California allows semi-autos under 21

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/california-ban-semiautomatic-weapons-21-ruled-unconstitutional-rcna28437

A U.S. appeals court ruled Wednesday that California’s ban on the sale of semi-automatic weapons to adults younger than 21 is unconstitutional.

In a 2-1 ruling, a panel of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Wednesday the law violates the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms and a San Diego judge should have blocked what it called “an almost total ban on semi-automatic centerfire rifles” for young adults.

“America would not exist without the heroism of the young adults who fought and died in our revolutionary army,” Judge Ryan Nelson wrote. “Today we reaffirm that our Constitution still protects the right that enabled their sacrifice: the right of young adults to keep and bear arms.”

The ruling was not a total victory for gun rights advocates, who had sought to block the state from requiring a hunting license for purchases of rifles or shotguns by adults under 21 who are not in the military or law enforcement.

The court ruled the license requirement was reasonable for increasing public safety through “sensible firearm control.”

Handgun sales to those under 21 were already prohibited, but the stricter age limits for rifles and shotguns were passed in 2018 after some of the nation’s worst mass shootings were committed by young adults using rifles, including the Valentine’s Day 2018 slayings at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.

The judge whose opinion is cited is a Trump-appointed judge who has actively opposed gun safety laws, such as being involved legalizing open-carry in Hawaii:

https://www.pfaw.org/blog-posts/trump-judge-tries-to-strike-down-state-gun-safety-law-confirmed-judges-confirmed-fears/

So to review:

Adults under 21 are too young to obtain hunting licenses to buy rifles or shotguns in California but can purchase automatic weapons. Makes total sense.

OUR CONSTITUTION gives these RIGHTS…dont like it move your wimpy ass out.

@mott-the-hoople said
…dont like it move your wimpy ass out.

@vivify said
Said the guy scared of Mexicans.

@mott-the-hoople said
utterly stupid statement

@vivify said
The judge whose opinion is cited is a Trump-appointed judge who has actively opposed gun safety laws, such as being involved legalizing open-carry in Hawaii:

https://www.pfaw.org/blog-posts/trump-judge-tries-to-strike-down-state-gun-safety-law-confirmed-judges-confirmed-fears/

So to review:

Adults under 21 are too young to obtain hunting licenses to buy rifles or shotguns in California but can purchase automatic weapons. Makes total sense.

@sleepyguy said
And it's SEMI-automatic weapons, BTW.

@sleepyguy said
What doesn't make sense is that adults under 21 are prevented from obtaining hunting licenses, or from buying alcohol for that matter. They are either adults or they are not.

@vivify said
I think we can all agree that merely being a legal adult doesn't equate to maturity. Imagine if a 40 year old man had sex with a girl right out of high school on her 18th birthday: it's legal...but still.

@sleepyguy said
Yes we can agree on that, and it is not relevant.

@vivify said
How is it not relevant? If we can agree that merely being a legal young adult doesn't equate to maturity, how is it not relevant to a discussion about owning semi-automatic weapons?

@sleepyguy said
Well let's get on the same page. What I was discussing is the inconsistent legal application of the concept of being an "adult". If reaching 18 years is considered adequate for going to war, smoking, voting, having sex etc, then it makes sense to apply that to owning firearms, buying alcohol and all the rest. If we want to move it all to 21 years, OK, let us just be consistent.

@vivify said
That makes sense.

An adult teen, at worst, harms themselves when it comes to having sex, smoking, etc. A drunk or armed teen is a physical danger to others, unlike a teen who's voting.

So the issue is the age that we entrust young adults to be responsible for their own safety versus being entrusted with the safety of others.

@sleepyguy said
I disagree slightly. I think the issue is choosing the age at which a person should be considered legally accountable for their own choices and actions. It won't ever be perfect, but it seems more rational and workable to pick that number and apply it across the board rather than maintaining a hodgepodge of different standards for different behaviors.