search
top

They Don’t Have to Ban Guns

Just pass this and wait. The shooting sports will be gone in a generation. No need to ban firearms at all. Hunting is on the decline anyway. No harm in exempting that, less the Fudds realize what you’re really doing. They aren’t passing it onto their kids anyway, so what do they care?

The goal is not public safety. It’s sticking it to the flyover rubes and showing them who’s boss.

20 Responses to “They Don’t Have to Ban Guns”

  1. Scott Connors says:

    OTOH, forbidden fruit is always the sweetest, so I would not be at all surprised to see this backfire on the Antis.

  2. Joe says:

    The only ‘immediate’ hope that NY’s Firearms Owning Community has is that the 2nd Circuit Court is set to flip from majority-Democrat to majority-Republican. All of the Bush 41 and Bush 43 Judges have been excellent on Gun Rights.

    Link

    BTW, Trump flipped the 3rd Circuit Court too

  3. Bram says:

    That sure would hurt the effectiveness of our Soldiers and Marines.

  4. Alpheus says:

    And one other thing that irks me about laws like this: allegedly, this is supposed to reduce gun violence, but when you consider that approximately 66% “gun violence” is suicide by older men, and of the remainder, about 80% is gang violence…how in the world is this going to affect violent crime?

    It’s clear that this is an attack on legal and responsible gun culture. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous.

  5. Patrick Henry, the 2nd says:

    Maybe with the new SC setup they’ll actually do their job and protect the right.

  6. Brad says:

    Yes, some regressive States like New York will intensify repression of gun culture within those States. But that doesn’t mean the end of the national gun culture. Odd are it means quite the opposite.

    Did the persistence of Government enforced racial segregation laws in the Southern States signal the eventual death of equal rights in the whole Nation? No.

    The stark and ever growing contrast between State gun control laws only discredits those laws to the Nation as a whole. That’s certainly bad for the people living in those repressive States, but it is no sign of impending National doom.

    And even for those gun owners who live in repressive States, who are outvoted by an intolerant local majority, those poor souls can always escape that repression by voting with their feet. The next national census and reapportionment are coming up very soon. So even doing nothing more than voting with your feet will weaken national gun control.

  7. Richard says:

    There is a problem with the page format with the sidebar obstructing the right side of the comments.

    • Alpheus says:

      That usually happens when someone includes a very long web link.

      It’s been fixed by putting that long link into a compressed “Link” above.

  8. Scott in Phx says:

    That is the plan. But it doesn’t stop with guns, the plan is to wipe out the entire culture.

    Being a “single issue” voter isn’t going to stop that.

  9. 42 says:

    If the Supreme Court ever becomes serious about the Second Amendment, these under 21 bans should be one of the first to go. There is zero precedent in the history of the USA for banning young adults from owning long guns.

    IF.

    • Joe says:

      Ironically, the reason that the 21 year age limit for handguns has stood up to legal challenge so much is because, combined, Rifles and Shotguns outnumber handguns. Therefore, 18-20 year olds still had/have access to the majority of Firearms on the market.

      Only one Federal Court ever made a ruling on this, and stated the reason I paraphrased. My recollection is that it was the United States Federal District Court for The District of New Jersey that made the ruling decades ago.

      These 21 age limits passed for long-gone need to ridden of, indeed.

      • Sebastian says:

        It was the 5th Circuit. The big problem they have is that in history, the age of majority was traditionally 21 for many things. Only recently has it gotten lowered to 18. The issue, which you bring up, is that in our history we’ve never restricted firearms to minors until recently.

        • Joe says:

          Thank you for correcting me on that, and, I read into that Court’s decision too. I at least got my paraphrase right about how 18-20 year olds still had/have access to the majority of Firearms on the market, as the 5th Circuit made this point in the case before it.

          NYS as I mentioned above with regards to the 2nd Circuit set to flip this fall to a Right-of-Center Majority, is at this point, just throwing as many anti-gun laws out there to the wall as possible, knowing that many others that they already have in place are likely to be struck down in the future (especially with the current NYC Case coming down the pike this year). That being said, the Voting Age was lowered to 18 because the plurality of those serving in the Vietnam War at the time before the Amendment doing so was passed, were 18-20 year olds.

          What’s scary is that in Florida and California, in checking many of the other blogs (such as Calguns), is that 18-20 year olds whom of which possessed their firearms before the age was raised to 21 are flooding the offices of Defense Attorneys wondering whether or not they are no longer allowed to own their firearms. This hasn’t been clarified at all in California, and I’m not too sure about Florida, because last I checked, there weren’t any ‘grandfather clauses’ about that written into the texts of those laws. The proposed NY laws are of the same manner.

          The only way you could raise the gun ownership age to 21 is through a Federal Constitutional Amendment. It required one to lower the voting age, and the 5th Circuit Court’s ruling specifically, in very strict scrutiny based text states that Rifles and Shotguns are still fully accessible to 18-20 year olds, which make up the supermajority of Firearms on the market combined. That’s the reason the 21 year age limit for handguns stood.

        • 42342 says:

          True, the age of majority was 21 in early America.

          However, gun ownership by most men 18-45 was mandated by federal militia acts.

          It would be absurd to consider the Second Amendment did not apply to militiamen 18-20 who were required to own guns by the government.

  10. SiGraybeard says:

    What’s the definition of “possess”? Is it to own or to touch?

    In other words, can a gun owner take their kid to the range and let them shoot, or are they making handing a gun to your child a transfer that requires an FFL?

    The latter would have a worse effect.

  11. Richard says:

    52 of 62 counties in NY have declared an 2A sanctuaries or are working on same. This is going to spread across the country as urban leftists become more aggressive with gun control.

    • Joe says:

      Every County in NYS except for the 5 Boroughs of NYC and Albany will become 2nd Amendment Sanctuary Counties. Blue Counties, such as Schenectady and Erie, are quickly going that way ironically, as well.

  12. Bill C. says:

    Why is our own side not going after the enemy exactly like this? The only way to win a war against an enemy that wants you permanently gone is to do the same to them.

top