NRA Sues Florida Over New Gun Control Law

Less than an hour after Florida Governor Rick Scott — who also happens to be running for the US Senate — signed the “Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act” into law yesterday, the National Rifle Association announced that they had filed suit against the state over the one of the law’s provisions.

There’s much in the new bill — legislation the NRA’s Florida lobbyist calls “political eyewash” — that gun rights supporters will find anathema, among them:

– A ban on bump fire stocks

– A three-day waiting period on long gun purchases

– The creation of “extreme risk protection orders” to seize guns from suspect individuals

But the provision of the new law that the NRA chose to challenge in court is the new prohibition on long gun sales to anyone under 21 years old. While wait periods, equipment bans and ERPOs are already law in a variety of other states, arbitrarily denying Second Amendment rights to adults of a certain age would seem to be the most promising target for a constitutional challenge.

Here’s the NRA-ILA’s press release announcing the suit:

FAIRFAX, Va. – The National Rifle Association today announced that it has filed a lawsuit challenging the State of Florida’s newly-enacted ban on the purchase of firearms by young adults between the ages of 18-21.

Florida’s ban is an affront to the Second Amendment, as it totally eviscerates the right of law-abiding adults between the ages of 18 and 21 to keep and bear arms. The ban is particularly offensive with respect to young women, as women between the ages of 18 and 21 are much less likely to engage in violent crime than older members of the general population who are unaffected by the ban. Despite this fact, the State of Florida has enacted a sweeping law banning all young adults between the ages of 18 and 21 from purchasing any firearm from any source. Chris Cox, the Executive Director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, stated, “Swift action is needed to prevent young adults in Florida from being treated as second-class citizens when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms.

We are confident that the courts will vindicate our view that Florida’s ban is a blatant violation of the Second Amendment.” The case is National Rifle Association of America, Inc. v. Bondi, and it has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida.


  1. avatar Alex Waits says:

    Looking forward to hearing the arguments. I wonder what excuse Florida will use to justify stripping adults of rights for no other reason than age

    1. avatar ATFAgentBob says:

      I believe it will go something like this.

      “blah blah blah Parkland. blah blah blah Children!!! Blah blah blah Cruz blah blah blah”

      No mention of the numerous LE, school, CPS, and FBI failures and a general playing up of buzzwords followed by a complete lack of logic and over dependence on “feelz”.

      I think we really need to do an AAR on these tragedies maybe then we’ll actually figure out how to stop them.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:


        But you left out, “Blah, blah, blah, blah, guns, blah, blah, blah.”

        1. avatar J.D.Fowlerton says:

          Now I want to listen and to old Blevins. “Blah, blah, blah, blah, mistakes were made.”

    2. avatar MyName says:

      Pretty sure it will be something along the lines of, “We have to do something, for the children, waaahh.”

      1. avatar wilkins micawber esq. says:

        harrumph, sir!
        know ye not that is commonly referred to as “politician’s logic”;

        to wit:
        some-thing must ‘needs’ be done;
        this is some-thing;
        ergo: it must be done!

        (with sincerest apologies to Sir Humphrey Appleby)

    3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      18-20 year olds (and 18-24 year olds) both commit, and are the victims of, “gun” crime disproportionately to their percentage of population. That tells me two things:

      1. Prohibitions against 18-20 year olds purchasing firearms has not led to a decrease in “gun” crime committed by that age group, and,

      2. Prohibitions against 18-20 year olds purchasing firearms will serve only to disarm law-abiding, would-be victims of “gun” crime.

      Granted, the vast majority of both perpetrators and victims of “gun” crime among 18-20 year olds is comprised of gang bangers, drug dealers, and other, related, violent felons. Which tells me a third thing:

      3. Prohibitions against 18-20 year olds purchasing firearms will have a disproportionate, adverse impact on the law-abiding, while furthering no legitimate, compelling government interest.

