Background checks for 18 yr olds are useless

[senseandsensibility]

When 18 yr olds go to buy assault weapons on their 18th birthdays, their police records as juveniles have just been wiped clean. So anyone who does this will be clean. This excellent point was just made on CNN by David Cullen. So, in addition to other benefits of making the age limit 21, it would also give the system 3 more years of documented behavior to evaluate.

I really think raising the age limit should be a primary goal of Dems and their messaging.

[LeftInTX]

1. Agree

It's also simple to implement
Just raise the age to 21

[senseandsensibility]

2. Exactly.

And, since an assault weapons ban already has majority support, I would think one that just raises the age would have even more support from the public. It would be a good thing for Dems to concentrate on in their messaging.

[LoisB]

3. You can buy an assault weapon at 18 but can't rent a car until you are 25?

[DBoon]

19. rental companies make a financially based decision on who they rent to

using real data on accidents by age.

Gun sellers use fantasies of fear and aggression to base sales.

[MineralMan]

20. Also, their insurance costs more if they rent to younger drivers.

That's probably the main reason.

[NullTuples]

30. Both of which are why California now has a Texas abortion law style anti assault rifle law

Once a few manufacturers and sellers get sued, they'll restrict sales.

As much as I agree that it's time to fight fire with fire, meanwhile the entire barn that is our democracy is burning down, if you'll excuse the drawn out analogy.

We may be on the cusp of a set of laws, a legal system, that has no judicial review allowed for anything too partisan.

[Zeitghost]

38. Not yet

And the proposed law only allows private action against guns that are already illegal criminally. So it's not likely to do much.

[NullTuples]

51. Good point, thanks.

[applegrove]

4. I saw that. Such a good point. He then said if we wait to allow gun ownership till 21 then there is

time for a record of behaviour to be established.

[LeftInTX]

25. No he was not..Texas school shooter wasn't arrested for threat in 2018, officials say

A Republican is the source of this rumor BTW

https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-uvalde-2018-tony-gonzales-561365031888

[maxsolomon]

33. OK, thanks for clearing that up.

Wouldn't have shown up anyway...

[USALiberal]

36. Delete

[maxsolomon]

47. You could say it nicely.

[DBoon]

6. Not just wiping the juvenile record clean

but also juveniles can do things that never get recorded in the first place, that if done by an adult would come up in a background check.

A few years of full time employment, military service, or college will bring out behavior that in high school may not be obvious.

[Hangingon]

7. Cannot agree

Lots of gang members have criminal histories going back to the time they are 12

[maxsolomon]

9. Can't agree with what?

If those "gang members" have juvenile felony records, are they wiped at adulthood? Do they show up on background checks?

[Hangingon]

10. I don't know if they are wiped out.

When they caught the guy who broke into 3 house in our neighborhood the police told us they knew him and he had a long juvenile record. The background system needs some overhaul. Full names and aka should be used. This is what caused the Caroina church shooter to pass the background check. If juvenile records are not included they should be.

[LeftInTX]

24. Sometimes juveniles are charged "as adults"...In those cases, they will have records

But usually those juvenile are still incarcerated at age 18
The crimes are usually murder or arson or really bad stuff.

[Phoenix61]

28. If they were charged as an adult it will show up on a back

ground check. If charged as a juvenile it won’t.

[Jerry2144]

8. Make the minimum age for semi-automatic death machines

121 years old. No one under that age may buy or possess semi-automatic weapons unless they're licensed law enforcement, or registered as a gun range subject to strict regulations.

[doc03]

11. A civilian shouldn't own that type weapon period. There

are a lot of nutty people over 21.

[Jerry2144]

18. right, but that's not what I said

I said the minimum age should be 121 years. Not too many nutty people above that age. And even fewer who could hold one of those weapons

[LiberatedUSA]

21. Why make an exemption for the law?

If these weapons are only good for mass murder and only belong in war, I don’t see mass murder as a part of the law’s duty list and the police aren’t in a sanctioned war zone.

Unless of course, you want the same cops we protest for murdering people be the only ones with access to semi-auto technology so that we may be at the mercy of the very people we protest for killing and abusing the public.

[doc03]

22. Cops didn't need semi-auto technology until civilians

were all armed with them. A .38 cal. 6 shot revolver was the duty weapon before the general public got semi-auto weapons.

[kabelad]

39. Not entirely true

In the 30s, 38 was rendered useless because it couldn’t penetrate car hoods and doors, and body armor, causing issues with bootleggers. 38 super was introduced then 1935 saw the introduction of 357 magnum. This was at a time when the bad guys were using the Thompson machine gun and the BAR. To say duty weapons moved to semi autos because of what the public had is disgenious. the 357 stayed the duty pistol until it was eclipsed by 9mm in the 80s. As a side note, someone with a 357 magnum revolver and some speed clips can fire as fast and reload and be more devastating then a semi auto and a 15 round magazine. The 357 used in duty is still considered one of the most lethal rounds in history. But I’m the 30s police were using revolvers against a population that could legally purchase fully automatic weapons, up until about 1934 when most states and the federal government made gun control laws. But semi autos were a progression in technology, not a necessity in an arms race.

