PDA

View Full Version : Where did this Age BS First come from?


FourTenJaeger
04-14-2011, 8:06 PM
My roommate just now learned she cannot purchase a Pistol Gripped Shotgun from an FFL Until she is 21. She is currently 20. Same with handguns. 21 Is for PG Shotguns and handguns, But 18 for Non PG Shotguns and Rifles.

Where did this BS Come from? I guess theres an appropriate ''Age'' To excercise ones rights?

:rant:

dantodd
04-14-2011, 8:08 PM
21 Is the general rule for firearms. There are exceptions for rifles and shotguns. A PG shotgun is not a "shotgun" because it isn't shoulder fired. She is also prohibited from buying a stripped lower and a semi-auto M2 as they are not shoulder fired rifles or shotguns as purchased.

It's been Federal law for some time. I don't know how long but I don't remember it ever NOT being the case.

Mssr. Eleganté
04-14-2011, 8:11 PM
It came from the Gun Control Act of 1968. They didn't want to give teenagers easy access to handguns back then. I suspect the restriction on non-rifle and non-shotgun long guns was not intentional, but accidentally caused by the wording they chose to restrict handguns sales.

Fjold
04-14-2011, 8:12 PM
My roommate just now learned she cannot purchase a Pistol Gripped Shotgun from an FFL Until she is 21. She is currently 20. Same with handguns. 21 Is for PG Shotguns and handguns, But 18 for Non PG Shotguns and Rifles.

Where did this BS Come from? I guess theres an appropriate ''Age'' To excercise ones rights?

:rant:

You have to be 18 to vote (It used to be 21).

There's been age requirements to exercise one's rights since the Constitution was first written.

Dead*Reckoned
04-14-2011, 8:15 PM
Remember these restrictions only apply to dealer transfers, so out of state an 18-20 yr old can buy a pistol or PG shotgun from a private party.

Edit: just looked at your location, just have her find a used one.

Mssr. Eleganté
04-14-2011, 8:18 PM
Remember these restrictions only apply to dealer transfers, so out of state an 18-20 yr old can buy a pistol or PG shotgun from a private party.

Edit: just looked at your location, just have her find a used one.

In addition, there is no restriction on her buying a regular stocked shotgun from an FFL and turning it into a pistol grip only shotgun herself.

scarville
04-14-2011, 8:27 PM
It's been Federal law for some time. I don't know how long but I don't remember it ever NOT being the case.
I can.

I remember one of my uncles went to Viet Nam in late 1967 at age 18 and came back in 1969 at almost 20. He was shocked when he tried to buy a couple of boxes of 22 LR at Gemco and they wouldn't sell it to him.

AJAX22
04-14-2011, 9:14 PM
I can.

I remember one of my uncles went to Viet Nam in late 1967 at age 18 and came back in 1969 at almost 20. He was shocked when he tried to buy a couple of boxes of 22 LR at Gemco and they wouldn't sell it to him.

I knew a guy who had the same thing happen...

Came back from Nam with a .45 1911 he'd taken off a dead officer and couldn't buy ammo for it legally...

He never changed, but america's been falling appart around him for decades.

pyro3k2
04-14-2011, 9:46 PM
What preventing you from legally buying a non pistol grip shotgun and then changing out the grip?

dexterbase
04-14-2011, 10:32 PM
On the stripped lower side, where is the line drawn?

You can buy a complete rifle at 18.

Can you buy just a complete lower?

What defines a complete lower? Parts kit installed? Parts kit and receiver ext./stock installed?

I ask because my little brother is 18, active duty, and has all of the parts of a really nice caribine sitting here minus the stripped lower.

Should I just buy a stripped lower, assemble the rifle and then "sell" it to him as a complete rifle?

Or can he buy a stripped lower that has a lower parts kit installed, as a complete lower?

Phouty
04-14-2011, 10:40 PM
In 1992 I bought a Mossberg 500 Combo. It came with 3 different barrels, shoulder stock, and a separate pistol grip. When CA.gov started thinkering with all those "shoulder things which go up" ;) some years later, I simply removed a PG, and installed a regular shoulder stock on it.
Lately I was cleaning my garage......and found that forgotten PG.
Can I mount it instead of a stock, without a prospect of spending rest of my life in Alcatraz, or in the other Sing-Sing?:confused:

SJgunguy24
04-14-2011, 10:41 PM
On the stripped lower side, where is the line drawn?

You can buy a complete rifle at 18.

Can you buy just a complete lower?

What defines a complete lower? Parts kit installed? Parts kit and receiver ext./stock installed?

I ask because my little brother is 18, active duty, and has all of the parts of a really nice caribine sitting here minus the stripped lower.

Should I just buy a stripped lower, assemble the rifle and then "sell" it to him as a complete rifle?

Or can he buy a stripped lower that has a lower parts kit installed, as a complete lower?