  2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    This bill is nothing but virtue signaling, that addresses absolutely nothing about that particular shooting, or, really, any other shooting.

    – A ban on bump fire stocks

    The Parkland school shooter didn’t use bump fire stocks. The Las Vegas shooter did use bump fire stocks, and likely lowered the casualty count significantly by doing so.

    – A three-day waiting period on long gun purchases

    The Parkland shooter purchased his firearms well outside of a three-day waiting period. So has pretty much every mass/spree shooter, ever.

    – The creation of “extreme risk protection orders” to seize guns from suspect individuals

    More than sufficient lead time and probable cause existed to subject the Parkland shooter to due process. Government at every level acted with extreme, culpable negligence.

    – [T]he new prohibition on long gun sales to anyone under 21 years old

    Oddly enough, violent people intending to violate laws and harm innocent people always manage to find ways around laws. All this law accomplishes is to infringe the right of hundreds of thousands of law-abiding adults to acquire firearms lawfully in the exercise of their constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.

    It is already unlawful, under Federal law, for FFLs to sell handguns to anyone under 21 years of age. Do I need to go sort through FBI UCR and other, related data to demonstrate how that law utterly fails? Even Everytown (I won’t link them here) admit that 18-20 year olds comprise 4% of the population, yet are responsible for 15% of “gun” crime.

    To Rick Scott and the rest of the Florida “Republicans”: well, the best I can say is, I have nothing against the horse you rode in on.

    1. avatar Chadwick says:

      Yeah pretty much just a lack of critical thought bubbling to the surface in the form of a rino traitor. Not to mention that I’m sure the average age of a so called “mass shooter” is probably over 21. Not to mention between Vegas and parkland we have less than 100 victims and now millions have more laws to snake around on a daily basis. Let us talk about those over crowded jails. Let us talk about a little damn liberty. No no no emotions are the answer to everything and that’s exactly how society will crumble. Too much feels not enough facts. As Dimitrios would say f$&k your feelings.

    2. avatar binder says:

      [Bump Stocks]likely lowered the casualty count significantly by doing so. I’m sorry, but you are just wrong. He scored 480 hits out of 1100 rounds fired. There are only 2 reasons the casualty count was as low as it was; 1 the range, 490 yards. 2 he just did not keep firing and he had the ammo and the guns to do so.

      1. avatar Cooter E Lee says:

        I respectfully disagree with you.

        Have you fired a bump stock AR15? Have you fired a bolt action hunting rifle with a good scope from a prone or rested position?

        I submit at 400 yards (or really any distance) in a given amount of time, a proficient marksman with a scoped bolt gun will put more kill or serious wound shots on a grouped target.
        I don’t discount that there may be more richochets and minor wounds from the greater number of rounds.

        I also know that a 55 grain .223 bullet is less likely than a roughly 150 grain .30 bullet to cause as severe as injury with identical shot placement.

        I also know that shooting slowly means his position would be less likely discovered by his victims which would deprive them of ability to find effective cover or concealment. Maybe longer police response time as well.

        Also, how many of those 400 injuries were due to crowd panic and had nothing to do with bullets? I don’t know.

        I have a bump stock. It’s a stupid range toy that puts a smile on most folks faces. But if I went on a murderous rampage intent on racking up a body count, I would not even consider using it.

        1. avatar binder says:

          I submit at 400 yards (or really any distance) in a given amount of time, a proficient marksman with a scoped bolt gun will put more kill or serious wound shots on a grouped target. <- What? Are you kidding me. Guys with SAWs can just pound on a car at 500 yards. ” in a given amount of time”, Try 5 minutes of firing.

          As for your bump stock being just a range toy, you relay need to set it up right. But I will admit they are not the best CQB weapon, but for poring on fire at a prepared position, they work great. A bump stock A-15 makes a good poor mans SAW. I admit there are issues with overheating, but he had 10 of them lined up in Vegas ready to go with a big stack of Sure Fire 100 round magazines.

