Jones v. Bonta - Age-Based Ban on Firearm Purchases - En Banc petition due 7-25-22 - Page 4

Prepped and ready · #**121** 05-11-2022, 7:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Gleam

Should move this to general gun forums or CA legislative action forum.

I sometimes wonder if the Off-Topic brigade even remember there are 2nd Amendment and gun discussion forums on Calguns anymore.

---

I was going to put this in general gun discussion, but theres a lot more traffic here.

Batman · #**122** 05-11-2022, 9:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maulerrr

Serious question - does this mean I can now PPT an 870 to my 19 y/o brother in law?

You could before. It was semi-automatics that were prohibited.

MeatyMac · #**123** 05-12-2022, 6:43 AM

So if this 'sticks' can/will some enterprising, money-sucking, prima donna lawyer-critter file a class action suit against this Liberty forsaken State for denying youth their constitutional right 'To Keep and Bear Freedom" while they were 18-20 years old 'cause I have two of those youths that are now 21 and over that would LOVE to sign on to such a suit.

Russian Bot · #**124** 05-12-2022, 7:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Gleam

Should move this to general gun forums or CA legislative action forum.

I sometimes wonder if the Off-Topic brigade even remember there are 2nd Amendment and gun discussion forums on Calguns anymore.

---

Actually already a whole thread there.

FatCity67 · #**125** 05-12-2022, 7:40 AM

So still no semi-auto for under 21?

Jedediah Munroe · #**126** 05-12-2022, 7:56 AM

So now can I OPLAW AR lower to my 13 year old who has hunting license?

The Gleam · #**127** 05-12-2022, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russian Bot

Actually already a whole thread there.

I know.... the subtext was infused in sarcasm.

And that one that was once there is now here where it belongs.

---

JagerDog · #**128** 05-12-2022, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sigstroker

So, to prove an AR-15 is legit, you have to hunt with it??

I really don’t have an issue with a modicum of safety prerequisite.

I know of no other current program that parallels the safety training without the hunting aspect included.

Not a particularly unique requirement.

9Cal_OC · #**129** 05-12-2022, 3:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JagerDog

I really don’t have an issue with a modicum of safety prerequisite.

I know of no other current program that parallels the safety training without the hunting aspect included.

Not a particularly unique requirement.

Yet other states have no such requirement for purchasing a long gun…

And why do gun owners have to compromise? That’s how it starts abs they’ll just chip away more and more…

The Gleam · #**130** 05-12-2022, 3:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JagerDog

I really don’t have an issue with a modicum of safety prerequisite.

I know of no other current program that parallels the safety training without the hunting aspect included.

Not a particularly unique requirement.

Maybe to secure the hunting license, as reasonable, considering the exposures of third-parties to hunting - but should not be a mandate to secure a hunting license as a requirement to be able to buy a firearm: because the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting.

I know you know that, and likely agree - just a reminder to connect the dots on their real goal; it has nothing to do with safety, and everything to do with trying to limit the true meaning of private gun ownership, squashing a civil right by turning it into an allowance and luxury at government's acceptance tied to caveats, fees, and licensing.

---

tacticalcity · #**131** 05-12-2022, 4:40 PM

Nice to get a win.

U.S. appeals court overturns California ban on semiautomatic rifle sales to those under 21

https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-appeals...224937406.html

sbo80 · #**132** 05-12-2022, 6:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JagerDog

I really don’t have an issue with a modicum of safety prerequisite.

But a hunting license has nothing to do with simply owning a firearm. Someone who has no intent of ever hunting must pay a fee to get a license, simply to own a gun? There's already a Firearm Safety Certificate required, so now you have to be doubly safe? If it really was about safety the rule would apply to all purchases not just for 18-21 year olds.

pacrat · #**133** 05-12-2022, 6:43 PM

This ruling, if allowed to stand by Slimy Sidney and his ever present "en banc" crew of 9th Circus clowns.

Should make overturning pc 27505 handgun ban for 18-20 yr old citizens a slam dunk.

Which is exactly why it will be en banc'd.

mit31 · #**134** 05-12-2022, 6:43 PM

Exactly. The protected right is self defense, not hunting. All hunters must have a hunting license, all long gun owners are not hunters. and exactly, the FSC is already there to cover the safety aspect.

En-banc... I have to wonder, with ballsy SCOTUS literally throwing the gloves off and running into the ring, if the 9th may finally think twice about en-banc. <shrug>, we'll see.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sbo80

But a hunting license has nothing to do with simply owning a firearm. Someone who has no intent of ever hunting must pay a fee to get a license, simply to own a gun? There's already a Firearm Safety Certificate required, so now you have to be doubly safe? If it really was about safety the rule would apply to all purchases not just for 18-21 year olds.

taperxz · #**135** 05-12-2022, 8:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JagerDog

I really don’t have an issue with a modicum of safety prerequisite.

I know of no other current program that parallels the safety training without the hunting aspect included.

Not a particularly unique requirement.