The stripped lower thing is federal. It's because that lower can be built into a pistol without any extra B.S. (outside of CA of course). He could also have an 07 FFL build a gun with his parts but he would be stuck paying the excise tax. The route you speak of is a way to go, you could have one of your parents buy the lower and just give it to him also.

dexterbase
04-14-2011, 11:11 PM
Our Dad is an FFL, so that's what we're going to end up doing probably. I was just curious about the legal/technicality of the whole thing.

dantodd
04-14-2011, 11:52 PM
The stripped lower thing is federal. It's because that lower can be built into a pistol without any extra B.S.

Not exactly. It is because a stripped lower is NOT a rifle or a shoulder fired shotgun. Those are the only 2 exceptions to the 21 age requirement. If the firearm is not one of those 2 you must be 21 to buy.

bigstick61
04-14-2011, 11:57 PM
You have to be 18 to vote (It used to be 21).

There's been age requirements to exercise one's rights since the Constitution was first written.

Voting is not a right, though. It is a privilege and has always been treated as such. Substantial qualifications can even be required for its exercise and for quite some time they were (and IMO this is also best).

bigstick61
04-14-2011, 11:59 PM
It came from the Gun Control Act of 1968. They didn't want to give teenagers easy access to handguns back then. I suspect the restriction on non-rifle and non-shotgun long guns was not intentional, but accidentally caused by the wording they chose to restrict handguns sales.

I figured it came from one of the big Federal gun controul acts. IMO a Federal requirement like this is unconstitutional, but I doubt we'll get rid of much of the legal structure that has arisen around firearms. I hope I'm wrong.

At the State level there is far more variance with at least one State having no age requirement whatsoever.

JaeOne3345
04-15-2011, 12:01 AM
Age limits on drinking, buying firearms, etc are all BS when you figure you can go to war at a much younger age. "You are not wise enough yet to drink alcohol responsibly, but yea, sure, you can go to the sandbox."

hammerhands32
04-15-2011, 12:06 AM
Age limits on drinking, buying firearms, etc are all BS when you figure you can go to war at a much younger age. "You are not wise enough yet to drink alcohol responsibly, but yea, sure, you can go to the sandbox."

Is it still 17 (to join the military) if your guardian signs also?

aklover_91
04-15-2011, 12:10 AM
Is it still 17 (to join the military) if your guardian signs also?

Yes. I ended up not making it in for medical reasons, but I enlisted at 17 with parental consent.

dexterbase
04-15-2011, 1:53 AM
All three of the five boys in my family that enlisted did so at age 17 with parental consent. Most recent one was in October and he graduated Naval Hospital Corps School on Wednesday.

edit to add: a lot of military units have lowered the drinking age to 18.

vincnet11
04-15-2011, 2:57 AM
My roommate just now learned she cannot purchase a Pistol Gripped Shotgun from an FFL Until she is 21. She is currently 20. Same with handguns. 21 Is for PG Shotguns and handguns, But 18 for Non PG Shotguns and Rifles.

Where did this BS Come from? I guess theres an appropriate ''Age'' To excercise ones rights?

:rant:Yes there is voting is also a right and you have to be 18.

Kharn
04-15-2011, 6:27 AM
On the stripped lower side, where is the line drawn?
It must be a rifle, ie it must have both a >16" barrel and a buttstock, to be eligible for sale to an 18 year old under federal law.

paul0660
04-15-2011, 7:03 AM
Age limits on drinking, buying firearms, etc are all BS when you figure you can go to war at a much younger age. "You are not wise enough yet to drink alcohol responsibly, but yea, sure, you can go to the sandbox."

I have seen a lot of drinking serviceman that need training..........drinking. Yuk.

eltee
04-15-2011, 7:19 AM
There are people who can own firearms today ONLY because of the age of majority being 21 back in the day. The crimes they committed prior to turning 21 were considered, then, juvenile offenses (felonies) eligible to be reduced, dismissed / set aside, and expunged. Those same convictions now for someone 18-21 would result in prohibitions inc. loss of gun rights. I used to be a background investigator and there are people who were able to become policemen only because the age of majority for them was 21.

Oceanbob
04-15-2011, 7:33 AM
On the stripped lower side, where is the line drawn?

You can buy a complete rifle at 18.

Can you buy just a complete lower?

What defines a complete lower? Parts kit installed? Parts kit and receiver ext./stock installed?

I ask because my little brother is 18, active duty, and has all of the parts of a really nice caribine sitting here minus the stripped lower.

Should I just buy a stripped lower, assemble the rifle and then "sell" it to him as a complete rifle?

Or can he buy a stripped lower that has a lower parts kit installed, as a complete lower?

(BTW...I love it when these young people get interested in our Hobby of Guns, shooting, building weapons..eventually reloading..etc. This is good news for the future of our Country :D )

Have Mom or Dad (or Granddad or Grandma) buy the lower, do the dros and then they can gift it (By simply handing it over) to their 18 year old without any additional paperwork.

Bob

VaderSpade
04-15-2011, 8:06 AM
You have to be 18 to vote (It used to be 21).