          And as for just one rifle, well

      2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        1100 rounds.
        480 hits.
        55 dead.

        Replace the bump stock with a good scope, and he could eadily have tripled the number dead (i.e. the casualty count) in the same, elapsed time. One rifle, running without barrel overheat-induced malfunction, with intentionally aimed shots, would have been far more deadly.

        1. avatar binder says:

          Intentionally aimed shots at 500 yards, people running around. Ha Ha Ha Ha. You need to teach snipers how to shoot. You do know he was actually firing on the crowd for only around 5 minutes You do realize that it takes half a second for the rounds to impact? It takes VERY good shot to hit an aimed man sized target at that range when they are not moving much less every 2 seconds. Why should the marines even bother with machine guns if people could shoot like that?
          At 500 yards, for maximum carnage, nothing beats a machine gun. Now if you were to argue that 7.62 would be a better round, then I would have to agree with you, problem is no one makes anything bigger than a 20 rounder and the thought a full auto AR-10 fills me with dread Even one with a bump stock. I have fired a full auto M-14, and that was not much fun.

        2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Intentionally aimed shots at 500 yards, people running around. Ha Ha Ha Ha. You need to teach snipers how to shoot.

          He was shooting fish in a barrel. They had nowhere to go, due to the design of the venue. His rapid fire gave away his intent, if not his position.

          Single, aimed shots? Using a single rifle, that he doesn’t have to swap out because they kept jamming up? He could have killed 50 before a critical mass of the crowd even knew they were under attack. He might have injured considerably fewer, but he absolutely could have killed considerably more.

        3. avatar binder says:

          Honestly, have you ever shot at 500 yards? It is HARD to hit a 10 inch plate at that range with one shot. A 5.56 has less energy than a 9mm at that range. Good luck with your “kill” shots. Remember you are not shooting once, but shot after shot after shot. If you can put 50 hits, one every 5 seconds, on a 10 inch plate at 500 yards we can talk

          You know , the more I think about it, you assertion is total BS. Just the idea of switching between targets and leading them at that range gives me headaches. Wind and elevation, yikes. Better to just dump as much lead in the general area. Also he solved the overheating issues, just brought more rifles. But the MCR uppper will fix all those issues, and it is closed bolt to, so legal,

  3. avatar Hbomatt says:

    So sessions just announced the DOJ is going to redefine the definition of machine gun to include bump stocks. Trump lovers go eat some dog food.

    Notice the NRA only oppose the age restriction in the Florida bill and not the overly broad, unconstitutional, easily abused section on bump stocks and ANYTHING that letS you shoot fast.

    To heck with the NRA. Go GOA

    As used in this section, the term “bump- fire stock” means a conversion kit, a tool, an accessory, or a device used to alter the rate of fire of a firearm to mimic automatic weapon fire or which is used to increase the rate of fire to a faster rate than is possible for a person to fire such semiautomatic firearm unassisted by a kit, a tool, an accessory, or a device.

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      And yet, still, DOJ does not have statutory authority to classify bump stocks as machine guns. The statutory definition of “machine gun” is explicitly clear: one round per each trigger pull = not a “machine gun”.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        They also have to get approval from the OMB and the ATF has to sign off after yet another public comment period… which still doesn’t give them authority to rewrite a definition passed by Congress.

        “The proposed rule next has to be approved by the Office of Management and Budget as part of the regulatory review process. ATF also has to submit an analysis and evaluate public comments on regulating the devices. The review process will likely take months.” -The Hill

        IMHO all this does is shown that Sessions is just as willing to ignore the law, when itbsuits his purposes, as his predecessor was.

        1. avatar ironicatbest says:

          Hey Strych9, give your dogs a pat for me.Both my dogs got old and finally gave up and died. We did everything together, they were the best friends I ever had, never judged, never complained, and would have died to protect me. I had a dream about them last night and woke up about ready to bawl. Life is short, enjoy the good while you can. PEACE OUT

        2. avatar strych9 says:


          Jesus dude, at (or close to) the same time? Shit, I don’t even really know what to say. My condolences.

