California governor signs bill raising age limit for purchase of long guns from 18 to 21

[Steeleballz 7,550]

California Gov. Jerry Brown has signed a series of gun control bills into law, including one that raises the minimum age from 18 to 21 for buying rifles and shotguns.

The new law, which takes effect Jan. 1, exempts law enforcement, members of the military and people with hunting licenses from the restriction. State law already bans people under 21 from buying handguns.

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/09/29/gun-laws-calif-governor-oks-bill-raising-age-buying-long-guns/1470447002/

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

This only protects us from mostly law abiding citizens, responsible gun owners and younger law abiding citizens are not the danger, it's the criminal environment poses the larger threat

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

28 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

California Gov. Jerry Brown has signed a series of gun control bills into law, including one that raises the minimum age from 18 to 21 for buying rifles and shotguns.

The new law, which takes effect Jan. 1, exempts law enforcement, members of the military and people with hunting licenses from the restriction. State law already bans people under 21 from buying handguns.

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/09/29/gun-laws-calif-governor-oks-bill-raising-age-buying-long-guns/1470447002/

The if you have a hunting licence exemption almost makes it palatable 

[Chris Duffy 1,257]

It is a silly law, You just buy a hunting licenses and you can buy a shotgun. 

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

2 minutes ago, Marty Byrde said:

The if you have a hunting licence exemption almost makes it palatable 

I'd be interested if subsequent legislation alters the requirements for.a hunting license, if not then maybe

[Chris Duffy 1,257]

Meanwhile in Texas, College kids can concealed carry on campus with a License to Carry

[Steeleballz 7,550]

36 minutes ago, Marty Byrde said:

The if you have a hunting licence exemption almost makes it palatable 

 

   Can't please everyone, but it does seem like they have tried to make some compromises both ways. Of course, whether this has any effect or not random shooting events remains to be seen. 

 

   I don't think they are targeting career criminals with this law because it won't stop them, but maybe trying to make it less likely that a suicidal or depressed teen has immediate access to a firearm during a spur of the moment psychological episode.  

[jg121783 3,915]

So now criminals under the age of 21 in California won't use long guns to commit crimes anymore because the law says they can't have them and we all know criminals follow the law. The residents of California should feel so much safer now.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

35 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

So now criminals under the age of 21 in California won't use long guns to commit crimes anymore because the law says they can't have them and we all know criminals follow the law. The residents of California should feel so much safer now.

 

   Following your reasoning (I try sometimes), one should next question why we have any laws at all, since we know criminals won't obey them. We would eventually conclude that if we had no laws at all, we could have a truly crime free society. Regardless of how you look at it, it generally holds true - circular logic, by nature, doesn't really get you anywhere. 

 

   The law is never one dimensional. If we have a law against speeding, the first intent is to deter people from speeding. The second is to punish those who do. Ultimately less people will speed, which was the goal all along. It's not a hard concept. 

 

   

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

24 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   Following your reasoning (I try sometimes), one should next question why we have any laws at all, since we know criminals won't obey them. We would eventually conclude that if we had no laws at all, we could have a truly crime free society. Regardless of how you look at it, it generally holds true - circular logic, by nature, doesn't really get you anywhere. 

 

   The law is never one dimensional. If we have a law against speeding, the first intent is to deter people from speeding. The second is to punish those who do. Ultimately less people will speed, which was the goal all along. It's not a hard concept. 

 

   

Cept there is nothing in the constitution that  guarantees your right to go over 65 

[jg121783 3,915]

2 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   Following your reasoning (I try sometimes), one should next question why we have any laws at all, since we know criminals won't obey them. We would eventually conclude that if we had no laws at all, we could have a truly crime free society. Regardless of how you look at it, it generally holds true - circular logic, by nature, doesn't really get you anywhere. 

 

   The law is never one dimensional. If we have a law against speeding, the first intent is to deter people from speeding. The second is to punish those who do. Ultimately less people will speed, which was the goal all along. It's not a hard concept. 

 

   

Sorry but you didn't try hard enough. That is not at all my reasoning. My sarcastic post was meant to illustrate the absurdity behind the reasoning I presume (correct me if I'm wrong) is behind so called gun control laws like this. That reasoning is that these laws supposedly reduce or eliminate crimes committed using a gun.