There's been age requirements to exercise one's rights since the Constitution was first written.

Cus we all know no one under 18 was allowed to fight in the Revolutionary war???

donny douchebag
04-15-2011, 8:39 AM
My personal policy for PPTs is to not sell firearms to anyone under 25. Even older if they come across as still being children. If they don't like it they're free to buy elsewhere...

VaderSpade
04-15-2011, 9:28 AM
Is there a age limit for building your own guns???

Agro
04-15-2011, 9:35 AM
This has always disturbed me. We say your old enough to fight and die for this nation but not old enough to consume an alcoholic beverage or purchase a pistol. Something seems wrong there to me.

I knew a guy who had the same thing happen...

Came back from Nam with a .45 1911 he'd taken off a dead officer and couldn't buy ammo for it legally...

He never changed, but america's been falling appart around him for decades.

bussda
04-15-2011, 10:41 AM
Back in the 80's or 90's in California, pistol gripped shotguns were increasingly associated with criminal gun culture. So purchase or possession (?) was prohibited by California state law for persons under 21.

Federally, a move was made to declare all pistol gripped shotguns as AOWs in late 2009. It was not successful. But by using definition, they defined it as being a "pistol grip firearm utilizing shotgun ammunition". My personal opinion is this an attempt to combat terrorism and militia threat. But that is for another thread.

loose_electron
04-15-2011, 10:55 AM
Age limits on drinking, buying firearms, etc are all BS when you figure you can go to war at a much younger age. "You are not wise enough yet to drink alcohol responsibly, but yea, sure, you can go to the sandbox."

The federal age to vote went from 21 to 18 back in the Vietnam era. It was part of the 60's protest:

"Old Enough to Fight, Old Enough to Vote"

the age line in the sand for maturity is all over the place for things - getting everything to the same number probably isn't going to happen because of the mish-mash of state-federal-local laws that state a maturity age explicitly.

Kharn
04-15-2011, 11:08 AM
Bussda,
it wasn't an attempt to classify them as AOWs, the law says a shotgun is fired from the shoulder so a 12ga without a stock is not a shotgun. Only" rifles" and "shotguns" are eligible for sale from an FFL to an 18yo.

Glock22Fan
04-15-2011, 11:12 AM
Fighting, drinking or owning firearms:

I don't know many eighteen year olds that went another twenty years without deciding that most eighteen year olds are still pretty immature.

Having (as a professor) had a lot to do with young adults, my experience is that there is a huge maturity difference between freshmen (eighteenish) and new graduates (low twenties).

Furthermore, my experience is that many eighteen year olds think that they are fully mature already and have nothing left to learn.

I have to say that that was me too at that age.

bussda
04-15-2011, 11:53 AM
Bussda,
it wasn't an attempt to classify them as AOWs, the law says a shotgun is fired from the shoulder so a 12ga without a stock is not a shotgun. Only" rifles" and "shotguns" are eligible for sale from an FFL to an 18yo.

But, prior to reclassification from a shotgun, pistol gripped shotguns were shotguns. And eligible for purchase by 18 year old persons. What changed? The point of "designed to be shoulder fired (with stock)" to "as manufactured configuration". Essentially they further defined "What is a shotgun?" more narrowly.

The purpose? :TFH:

E Pluribus Unum
04-15-2011, 12:21 PM
If one cannot trust an 18 year old to drink a beer.... how can we trust him to vote, or carry a gun?

Likewise....

If we can draft a person at 18, throw him a rifle, and command him to charge a hill and possibly die.... he should be able to purchase a handgun.... and drink a beer afterwards.

yellowfin
04-15-2011, 12:28 PM
The real root of the problem is firearms being treated differently than any other common object that has a possible element of danger from misuse. Nothing makes a firearm any different from a set of kitchen knives, a gas grill, an electric hedge trimmer, or an automobile than stigma and antiquated thinking. Responsibility and morality are the missing ingredient that's somehow taken as a given that they are in fact missing.

bigstick61
04-15-2011, 3:51 PM
Voting is a right protected by the Constitution. It is not legally correct to say voting is a privilege.

The Constitution contains many phrases, clauses, and amendments detailing ways people cannot be denied the right to vote. You cannot deny the right to vote because of race (Amendment 15 - Race No Bar to Vote) 1., or gender (Amendment 19 - Women's Suffrage) 2. 18-year-olds can vote (Amendment 26 - Voting Age Set to 18 Years) 3.; you can vote even if you fail to pay a poll tax (Amendment 24 - Poll Tax Barred) 4. The Constitution also requires that anyone who can vote for the "most numerous branch" of their state legislature can vote for House members (Article 1 - The Legislative Branch Section 2 - The House) 5., and Senate members (Amendment 17 - Senators Elected by Popular Vote) 6.