Now, according to the 9th, an AR IS in fact useful for hunting too

MajorSideburns · #**136** 05-12-2022, 9:21 PM

They will just cheat and en banc to the cherry picked leftwing activist judges like every other case. We will never be able to push back until the Supreme Court grows a backbone and acknowledges the 2A.

cz74 · #**137** 05-12-2022, 11:13 PM

9th Circus every time they go En Banc, always the liberals have majority, supposedly the picking is "random" for En Banc. Trump appointed 10 judges to the 9th, this "random" is skewed random.

**Quiet** · #**138** 05-13-2022, 5:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maulerrr

Serious question - does this mean I can now PPT an 870 to my 19 y/o brother in law?

Currently, there are no laws that prohibits the transfer of a pump-action shotgun to a non-prohibited person age 18+.

Quote:

Originally Posted by toro1

I know a 16 year old that wants her own gun. Will this allow that or is it 18 and older? One article was vague and the other said 18-21 if you get a hunting license.

Since 1968, Federal laws have prohibited a FFL from transferring a firearm to a person under the age of 21, with an exemption for a non-prohibited person age 18-20 and the firearm being transferred being a Title 1 Rifle or a Title 1 Shotgun. [18 USC 922(b)(1)]

CA laws prohibits a CA FFL dealer from transferring a firearm to a person under the age of 21 [PC 27510], with an exemption for a non-prohibited person age 18-20 that has a valid CA hunting license and the firearm being a shotgun or a rifle that is not a non-semi-auto centerfire rifle [PC 27510(b)(1)].
~The Court case (Jones v Bonta) is challenging the non-semi-auto centerfire rifle requirement to this CA law.

CA laws allows an immediate family member to gift a firearm to their immediate family member without having to utilize a CA FFL dealer [PC 27875(a)], as long as the transferee is a non-prohibited person age 18+ [PC 27875(a)(5)] and has a valid FSC [PC 27875(a)(4)].

CA laws allows a parent or legal guardian to grant temporary possession of a non-prohibited firearm to their minor for use in an exempt activity. [PC 29615]

Therefore, in order to be legal under Federal and CA laws...

The person must be a minimum of 18 years old, before they can legally acquire ownership of a firearm.

If the person is age 16-18, then their parent or legal guardian can grant them permission to temporarily possess a non-prohibited firearm for use in an exempt activity (competitive shooting, hunting, movie/tv production, etc).

BAJ475 · #**139** 05-13-2022, 6:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nedro

That's weird. Because there's NOTHING in the 2nd amendment about hunting.

Not weird, just libtard nonsense. Furthermore, hunting is far from the only use of a long gun. How about trap, skeet, general target shooting, plinking and home defense! Was that not brought up?

BAJ475 · #**140** 05-13-2022, 7:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JagerDog

I really don’t have an issue with a modicum of safety prerequisite.

I know of no other current program that parallels the safety training without the hunting aspect included.

Not a particularly unique requirement.

OK, so what modicum of prerequisites would you apply to exercising your 1st, 4th and 5th amendment rights? I have no problem with safety training to get a hunting license, but the 2A is not about hunting.

BAJ475 · #**141** 05-13-2022, 7:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quiet

...
Therefore, in order to be legal under Federal and CA laws...

The person must be a minimum of 18 years old, before they can legally acquire ownership of a firearm.

If the person is age 16-18, then their parent or legal guardian can grant them permission to temporarily possess a non-prohibited firearm for use in an exempt activity (competitive shooting, hunting, movie/tv production, etc).

Is there a federal law that prohibits a parent from giving, not lending, a firearm to their child who is under 18 years of age?

**Quiet** · #**142** 05-13-2022, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BAJ475

Is there a federal law that prohibits a parent from giving, not lending, a firearm to their child who is under 18 years of age?

Federal laws prohibits transfer of ownership of a handgun by any person to a person under the age of 18. [18 USC 922(x)(1)(A)]
There is no exemption to this that will allow a parent or legal guardian to legally give ownership of a handgun to their child that is under the age of 18.

Federal laws provides several exemptions that allows for the temporary transfer of possession from any person to a person under the age of 18. [18 USC 922(x)(3)]
^Most of these exemptions requires approval from the minor's parent/legal guardian as a condition to qualify for the exemption.

Federal laws prohibits the transfer of firearms between residents of different States unless a FFL is utilized. There is no exemption to this for intra-familial (parent-child) gift transfers. [18 USC 922(a)(3),(5)]
^This prohibits a parent that is a resident of State A from giving a firearm to their child that is a resident of State B and under the Federal minimum age requirements.

DrewN · #**143** 05-13-2022, 12:08 PM

At least more hunting licenses sold is a positive, even though it's 100% a BS requirement. We need more active hunters in this state, I and all my peers are ageing out. Maybe some of the kids will figure "Well, I have a license already maybe I'll give hunting a try."

TruOil · #**144** 05-13-2022, 1:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pacrat

This ruling, if allowed to stand by Slimy Sidney and his ever present "en banc" crew of 9th Circus clowns.

Should make overturning pc 27505 handgun ban for 18-20 yr old citizens a slam dunk.

Which is exactly why it will be en banc'd.

Sidney Thomas is no longer the Chief Judge.