 

My argument isn't simply that criminals don't follow the law so we shouldn't have laws as you claim. That is absurd. My argument is that laws that do more harm (both physically and constitutionally) to law abiding citizens than they do to criminals are not needed.

 

Now I'm gonna attempt to use leftist logic here so correct me if I get it wrong. The number one purpose of laws like this is to prevent people from being killed by criminals with guns. If that's the case lets break down why laws like this do very little to deter criminals from murdering people with guns and how we already have laws with much stiffer penalties (and are a far greater deterrent) that already cover this criminal act while doing no harm whatsoever to law abiding citizens. You are aware that someone who carried out this criminal act would be charged with murder right? In most parts of the country that have their heads screwed on straight when you are found guilty of murder you get life in prison or worse (I can't speak for California as it is difficult to keep track of all their strange legislation written by all the leftist legislators there).

 

Let's look at this from the perspective of a criminal. If you intend on murdering someone and are planning on buying a gun to do it are you going to stop and think "Gee they just passed a law saying I can't have possess a gun. Maybe I won't buy a gun from that guy selling them on a street corner and go commit the murder I was going to commit because I can deal with life in prison but that 5 year (or whatever it is) sentence on top of it just isn't worth it." On the other hand murder laws clearly don't eliminate murders but I'm sure some people have second thoughts about it if they stop and think about the possibility of life in prison or worse if they get caught.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, jg121783 said:

Sorry but you didn't try hard enough. That is not at all my reasoning. My sarcastic post was meant to illustrate the absurdity behind the reasoning I presume (correct me if I'm wrong) is behind so called gun control laws like this. That reasoning is that these laws supposedly reduce or eliminate crimes committed using a gun.

 

My argument isn't simply that criminals don't follow the law so we shouldn't have laws as you claim. That is absurd. My argument is that laws that do more harm (both physically and constitutionally) to law abiding citizens than they do to criminals are not needed.

 

Now I'm gonna attempt to use leftist logic here so correct me if I get it wrong. The number one purpose of laws like this is to prevent people from being killed by criminals with guns. If that's the case lets break down why laws like this do very little to deter criminals from murdering people with guns and how we already have laws with much stiffer penalties (and are a far greater deterrent) that already cover this criminal act while doing no harm whatsoever to law abiding citizens. You are aware that someone who carried out this criminal act would be charged with murder right? In most parts of the country that have their heads screwed on straight when you are found guilty of murder you get life in prison or worse (I can't speak for California as it is difficult to keep track of all their strange legislation written by all the leftist legislators there).

 

Let's look at this from the perspective of a criminal. If you intend on murdering someone and are planning on buying a gun to do it are you going to stop and think "Gee they just passed a law saying I can't have possess a gun. Maybe I won't buy a gun from that guy selling them on a street corner and go commit the murder I was going to commit because I can deal with life in prison but that 5 year (or whatever it is) sentence on top of it just isn't worth it." On the other hand murder laws clearly don't eliminate murders but I'm sure some people have second thoughts about it if they stop and think about the possibility of life in prison or worse if they get caught.

You’re wasting your breath.  Those who oppose guns will never get it, no matter how much logic you use nor how little the words you explain it with.

 

There are already many gun laws on the books, and they don’t work against the element they are intended for, only the law-abiding citizens.  Adding another one or three won’t change that.

[Daisy.Chain 317]

I guess enlisted 18-21 year olds will need to train outside the state. To keep people safe. 🙄

[TBoneTX 45,284]

Governor Moonbeam would have done better to ban those 18-to-21 years of age from voting, which arguably does far more lasting and widespread harm than an occasional crime or shooting event.

[Chris Duffy 1,257]

12 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   Can't please everyone, but it does seem like they have tried to make some compromises both ways. Of course, whether this has any effect or not random shooting events remains to be seen. 

 

   I don't think they are targeting career criminals with this law because it won't stop them, but maybe trying to make it less likely that a suicidal or depressed teen has immediate access to a firearm during a spur of the moment psychological episode.  

It pretty hard to off yourself with a shotgun. Pistol is much easier