While the Constitution never explicitly ensures the right to vote, as it does the right to speech, for example; however, it does require that Representatives be chosen and Senators be elected by "the People." Who comprises "the People" has been expanded by the aforementioned amendments several times (Not to mention untold number of U.S. Supreme Court cases). Aside from these requirements, the qualifications for voters are left to the States, as long as the qualifications do not conflict with anything in the Constitution. Subject to the Constitutional provisions noted, the right to vote may be withheld by the States; e.g., persons declared mentally incompetent, or felons currently in prison or on probation may be denied the right to vote. Of additional note the 26th Amendment requires that 18-year-olds must be able to vote, States may allow persons younger than 18 to vote, if they so chose.

1. "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

2. "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex".

3. "The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age."

4. "The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax."

5. "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature."

You missed the point entirely. While the word "right" may be used in amendments to the Constitution and there are certain restrictions on the qualifications that may be imposed, the fact of the matter is that it is not treated as a right, but rather as a privilege. And metaphysically speaking, suffrage is by no means a right of any sort. It would be absurd to say political power is a right.

A State can say that to qualify to vote, a person must either own 20 acres of property or land valued at a minimum of $500,000 (as a freeholder), own a mine, make a minimum of $250,000 per year in gross income, or have a minimum of a bachelor's degree combined with an income of $150,000 per year gross or more, while also not being on the dole, and so long as the above amendments are not violated, it is perfectly legal. Such treatment, though, belies the fact that voting is not treated as a right.

And to be honest, voting should not be treated as a right nor should it be universally granted. The universal franchise is a major part of what has led to the decline of the West to include its political institutions, California being no exception. The concept is inimical to our actual rights, including the right to keep and bear arms.

And in regards to who "the people" is a reference to, it would be useful to look at the Founders and the political philosophers and legal thinkers that influenced them.

For example, this quote that was one of John Adams' favorites which was by Barbeyrac in a note on Section 6 of Pufendorf's "Law of Nature and Nations" (Pufendorf was one of the writers that influenced the Founders):

When we speak of a tyrant that may lawfully be dethroned by the people, we do not mean by the word people, the vile populace or rabble of the country, nor the cabal of a small number of factious persons, but the greater and more judicious part of the subjects, of all ranks.

Burlamaqui (a political philosopher from the Continent that was a major influence on Jefferson, not to mention other Founders) said that the rude, stupid, and ignorant could not see the truths of natural law (which is where natural rights come from). This influenced his views on who could vote, and it wasn't the rude, stupid, or ignorant, which he equated with the masses (he called them the "vile populace"). John Locke and St. Thomas Aquinas concurred with this view.

Going to John Locke (whose 2nd Treatise on Government so inspired Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence that another Founder accused him of plagiarism), it is useful to look at his editor Thomas Elrington, who noted (in an 18th century edition of Locke's works which he edited) that Locke used the term "people" as follows:

...to signify only those who were possessed of such property as was sufficient to secure their fidelity to the interests of the state, and to make it probable that they were qualified to judge of those interests as far as was requisite for the due performance of the duty entrusted to them.

Elrington continues by quoting Locke directly, Locke saying that while a child lacks an understanding to direct his own will:

...he is not to have any will of his own to follow: He that understands for him, must will for him too; he must prescribe to his will, and regulate his actions...

...after which Elrington asks:

May not this incapacitating deficiency of understanding exist among adults as well as minors? and if any class of adults be, from inevitable circumstances, inferior in point of intellectual attainments, or any other qualities requisite to make them competent and unprejudiced judges of right and wrong in matters of polity, ought they not be in the same proportion inferior in political power?

He then indicates that in the text Locke answers in the affirmative.

And of course there is a Founder that is a favourite on Calguns, Thomas Jefferson, who said in a letter to John Adams:

...everyone by his property, or by his satisfactory situation is interested in the support of law and order. And such men may safely and advantageously reserve themselves wholesome control over their public affairs, and a degree of freedom, which in the hands of the canaille of the cities of Europe, would be instantly perverted to the demolition and destruction of everything public...The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature, for the instruction, the trusts and governments of society. And indeed, it would have been inconsistent in creation to have formed men for the social state, and not to have provided virtue and wisdom enough to manage the concerns of society. May we not even say that that form of government is the best, which provides most effectually for a pure selection of these natural aristoi into the offices of government?

The idea that political power, which is what being a general elector, i.e. having the vote, is, is a right, or more, a natural right, would have been considered rather preposterous to the bulk of the people who Founded this country and created and approved of our Constitution, same with considering the whole population "the people." Likewise for the thinkers that influenced most of them. A judge may say otherwise, but that does not make him correct. The idea that what a judge says automatically goes regardless of fidelity to the law, tradition, history, facts, etc. would have also been considered preposterous by most of them.

Army
04-15-2011, 4:31 PM
Cus we all know no one under 18 was allowed to fight in the Revolutionary war???
Well, the rest of us know that the Constitution was written long AFTER the American Revolution ;)

VaderSpade
04-15-2011, 5:21 PM
Well, the rest of us know that the Constitution was written long AFTER the American Revolution ;)

Or the Franco-American, or 1812, or the civil war or whatever dude.