[doc03]

43. The 1980s is when the civilian arms race started which IMO was why COPs went to the semi autos.

I remember talk back then about cops being outgunned and civilians having armor piecing and cop killer bullets.
The Thomson and BAR had been regulated after 1934 until the general public started arming them selves
with military weapons. Now they have to face civilians with military weapons, silencers and body armor. Law
enforcement has no choice but escalating to more deadly weapons. Even with the .357 the standard weapon of law
enforcement was the 6-shot revolver up until the 80s. If the bad guys start using tanks what can the cops do but
match them?

[leftieNanner]

12. Court just struck down a California law mandating 21 minimum age

For buying guns - including long guns.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/11/us/california-gun-ban-under-21-federal-ruling/index.html

I don't know if a federal age restriction would be any different, but I would sure like them to pass legislation like that.

[Pobeka]

13. Ban assault weapons, period.

Stuff like this is just chasing half assed solutions.

[mzmolly]

15. Agree.

[WarGamer]

27. Won't stand up to the Courts.

[Pobeka]

48. It did before.

It stood when Bill Clinton signed the original legislation.

W. Bush just let it expire.

There is good precedent.

Not that the current SC cares to much about precendent, but it's clearly a legally viable strategy.

[WarGamer]

49. Sorry... it won't

Barf

Handmaiden

GoodHair

Scalito

Sleepy

and Roberts.



'nuff said.

[llmart]

50. +1000

[mzmolly]

14. Reinstating the assault weapons ban is my preference.

I don't think anyone needs a military weapon to hunt deer.

[SYFROYH]

16. I think 25 is reasonable for semi-autos.

If they need to hunt they can still use bolt actions or shotguns. If they have need for carrying or a desk gun, Revolvers can carry the day.

[mcar]

17. You are right

That's why there should be mental health screenings for anyone who wants to purchase a weapon. After all, if the only problem is mental health, as the gun nuts say, they shouldn't have any problem with screening people.

[Mr.Bill]

23. If we are going to attack this problem with legislation,

we are wasting our time with this Supreme Court. All we will be doing is giving better optics that at least Congress is trying to do something.

[WarGamer]

26. The age limit thing has already been shot down by the Courts...

See California.

[Kaleva]

29. There is no federal law prohibiting a minor from owning an AR15

"Is it Legal for Kids to Have a Gun?
Both federal and state gun laws typically distinguish between long guns, such as rifles and shotguns, and handguns. Under federal firearms law, licensed firearm dealers may not sell a handgun to anyone under age 21, or sell a long gun to anyone under age 18. Unlicensed individuals may not sell, deliver, or permanently transfer (such as giving a gun as a gift) a handgun to anyone they have reasonable cause to believe is under age 18, but there is no minimum age for selling, delivering, or transferring a shotgun or a rifle for individuals not licensed as a firearm dealer under federal law."

https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/criminal-defense/when-can-kids-legally-own-shoot-guns/

[towerbum]

31. ban assault weapons !

if congress critters have arguments , put the gloves on them & put'm in the boxing ring !

[thatdemguy]

32. many states do look at juvy records

Maryland looks at them until the person is 30 years old.

[Traildogbob]

34. Assault weapons are not

Mentioned in the constitution. They have no rights so let’s BAN ASSAULT WEAPONS from having an owner under 21. If they do, lock the weapon up.

[IronLionZion]

35. Even the damn NRA conceded this point

that school shooters generally don't have anything that would show up on a background check to stop them from buying it.

They have BS arguments against raising the age too, like young women who want protection from rapists.

[Kaleva]

45. Some are minors and have used their parents gun(s).

[kacekwl]

37. Background checks is a given. Nobody can argue that point. We need

to ban assault weapons whatever you want to call them should be the ultimate goal. Nobody needs them for any reason but to kill another human.

[Samrob]

40. Banning assault weapons or weapons meant for soldiers at war is not useless. nt

[senseandsensibility]

42. Did I say it was?

[Kaleva]

46. Few, if any, military around the world arms their soldiers with these weapons.

Those troops would get slaughtered by an enemy armed with real military weapons and not ones that look like military weapons.

[kabelad]

41. As someone who supports legal ownership I see no issues with the following

Limit ownership of handguns that hold more then six rounds and long guns with a magazine or 10 round capacity to adults age 25 or older. Background checks should be state and federal, and should be conducting on all purchases and transfers, including inheritance. I also wouldn’t mine seeing a 10 day waiting period on purchases. Large ammo purchases should also be reported just like large fertilizer purchases. An assault weapon ban only serves to raise value on those rifles considered assault rifles. Stiffen gun crime penalties and that will help help curb a majority of shootings (since 98% of gun violence is related to handguns. Remember columbine and Virginia tech were not assault rifles. Hunting rifles and shotguns should not be affected by such legislation, as would revolvers used in hunting. Liability insurance is not a solution because the insurance industry doesn’t need help bloating it’s corrupt coffers. I also would support hunting safety classes for any and all purchasing a firearm to further slow the purchase process and solidify a foundation for ownership.

[gulliver]

44. Who said "background check" only means police record check?

"Background check" means check their background. That means everything, social media included.

[ecstatic]

52. 25. Young men's brains are not fully formed until age 25.

Isn't 25 the minimum age for a car rental?

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

53. Good point.