to include others in the plan? See, I can dream up stupid hypotheticals like a gun-controller, too.

Non-universal BGCs, AWBs, and wait periods stem entirely from such hypotheticals by folks who don't know enough about guns or criminals to be very creative at all about out-smarting them. A UBC/registration scheme would legitimately make some things more difficult for criminals, but only at the expense of a massive enforcement intrusion and legal jeapordy being laid upon all gun owners (which is what the RKBA was written to warn us against). Same goes for a sustained, dilligent ban on all firearms. I'm sure it would reduce gun violence. I'm also sure it would sow the seeds for an unimaginable whirlwind.
 
Hokie_PhD said:
This is awful.
I don't have a dog in the fight with age limits. I do think that we should pick an age where someone is considered an adult. Not have this mess of whatever fits the politicians and the masses.

I've also thought waiting periods were stupid. If I already have a gun why make me wait to buy another one. I can understand waiting for the first one, for an extensive background check, but once that's passed it should be a quick check to see nothing has changed. Also once someone has a concealed carry permit the same should be true.

So while the logic above is what I understand, I don't have to like it.
Click to expand...

In this state a CPL used to let you bypass the NICS delays when purchasing a pistol. I purchased several without a delay because I had a CPL. The ATF has said if the state runs the check and you have a permit you can pass. This state runs the pistol check.

Then to my surprise my FFL tells me he can no longer accept my carry permit because it doesn't have a photo on it. This happened about 2 months ago. The ATF wants a photo and the state refuses to put one on the permit. I think the state does this intentionally to cause delays. Our state still isn't compliant with REAL ID either so there seems to be a pattern there.

Now I can walk into a store carrying a concealed pistol and have to wait 3 days for a delay to clear to purchase.

CA is notorious for playing games with the feds and WA is right behind them now.
 
Last edited:
Good Ol' Boy said:
I also read, and I think it's the worst part of this bill, that anyone who's "deemed" mentally deficient can be prohibited even from owning or possessing guns, forget purchasing. To me that is the scariest part of this bill..
Click to expand...

Me too. There will be no shortage of rubber stamp "mental health care professionals" to sign off on judicial theft.

Illinois State House comes out of the closet with a bill to confiscate automatics and clips from young twerps. State Senate has large Dem majority.

https://conservativetribune.com/sta...kabee&utm_campaign=can&utm_content=2018-03-09
 
NIGHTLORD40K said:
This was a victory, of sorts, because it takes a lot of steam out of Dem Gov. Candidate Phillip Levine's campaign- which was SOLELY based on gun control. This guy MUST be defeated in the upcoming elections or we can kiss all our 2A rights goodbye in the Sunshine state. Levine will now have to add some other planks to his stump.......
Click to expand...

All politics are local. People in other states can throw all the crap they want at local pols but the battle is in the trenches where you live. Ask me how I know. We got a UBC here 2 years ago. I would have gladly traded what the FL legislators did for not having a UBC or AR/mag restrictions.

The 21 age restriction isn't unconstitutional as the NRA and others have claimed. There are no age restrictions in the BOR or federal code other than 18. The FL law does not conflict with this. I'm betting other states are going to do the same thing very soon, all based on what happened in FL.

As for being in the military when you are 18 you have a choice. There is no longer a draft so it's entirely your decision. It's a contract ( legal at 18) you sign so lets just forego all of the comparisons because the gov't isn't requiring you to serve. Can serve and will serve aren't exactly the same thing.
 
Last edited:
Wisco said:
I hear this “if they can die for their country” stuff all the time. For the less than 1% of society who join the military, sure...make an exception.
Click to expand...

Why should we even be think about carving out exemptions to allow legal adults to have their 2A Rights in the 1st place?!?!

Let's take that approach further.

About 15% of all 1st births are from UNDER 21 females ( the mean age is around 25)
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db232.htm

Let's just take a guess and cut that in half to 7.5% 1st births by 18 to under 21 females.... which is the legal age the can procreate in most of the U.S.

To not bore anyone...There are more 18 to under 21 yr old 1st time parents of legal age than there are 18 to under 21 military.

Shouldn't they be allowed to excersize thier 2A Rights?

Either they are legal adults or not.

We should NOT be putting PREconditions on legal adults in order for them to have their RIGHTS outlined in the Constitution.


".... We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...."


Selectively peice-mealing the BOR to people based on what a small number of people decide is pretty much anti American.
 