The war ended in 83 the Constitution was adopted in 87, I'm not sure that's LONG after, but there were plenty of wars after that were fought by 14 - 16 Y/O soldiers.

Kharn
04-15-2011, 6:11 PM
But, prior to reclassification from a shotgun, pistol gripped shotguns were shotguns. And eligible for purchase by 18 year old persons. What changed? The point of "designed to be shoulder fired (with stock)" to "as manufactured configuration". Essentially they further defined "What is a shotgun?" more narrowly.

The purpose? :TFH:

The definition of a shotgun having a stock has been the law since 1934.

Mark in Eureka
04-15-2011, 6:15 PM
You have to remember when this law was passed. In 1968 the age of Majority was 21. You could not drink, vote, or sign binding contracts until you were 21. Before you were 21 you were not considered responsible and need to be protected from being taken advantage of by others. At 21 you were an adult. The Gun Control Act of 1968 went along with this long held view of when people became adults and thus legally responsible for their actions.

However this was a different country in 1968; and the Congress recognized that hunting was part of the American tradition and lifestyle. They made an exception to the law for those 18 years old and older so they could buy /sell/own hunting weapons. (at that time there was almost no legal handgun hunting)

In 1971, the US Constitution was changed, and the age of Majority was changed to 18. The Gun Control Act of 1968 was never modified to reflect this change.

AndrewMendez
04-15-2011, 6:27 PM
My personal policy for PPTs is to not sell firearms to anyone under 25. Even older if they come across as still being children. If they don't like it they're free to buy elsewhere...

What?!!???!? A FFL CAN NOT refuse to accept a Private party transfer. Your personal policy is illegal.

Kharn
04-15-2011, 6:32 PM
ATF policy is an FFL can refuse a sale (or transfer through the FFL as they are the same under federal law) for ANY reason. You also cannot sue an FFL for a refused sale.

I know an FFL that has a dress code, you must wear slacks and a collared shirt to buy from him your first time. No slacks, no sale.

AndrewMendez
04-15-2011, 6:44 PM
ATF policy is an FFL can refuse a sale (or transfer through the FFL as they are the same under federal law) for ANY reason. You also cannot sue an FFL for a refused sale.

I know an FFL that has a dress code, you must wear slacks and a collared shirt to buy from him your first time. No slacks, no sale.

A private party transfer IS NOT a sale.

oaklander
04-15-2011, 6:51 PM
BS,

You are absolutely wrong. Voting is a right. You can't have poll taxes or anything that unreasonably infringes on it - period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act

Have you not read the cases that talk about this? There's a whole line of cases that go back at least 100 years on this. People have DIED for this right.

Then somehow you try to bolster your erroneous opinion using collateral sources that are mere philosophy discussions, and which do not carry any true legal weight at all.

Imagine that our society is like a car, and laws are like the Chilton's Manual that tells you how to repair it and maintain it.

What you are doing -- is trying to use a Kafka novel to tell me how to repair my carburetor.

There are some "existential aspects" of automotive repair - but please do not confuse the issues here. The constitution and the resulting cases ARE the Chiltons for our country.

The works you cite are not. This cannot even be argued.

They are somewhat citeable, but are merely persuasive (in rare cases), but they NOT controlling.

Please do not tell me that you are an "amateur lawyer" or something like that. When it comes to firearms laws, we actually have another name for them ("future inmates.") Please do not continue to confuse the newer members here with your pablum. . .

http://b-29s-over-korea.com/b-29-flyover/images/BigStick.jpg

ALSO - you might want to think about who you choose to disagree with. Some of us have fought long and hard on these "rights" issues, and we get a little more than perturbed when an amateur lawyer starts spouting what appears to be some arcane rhetoric more suitable for a drunken frat-boy philosophy discussion. The problem here is that we fight for YOUR gun rights as an avocation. We don't like it when you start to minimize other rights. It makes us kind of feel like you don't even understand what we are doing. That's not good.

You missed the point entirely. While the word "right" may be used in amendments to the Constitution and there are certain restrictions on the qualifications that may be imposed, the fact of the matter is that it is not treated as a right, but rather as a privilege. And metaphysically speaking, suffrage is by no means a right of any sort. It would be absurd to say political power is a right.

A State can say that to qualify to vote, a person must either own 20 acres of property or land valued at a minimum of $500,000 (as a freeholder), own a mine, make a minimum of $250,000 per year in gross income, or have a minimum of a bachelor's degree combined with an income of $150,000 per year gross or more, while also not being on the dole, and so long as the above amendments are not violated, it is perfectly legal. Such treatment, though, belies the fact that voting is not treated as a right.

And to be honest, voting should not be treated as a right nor should it be universally granted. The universal franchise is a major part of what has led to the decline of the West to include its political institutions, California being no exception. The concept is inimical to our actual rights, including the right to keep and bear arms.

And in regards to who "the people" is a reference to, it would be useful to look at the Founders and the political philosophers and legal thinkers that influenced them.

