I’ll be honest, I’m not necessarily against this, as so many 18 year olds are coming out of public schools utterly irresponsible, and any criminal records they have are probably sealed from being a minor. Personally, I’d go for a 2 week waiting period for any rifle, giving the background check a chance, and, perhaps a two month period for those who are 18. Maybe require a safety class. What the House Democrats are doing, though, is not going to happen
House votes to raise minimum age to buy semi-automatic rifles to 21
The House voted Wednesday to raise the minimum age to buy semi-automatic rifles from 18 to 21, as part of a package of gun bills in response to a horrific spate of mass shootings across the country.
The vote was 228-199, mostly along party lines, with nearly all Democrats voting “yes” and all but a small group of Republicans voting “no” on retaining the policy in a larger gun package.
The age provision is part of the Protecting Our Kids Act, legislation written by Democrats and slated for a final House vote Wednesday night. Party leaders broke the package up into individual votes for specific proposals to pressure Republican lawmakers who are resistant to toughening gun laws.
“Why? Why would someone be against raising the age so that teenagers do not have AK-47s?” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Wednesday at an event with advocates seeking to reduce gun violence. “Yes, they say mental health issues. Yes, we want to address mental health issues. Other countries have mental health issues. They don’t have a gun violence epidemic.”
Why? Well, because, as usual, Democrats went too far
(Newsweek) Republicans who spoke against the legislation said it was an overreach by the federal government.
“The bill raises the legal age of gun ownership to 21,” Minnesota Representative Michelle Fischbach said on the floor. “This provision is very likely unconstitutional.”
Kentucky Representative Thomas Massie said the provision would raise the age to buy a long gun, including rifles and shotguns, to 21, which he called “immoral” and unconstitutional.
“Why is it immoral?” he said. “Because we’re telling 18,19 and 20-year-olds to register for the draft. You can go die for your country. We expect you to defend us, but we’re not going to give you the tools to defend yourself and your family.”
Yeah, see, it wasn’t just scary looking rifles, ie, assault rifles, it was pretty much all. This has little chance of passing the Senate, and, if it somehow does, it will end up in federal court, and, really, it should go straight to the Supreme Court, as the Congress has no authority to set the age. That is left up to the States.
Dirty rotten treasonous backstabbers better damn well make an exemption for kids who joined the service.
Are there background checks and firearms training in the military?
Well Rimjob should know since he signed up with the Army (during the Vietnam War, ya know).
#TrustUs
#BelieveTheLies
Bwaha! Lolgf
So Preachy thinks it may be unConstitutional for the government to raise the age limit for buying an assault weapon to 21?
Preachy also thinks the bill would keep them from buying any weapon up to age 21.
Preachy Teachy is a liar.
Why is the GOP beholden to death?
Dear Elwood:
Knock off the BS.
You know perfectly well that a semiautomatic rifle is not an assault rifle.
You also know you can’t buy a rifle with the capability to be fully automatic without obtaining a special license.
Been that way since the 30’s.
Dear James,
Knock off the BS. You’re just trying to distract.
You know perfectly well that I did not call the semi-auto AR-15 platform rifles “assault rifles”. I correctly called them “assault weapons”.
I didn’t claim they were automatic or that one could easily obtain one.
The AR-15 platform rifles are semi-auto rifles chambered in the military .223/5.56 mm cartridge. This rifle/cartridge combination is just like the military versions except for the semi-auto only functionality.
When someone says “assault weapon” are you confused by their meaning? Didn’t think so.
21 for one right, then 21 for them all. Voting, military, etc.
Makes sense. Under obamacare, parents are responsible for their kids to age 26. So 26 is the age of maturity. No voting transgendering or aborting until then.
We can compromise by allowing “adult” oarents to abort their kids up to age 26.
Professor, I’ll accept and agree with that concept.
My own preference is that the laws of our nation are consistent, logical and consistently applied. Criminals should be punished. Innocent people should be unmolested by law enforcement. A legal age of majority should be applied to every context where one is needed in the law. 16, 18, 21, 26? Doesn’t matter to me. Pick one and stick to it.
Alternative: Require every child to individually apply for majority status and prove they are self sufficient and responsible before being granted any legal authority as adults or as citizens. Then they get an ID card or microchip implant or bar code tattoo to show they are “approved”. Everyone else gets treated by law as children or animals.
Teenagers with cell phones and cars kill more people.
At 18, if you have sex with a 16-year-old, you can be charged with statutory rape and sent to prison for decades.
At 18, males are required to register with the Selective Service and make themselves eligible for conscription.
At 18, any crime you commit is adjudicated in adult, not juvenile, court.
At 18, you can register and vote for our public officials.
At 18, you can sign legal documents to buy a car, take out student loans, etc, without your parents’ permission.
The age of majority should be identical, for everything.
Everyone misses the point. It’s not guns or age, it’s males that are the problem. All males should be conscripted at 14 for a 12 year education/military/national service/private industry training. Violent crime is reduced 80% and the end product is an educated American 25 yr old male, at which point they can opt in to continue military/national service, graduate/professional school or enter private life.
Laws are only for honest people. An 18 year old approach’s a person over 21. Tells him he needs a gun. The older one buys gun hands it to 18 year old!!!!! Mission accomplished. I have seen exactly this in liquor sales. If man makes a law a man can circumvent it!!!!
If you can’t buy a gun till 21, then you can’t vote till 21, you can’t enter into a contract until 21 etc.
21 for rifles and shotguns, only 4 or 5 to be groomed…
What is the chance of keeping Nancy’s husband sober and off the road? He already killed his brother with his driving. Having the Governor block charges doesn’t protect others from getting killed.
For some reason or other, people have missed the most important point: that the Ninth Circuit Court has ruled that California’s law forbidding gun sales to people under 21 is unconstitutional.
Precedent never stands in the way of leftist party agenda. It only becomes “settled law” when the left wins.
I’m sure no one has missed that. It was patently obvious to anyone who has read the Constitution. No judges required to interpret or translate it for us with magical stones and arcane knowledge passed down from one generation of wise latina to the next.