CoalTrain49 said:
The 21 age restriction isn't unconstitutional as the NRA and others have claimed. There are no age restrictions in the BOR or federal code other than 18.
Click to expand...

I take it the other way and think it can be successfully argued the other way in court.

Simply put, At what age does the BOR start applying?

Does only 1A, 4A, 5A start at 18 and the rest start at some other age?
 
This is why I always say, do NOT re-elect any politicians to a second term because they have nothing to lose. Now with Scott, it’s a different story because he’s running for US Senate. We will remember!
Little by little the government chips away your rights. Every mass shooting a state takes something away, like Colorado, California, NY, NJ, Maryland, Conn did with hi-capacity mags after shootings in some of those states.
 
Flechette said:
This might actually backfire on the gun-banners.

I think that the NRA has a very solid case. They will point out that it is unconstitutional for a state to raise the age for a Trial by Jury to 21 for those accused of crimes. It is also unconstitutional for a state to raise the voting age to 21. Same with all the other rights.

But here's the kicker, if/when the courts shoot down the 21 year old age limit for long guns...doesn't that apply to handguns as well?

The gun banners may have inadvertently set up a case where the requirement to be 21 to buy a handgun gets shot down!
Click to expand...


I like this!
 
danez71 said:
Shouldn't they be allowed to excersize thier 2A Rights?
Click to expand...

Shouldn’t 10 year olds?

My original point was, I think 21 should be the age of majority for everything and that the military argument is not a good one because it isn’t widely applicable.

The 2A is different than the other rights in the BoR because it includes a right that also inherently carries a responsibility that some people cannot possibly meet.

The Founders lived in a time where the age of majority wasn’t 18 - it was 21 and remained so in most states until 1900, and federally until 1970. They also lived in a time where parents actually bore some responsibility for the actions of their offspring.
 
Last edited:
danez71 said:
Does only 1A, 4A, 5A start at 18 and the rest start at some other age?
Click to expand...

Those rights don’t have an age limit.

There is a limit on 1A - can’t incite violence, can’t print libel, etc. but there isn’t an age limit for free speech, assembly, petition, religion.

4A - children have that right, but their parents can waive it. So it’s 18.

5A - applies to kids. They can’t be compelled to testify against themselves or be tried twice, etc.
 
Wisco said:
My original point was, I think 21 should be the age of majority for everything ....
Click to expand...
.

I must have missed that point. I'm not saying 21 should be the age... but I agree there should be a age....But not multiple ahe's that fit a political objective


The 2A is different than the other rights in the BoR because it includes a right that also inherently carries a responsibility that some people cannot possibly meet.
Click to expand...

Ahhh... but "the pen is mightier than the sword" comes to mind. Do we limit the 1A to only 21+ too? Can a 10 yr old truly understand the ramificationS of yelling fire in a crowded theater?


The Founders lived in a time where the age of majority wasn’t 18 - it was 21 and remained so in most statues until 1900, and federally until 1970.
Click to expand...

Maybe 21 should be the # ??? Whatever it is, it should be consistent.

They also lived in a time where parents actually bore some responsibility for the actions of their offspring.
Click to expand...

They didn't raise children back then.... they raised adults. (basically agreeing with you in a generalizing way)
 
Wisco said:
The Founders lived in a time where the age of majority wasn’t 18 - it was 21 and remained so in most statues until 1900, and federally until 1970.
Click to expand...

Really! That is a interesting statement. What documentation do you have to support this?

When the Constitution was written average life span was about 40 years so a 21 year old would be middle-age. Appling the same standard for todays total average lifespan in United States of 79 years a adult needs to be 38.5 years to reach age of majority.
 
CraigC said:
So at 18yrs old you can vote and die for your country but you can't defend yourself or your home. Brilliant.
Click to expand...


Biggest difference is the 18 year olds defending our country are doing so after EXTENSIVE TRAINING.
 
danez71 said:
.

I must have missed that point. I'm not saying 21 should be the age... but I agree there should be a age....But not multiple ahe's that fit a political objective




Ahhh... but "the pen is mightier than the sword" comes to mind. Do we limit the 1A to only 21+ too? Can a 10 yr old truly understand the ramificationS of yelling fire in a crowded theater?




Maybe 21 should be the # ??? Whatever it is, it should be consistent.