For example, this quote that was one of John Adams' favorites which was by Barbeyrac in a note on Section 6 of Pufendorf's "Law of Nature and Nations" (Pufendorf was one of the writers that influenced the Founders):



Burlamaqui (a political philosopher from the Continent that was a major influence on Jefferson, not to mention other Founders) said that the rude, stupid, and ignorant could not see the truths of natural law (which is where natural rights come from). This influenced his views on who could vote, and it wasn't the rude, stupid, or ignorant, which he equated with the masses (he called them the "vile populace"). John Locke and St. Thomas Aquinas concurred with this view.

Going to John Locke (whose 2nd Treatise on Government so inspired Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence that another Founder accused him of plagiarism), it is useful to look at his editor Thomas Elrington, who noted (in an 18th century edition of Locke's works which he edited) that Locke used the term "people" as follows:



Elrington continues by quoting Locke directly, Locke saying that while a child lacks an understanding to direct his own will:



...after which Elrington asks:



He then indicates that in the text Locke answers in the affirmative.

And of course there is a Founder that is a favourite on Calguns, Thomas Jefferson, who said in a letter to John Adams:



The idea that political power, which is what being a general elector, i.e. having the vote, is, is a right, or more, a natural right, would have been considered rather preposterous to the bulk of the people who Founded this country and created and approved of our Constitution, same with considering the whole population "the people." Likewise for the thinkers that influenced most of them. A judge may say otherwise, but that does not make him correct. The idea that what a judge says automatically goes regardless of fidelity to the law, tradition, history, facts, etc. would have also been considered preposterous by most of them.

dexterbase
04-15-2011, 8:24 PM
(BTW...I love it when these young people get interested in our Hobby of Guns, shooting, building weapons..eventually reloading..etc. This is good news for the future of our Country :D )

Have Mom or Dad (or Granddad or Grandma) buy the lower, do the dros and then they can gift it (By simply handing it over) to their 18 year old without any additional paperwork.

Bob


Uh... I'm 30 and did seven years on Active Duty... but I totally agree with you. I've been grooming him (my little brother) as a shooter since he was a little dude.

Kharn
04-16-2011, 4:41 AM
A private party transfer IS NOT a sale.A 4473 is completed, that counts as a sale to the ATF and includes the right of the FFL to refuse any sale for any reason. Sure, doing so on a frequent basis may make CA DOJ very unhappy but the ATF will side with the FFL's decision in any dispute about a denied sale.

I know of another FFL that has a 'I will not sell to black people, per Rev Jesse Jackson's request' sign in his window. He is one of the closest gun shops to Chicago, so Jackson protested outside his store that he sold guns to black people so they could kill each other and the sign was the shop's response.

xmustanguyx
04-16-2011, 5:06 AM
I know of another FFL that has a 'I will not sell to black people, per Rev Jesse Jackson's request' sign in his window. He is one of the closest gun shops to Chicago, so Jackson protested outside his store that he sold guns to black people so they could kill each other and the sign was the shop's response.

I'd like to see that!!!

model63
04-16-2011, 7:22 AM
BS,

You are absolutely wrong. Voting is a right. You can't have poll taxes or anything that unreasonably infringes on it - period.
.....It makes us kind of feel like you don't even understand what we are doing. That's not good.

+1 for Oaklander. As with so many threads on Calguns, like boxes of chocolates I never knew our PG Shotgun denial would evolve into this...

Something Orwellian about voting being accepted as anything less than a right and being convinced as such given the past 150+ years of our nations history. WTH have we been fighting for to make a more "perfect union" only to give it all away again in some academic exchange? Not going to happen. Although 99% I am sure it's blasphemous to quote the President in agreement on a gunboard, I think his open mic statement regarding the budget and healthcare for 2012 "Do they think we're stupid?" is applicable here.

Having said that Thrasymachus (I mean Bigstick) has a point in that in practice voting is often treated by citizenry and government alike as if we are subjects...but only if we allow it.

Whatever our system(s), there is always going to be somebody trying to game it...be it 3/5 compromises, denying my daughter a right to vote, questioning who someone's great grandfather was, being jealous of my non-lobster natural tan, Wall Street treated like a casino, money influencing our politicians or people FUD'ing us our that our rights really aren't rights and they should continue be subject to infringement because they always have been.

Doug L
04-16-2011, 8:41 AM
I knew a guy who had the same thing happen...

Came back from Nam with a .45 1911 he'd taken off a dead officer and couldn't buy ammo for it legally...

He never changed, but america's been falling appart around him for decades.

Our present course of decay can be traced back to 1965 when Johnson (LBJ) launched his whole unconstitutional "great society."

The devolution has been accelerating ever since.

oaklander
04-16-2011, 10:38 AM
Exactly!

I read some of BS' posts on other topics - and he maintains a kind of "anti-majority" philosophy that has shaky philosophical and moral grounds. It's WAY beyond the concept of "representative democracy."

