Posted on 03/09/2018 4:06:29 PM PST by Jed Eckert
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) — UPDATE (6:15 p.m.):
The National Rifle Association has filed a federal lawsuit over gun control legislation Florida Gov. Rick Scott has signed, saying it violates the Second Amendment by raising the age to buy guns from 18 to 21.
The lawsuit came just hours after Gov. Scott, a Republican, signed the compromise bill Friday afternoon.
Lawyers for the NRA want a federal judge to block the new age restriction from taking effect.
The new legislation raises the minimum age to buy rifles from 18 to 21, extends a three-day waiting period for handgun purchases to include long guns and bans bump stocks that allow guns to mimic fully automatic fire. It also creates a so-called "guardian" program that enables teachers and other school employees to carry handguns.
The new measures come in the wake of the Feb. 14 shooting rampage at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, that killed 17 people.
....more at link
(Excerpt) Read more at whsv.com ...
>>Big difference here. You’re right to bear arms is spelled out in the Constitution. Alcohol and for that matter pot consumption is not a right recognized by the Constitution. Hence the Feds or States can outright ban either. We still have counties in some states that are dry counties. No sale or possession of alcohol.
As a feeble attempt at flame protection: I am against the law and hope the NRA wins, but all the legal scholars here need to keep a few points in mind:
At one point in time, someone must have decided that there is a Constitutional right to alcohol because they had to create an Amendment to begin Prohibition.
This law does not create any new infringement (other than the myriad of infringements that we accept already) because a person 18-21 can still keep and bear a long gun. They just can’t buy it.
For the “old enough to carry a gun for the Army” crowd: remember that older guy who was always with your squad and yelled a lot? The 18 year olds had supervision that came with their weapons.
That's what the German people thought when they gave Hitler totalitarian power. Tyranny always begins by fooling people into the benefits kindly dictatorship will offer. But we all know or should know that sooner than later, dictatorship will turn on you and take away your liberties, freedom of choice, and your very life.
In this case, if you allow federal tyranny over Florida's gun control, you're only another Obama or Hillary away from the feds taking away EVERYONE'S guns from EVERY STATE because you've agreed the feds have the right to gun control.
Let the Constitution do its job as the ONLY source of legitimate and limited federal power.
It raises the question, “why is 18 years old constitutional?”
Florida is a such a garbage-state.
Good luck with it. I don’t see the wisdom of banning junior from getting his first .22. Yes, you can kill with a .22 or even a pellet gun. But you can’t learn gun safety if you sequestered off from any kind of gun ‘til you’re 21. I taught my kids how the mechanics of guns work, and what makes a bullet fire when they were little, by showing them the mechanisms and explaining. Then I warned them to keep their damned hands off the things, and put them away in their closet and locked the door. Never had a mishap. I didn’t get to the point of buying them their first .22, because we lived in NYC, in a semi-rural area, and our neighbors had their panties bunched over me and my guns as it was. You who live down South don’t know how lucky you are.
I totally disagree with you.
I support the Second Amendment as one in a series of inalienable rights which the Federal government is empowered to protect.
Obama has nothing to do with it.
The legal landscape I laid out us the current lay of the land.
Alcohol is not constitutionally protected.
18 year-olds have The Franchise, thereby bringing them FULLY under the constitution.
It is discrimination and it won’t help. That said if you’re going to make the argument kids under the age of 21 I’m not mentally developed enough to responsibly handle a gun then they shouldn’t be in the military nor should they vote. Personally I’d be okay with waiting till 25 because that’s when your brain finally finishes developing your rational thinking skills.
It’s 21 in my state
If you are old eno ugh to die for your country, you are old enough to drink.
And, re your comments. Funny that. We take 18 year olds into the military, train them to use pistols, rifles, high powered explosives, rocket launchers, shoot tank guns, shoot artillery, and yet they cannot buy a hand gun, cannot buy beer, yet we turn them loose and tell them to kill people in defense of the Republic. Then we do not give one rat’s tit what it might do those their mental part. Will they come home and want to shoot up the block or what. I didn’t after Nam, but then kids today are very much different than when I came home from Nam 47 years ago.
Okay, I'm not a legal scholar but here's what I recall from my American History classes in college:
The Temperance Movement was adamant about making Prohibition permanent. Congress could have simply passed legislation prohibiting manufacture and sale of alcohol as some States and counties had done and it would have been banned.
The leaders of the Temperance Movement felt that this could be easily repealed with each new Congress and/or President so they sought a permanent solution: an amendment to the constitution. Much harder to repeal an amendment. In fact at the time I don't believe an amendment had ever been repealed but lots of different federal laws had been repealed. So after much arm twisting , corruption, and payoffs they got their amendment and figured that was the end of booze.
The Volstead Act, passed by congress, was legislation that simply dealt with the enforcement part of Prohibition.
I'll leave it up to real legal scholars here but I don't think you're going find a God given right in the Constitution that says you have right to alcohol.
Sadly we are slowly turning into California. Mostly because of South Florida progressives.
Quote and cite the constitutional clause(s) that give the feds power over the states to enforce rights like carrying guns and how those clauses override the ones I’ve provided that prohibit the feds from such.
>>I’ll leave it up to real legal scholars here but I don’t think you’re going find a God given right in the Constitution that says you have right to alcohol.
“liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”??
I’m not arguing in favor of this stupid law. I just think that we’ve accepted enough restrictions on gun ownership that they are now legally able to enact just about anything they want using whatever precedents they choose to use.
Which is why we have the guns in the first place. Sometimes the “consent of the governed” has to be forcefully revoked.
Soap Box
Ballot Box
Jury Box
Ammo Box
You don’t know hat you don’t know
Not knowing is not knowing
Wow - you so totally missed my point.
But since you brought it up, maybe we could also require military service to vote....
There something about *shall not be infringed* that the left just doesn’t get.
Nonsense. Rights don’t come from the Constitution.
That is an irrelevant point when faced with the realities of Constitutional law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.