They didn't raise children back then.... they raised adults. (basically agreeing with you in a generalizing way)
Click to expand...

I think we agree more than we don’t.

I really don’t have faith in “young adults” to do safe things. I’d almost bet money that some texting teen will be what kills me...

I’m seriously all for a 21 age of majority, but I’m also for responsible parenting, which ain’t gonna happen...

And it should be consistent for things we can measure.

We live in the most free nation in the world, but many of our countrymen haven’t been raised with the skill set to use that freedom responsibly.
 
Wisco said:
Those rights don’t have an age limit.

There is a limit on 1A - can’t incite violence, can’t print libel, etc. but there isn’t an age limit for free speech, assembly, petition, religion.

4A - children have that right, but their parents can waive it. So it’s 18.

5A - applies to kids. They can’t be compelled to testify against themselves or be tried twice, etc.
Click to expand...

Those were just hypotheticals. My question was a bit rhetorical / theoretical

Did the founding fathers intend for the BOR to be independently applicable to people based on different adult ages?

I don't think so but I don't really know.

If they did, how/where did they state that and why?

Again, I don't know for sure but absent any evidence that was their intention, I have to believe that it wasn't their intention.
 
BSA1 said:
When the Constitution was written average life span was about 40 years so a 21 year old would be middle-age. Appling the same standard for todays total average lifespan in United States of 79 years a adult needs to be 38.5 years to reach age of majority.
Click to expand...

Off topic, but that’s more to do with infant mortality and advances in modern medicine than it is about being middle aged as an indicator of wisdom and knowledge.
 
BSA1 said:
Really! That is a interesting statement. What documentation do you have to support this?

When the Constitution was written average life span was about 40 years so a 21 year old would be middle-age. Appling the same standard for todays total average lifespan in United States of 79 years a adult needs to be 38.5 years to reach age of majority.
Click to expand...
Voting in the late 18th century was mostly limited to property owning white men 21 years and older. Bear in mind that democracy as a concept was considered uncivilized and tantamount to mob rule by the well educated and higher classes of society at the time. That's why the United States is a Constitutional Republic.
 
danez71 said:
I take it the other way and think it can be successfully argued the other way in court.

Simply put, At what age does the BOR start applying?

Does only 1A, 4A, 5A start at 18 and the rest start at some other age?
Click to expand...

The BOR is silent with regard to age and the federal code says 18 for long guns and 21 for pistols. That in effect sets a minimum age. Are you also going to challenge the federal code of 21 for pistols. I hope not because that's a fools errand.

21 isn't more restrictive so states can set it anywhere they want as long as it isn't below 18.

10A. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Now that is in the BOR.
 
luger fan said:
Biggest difference is the 18 year olds defending our country are doing so after EXTENSIVE TRAINING.
Click to expand...
So training is a requirement in the Bill of Rights now? At 18yrs old, you can vote, you can serve your country, buy your own health insurance, you can have a credit card, a mortgage, a home and a family. You can be 100% responsible for your own fate. But you can't buy a rifle? Sorry but this is horse hockey. The fact that many are not responsible at that age is irrelevant.
 
CoalTrain49 said:
The BOR is silent with regard to age and the federal code says 18 for long guns and 21 for pistols. That in effect sets a minimum age. Are you also going to challenge the federal code of 21 for pistols. I hope not because that's a fools errand.

21 isn't more restrictive so states can set it anywhere they want as long as it isn't below 18.

10A. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Now that is in the BOR.
Click to expand...

Right. It's silent in regards to age.

I agree that challenging Fed code 21 is ALMOST not able to be winnable at this time... but.... it's Fed code and not in the Constitution.

So I'll ask again... Did the founding fathers intend for the BOR to be independently applicable to people based on different adult ages?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

hso
  • Locked
Vermont to impose UBCs, mag limits, 21 age requirement
2 3
Replies
64
Views
4K
AlexanderA
A
Hummer70
  • Locked
Warning by NRA Past President Marion Hammer to NRA Members
2 3
Replies
60
Views
3K
vito
V
S
  • Locked
Rick Scott Promises to Sign Open Carry Bill for Florida
Replies
5
Views
1K
FLAvalanche
F
S
  • Locked
Chicago battles rise in teen murders
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
Officers'Wife
Officers'Wife
R
  • Locked
Quick update; Florida guns in schools statue: DOA....
Replies
4
Views
1K
RustyShackelford
R
Back
Top