From his perspective, only certain people deserve certain rights.

That is just crazy - especially on a gun rights forum!!!! That sort of thinking is why (1) not everyone in CA who is otherwise law-abiding can get a CCW, (2) why NFA weapons permits are sometimes issued to some people and not others, (3) why people who drive nice cars and have family money hardly ever get in trouble for breaking laws, etc., etc.

Because the 1A is also a right - I am absolutely entitled to point out that the sort of mental masturbation exhibited on these topics is actually harmful to our cause. It plants wrong ideas in people's heads - and when I see those wrong ideas, I feel obligated sometimes to fix them. . .

The reason I am here in this thread is that people have literally DIED for these rights - and for heaven's sake - let's show them some admiration and respect by not denigrating what they died for. That is so wrong that it makes me visibly angry!

The sophistry I see with some of these ideas is waaaay beyond "me" being a smartypants when debating anti-gunners on facebook - it's actually hurtful and simply wrong on a moral level.

+1 for Oaklander. As with so many threads on Calguns, like boxes of chocolates I never knew our PG Shotgun denial would evolve into this...

Something Orwellian about voting being accepted as anything less than a right and being convinced as such given the past 150+ years of our nations history.

scarville
04-16-2011, 11:30 AM
From his perspective, only certain people deserve certain rights.
I think with regard to gun rights that is a pretty mainstream ideal here on Calguns. There are outliers, of course: I know that at least one person here thinks that a anyone who cannot be trusted with a gun cannot be trusted without a keeper. However, I doubt that represents the majority here -- at least among those who post. My perception is the majority of Calgunners are perfectly happy to restrict certain rights (RKBA, for example) to certain people (those not in the category of <fill in your favorite reason to deny the right>)

Doug L
04-16-2011, 12:51 PM
Exactly!

I read some of BS' posts on other topics - and he maintains a kind of "anti-majority" philosophy that has shaky philosophical and moral grounds. It's WAY beyond the concept of "representative democracy."

From his perspective, only certain people deserve certain rights.

That is just crazy - especially on a gun rights forum!!!!...

As I read his posts, it seemed he was more or less limiting his comments to the historical view of voting rights. I didn't sense, that he intended that view to carry over to or apply to all other rights, today.

Historically considered (and this may be what BS was alluding to) voting rights have been regarded somewhat differently than other rights. As we know, or should know, the definition of those citizens legally elligible to vote has changed over the last century and a half, beginning with the Fifteenth Amendment in 1870. To go back even further, for the purpose of illustration, in colonial Virginia prior to the Revolution, to be elligible to vote one had to be white, male, 21 years old, a property owner, and a member of the Anglican Church.

But...this is getting rather off topic.
Perhaps the Calguns owners could consider creating a 'Philosophy' forum.(?)

oaklander
04-16-2011, 1:31 PM
Yes - but I don't think he made a clear delineation that he was talking about history. I'd have to re-read the post - but it seems that his position (which is kind of not logical) is that since the early thinkers on this topic didn't think it was really an "enfrachised" right - that it is therefore NOT NOW an enfranchised right.

He then kind of took that fuzzy notion and used it to try and excoriate someone who was merely pointing out the accepted modern interpretation of the issue.

BS was seeming to ignore all the subsequent legal cases, constitutional stuff etc. -- that now define "voting" (with obvious limitations) as a right that is part of our franchise as citizens.

That was kind of the point that I was getting at. Even if my car design was based on the works of Kafka (or in my case Sartre, since I have a "Dartre") - the only way to properly maintain it is with the current manual.

Here, in the good old USA - that "manual" is our current legal system/laws.

And while aspects of our laws may have been derived from philosophers, the reality is that most of our law is based on good old English Common Law, which has been around since about 1066, and was/is pretty much all based on very simple notions of common sense.

The sort of mental masterbation that I see sometimes does not impress me. I've read the books, but I don't feel compelled to name drop - especially when it is/was not even on point.

:D

There's a type of person who has what I like to call a "cargo cult" mentality on this sort of stuff. They think that if they refernce Hume, Locke, etc. -- that they automatically win the argument. As you and I know - that's BS - and that style only works with people who are used to being conned by con artists. You and I are not the types of persons who like being conned - so I think both of us like to call it like we see it when someone tries to pull that weak "argument" here.

I ran into people like that in law school, quite often - actually.

They were like guys who know a little karate, and now think that they are ninjas. They are dangerous to themselves and others, and true ninjas (like me, j/k) consider them mere posers.

ETA: I downed some kaopectate to prevent existential nausea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nausea_(novel)#Major_themes) -- and went ahead and re-read the post that BS made on this topic. The kaopectate did not work - and that sense of sickness should be any normal person's reaction to reading something that is not only untrue - but almost dangerous (http://www.judentum-projekt.de/geschichte/nsverfolgung/endloesung/index.html), in its ultimate analysis.

See ^^^^^^ - I can play that game too - and that's all it is. Just a stupid game - but one that confuses the people who come here to LEARN THE LAW AND THE TRUTH ON RIGHTS ISSUES.

SO - let's not even play it.

LET'S JUST GET BACK TO THE LAW AND KEEP THE HACKNEYED MENTAL MASTERBATION CRAP WHERE IT BELONGS (I.E., ANYWHERE BUT ON A "RIGHTS" FORUM).

As I read his posts, it seemed he was more or less limiting his comments to the historical view of voting rights. I didn't sense, that he intended that view to carry over to or apply to all other rights, today.

Historically considered (and this may be what BS was alluding to) voting rights have been regarded somewhat differently than other rights. As we know, or should know, the definition of those citizens legally elligible to vote has changed over the last century and a half, beginning with the Fifteenth Amendment in 1870. To go back even further, for the purpose of illustration, in colonial Virginia prior to the Revolution, to be elligible to vote one had to be white, male, 21 years old, a property owner, and a member of the Anglican Church.

But...this is getting rather off topic.
Perhaps the Calguns owners could consider creating a 'Philosophy' forum.(?)

AndrewMendez
04-16-2011, 2:22 PM
A 4473 is completed, that counts as a sale to the ATF and includes the right of the FFL to refuse any sale for any reason. Sure, doing so on a frequent basis may make CA DOJ very unhappy but the ATF will side with the FFL's decision in any dispute about a denied sale.

I know of another FFL that has a 'I will not sell to black people, per Rev Jesse Jackson's request' sign in his window. He is one of the closest gun shops to Chicago, so Jackson protested outside his store that he sold guns to black people so they could kill each other and the sign was the shop's response.

Please find me a citation stating this. I have read, and can not find anything that states the dealer may refuse a PPT because it is considered a sale.

Kharn
04-16-2011, 3:18 PM
the use of a 4473 makes the transaction subject to all applicable federal laws, regulations, policies and practices. It is not within CA DOJ's power to compel a PPT when the ATF says all transactions are at the dealer's discretion. Now, CA DOJ may revoke an FFL's state licenses for such practices, if they are excessive or in violation of state policies, but the denied buyer is still not getting the firearm.

If push comes to shove, the dealer can just say the words "suspected straw purchase." ;)

FourTenJaeger
04-16-2011, 3:37 PM
Man, What a fiery subject! :o Haha. I know we can build a PG Shotgun -Built a PG Mossy Today- But I just dont understand how someone is deemed safer at a certain age rather then over their skills or knowledge.

scarville
04-16-2011, 5:18 PM
Man, What a fiery subject! :o Haha. I know we can build a PG Shotgun -Built a PG Mossy Today- But I just dont understand how someone is deemed safer at a certain age rather then over their skills or knowledge.
That is just the way law has to work I guess. There is no magic that happens at the local midnight between 20 years 364 days and 21 years that makes you more responsible but the law acts as if it actually makes a difference. If you are a peaceable citizen of course. If you commit certain felonies you may be treated as an adult for purposes of punishment as young as fourteen.

Also consider you can be a 21-year-old in New York and, simultaneously, a 20-year-old in California.

Paradiddle
04-16-2011, 5:32 PM
You have to be 18 to vote (It used to be 21).

There's been age requirements to exercise one's rights since the Constitution was first written.

Exactly. You might think you know everything at 20, but you don't.

Agent Orange
04-16-2011, 9:35 PM
I dunno, this kid looks to be about 20 and he's got it all figured out. Worth watching for its hilarity alone.

Zc9QwwsSjTk

Rob454
04-17-2011, 8:24 AM
I guess theres an appropriate ''Age'' To excercise ones rights?

:rant:

In my opinion you should be allowed to vote, drink, buy guns and be considered a adult as soon as you start paying taxes or join the service.

Doug L
04-17-2011, 9:02 AM
...LET'S JUST GET BACK TO THE LAW...

That's reasonable.

Yet, not denying, that, once in a while, in order to understand an existing or proposed law, it can benefit our clarity to look behind it, and understand its origin, context or implications.


Perhaps the Calguns owners could consider creating a 'Philosophy' forum.(?)

Never mind. I had completely forgotten about 'The "off-topic" discussion lounge.'

oaklander
04-17-2011, 2:32 PM
Agreed! I think my only complaint was that the poster didn't make it clear when he switched from one mode to the other.

Normally, I don't even care about stuff like that - but here - we want to make sure that we don't confuse people who may not be aware of how everything works.

MANY of us (me included) were simply not that political before we got involved on Calguns.net - so it's kind of important for us to realize that many of the newer members come here to learn, etc. . .

SO it behooves us to always provide clear and accurate information (and I am guilty of writing pure drivel myself, from time to time). . .

In sum - I was probably kind of overly harsh - and I'm trying to not do that as much now (see my updated .sig about my friend richard).

LOL

That's reasonable.

Yet, not denying, that, once in a while, in order to understand an existing or proposed law, it can benefit our clarity to look behind it, and understand its origin, context or implications.