          Sometimes I have dreams that one or more of my current dogs have died. I wake up and have to check to make sure they’re still with us. For whatever reason those dreams are some of the most vivid ones I have. It sucks.

          Again, my condolences. Very sorry to hear about your losses. I know that statement seems… a bit trite but sometimes our language lacks the ability to convey how we truly feel about something. I’ll give my dogs an ear scratch from you.

        3. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

          @ strych9

          “IMHO all this does is shown that Sessions is just as willing to ignore the law, when itbsuits his purposes, as his predecessor was.”

          Correct,Corruptocrats on opposite sides of the same coin,with the identical goal.

      2. avatar binder says:

        Wrong the definition is by a single function of the trigger. ​Gets real fuzzy when you are pushing the rifle against your finger and the the stock keeps your finger off the trigger when the gun fires.

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Not wrong. The bump stock still causes a single action of the trigger to discharge a single round. The trigger cycles through a single function (break-reset) for each round discharged.

        2. avatar binder says:

          Wait, you your trigger finger actually moves when you use a bump stock? Wow, that is news to me. But now at least you admit it is not one trigger pull? If you finger is not moving, what exactly is firing the weapon. The original version that was classified as a machine gun still had the trigger pushed against your finger.

        3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          “Finger” is not included in the statutory definition of “machine gun”, no matter how many times you insist that it is. It is the action of the trigger, and not the trigger finger, that matters.

        4. avatar binder says:

          Well get there. So can energy other that the shooter be used to actuate the trigger?

          For example, a Gatling gun is not a machine gun. Why, the shooter is actively loading and unloading the chamber. No external energy nor energy from the firing of the weapon is used. So it is not even a auto-loading weapon. Now lets add an electric motor to the crank, now we have a machine gun. The weapon is now auto loading and firing. Lets us use the energy of the gun firing to rotate the crank. We are still a machine gun.

          Now lets take a Slide Fire stock. It is ACTIVELY lifting your finger off the trigger. Energy other than the shooter is used for the trigger action.

          What they really need to do is lock down the definition of one action of the trigger to avoid the grey areas. One action of the trigger should be the two distinct actions of pulling (or pushing they are relative) and subsequent release the trigger to fire the gun a single time without the active application of energy other than the shooter to that process.

          Look, if we can now actively reset the trigger, why bother with the bump stock? Just design a lighting link that pushes the trigger forward when the gun re-cambers instead a releasing the hammer.

        5. avatar Anymouse says:

          From a physics standpoint, the trigger exerts and equal amount of force against the finger as the finger does against the trigger. It doesn’t matter whether the finger is moving or the trigger (and the whole gun) is moving. Try this experiment: hold gun in your strong hand, finger out of the trigger guard (it might be easier with a handgun if you don’t have enough strength). Take your support hand and don’t touch the gun other than putting a finger through the trigger guard. Hold the support hand and finger stiff. Push the gun forward with your strong hand into the stationary support hand and finger. The gun will fire (make sure you’re following all the safety rules). Your finger activated the trigger. If you allow the gun to recoil (and it’s a semi auto), it will fire again when you push the gun forward again. Congratulations,, you’re bump firing without a special stock. You could replace your finger with a stationary dowel or a tree branch. The same thing will happen — you are activating the trigger by pushing the gun forward (or pulling the gun forward if you’re holding the gun forward of the trigger guard).

    2. avatar W says:

      So where is the GOA lawsuit against Florida? Or do they just talk a big game and ask for donations?

      1. avatar Hbomatt says:

        Since the GOA would be contesting everything they probably want to actually put up a good case instead of just a press release.

        1. avatar Ad Astra says:

          So where are all the GOA’s court cases against waiting periods and gun violence restraining orders? Or you just like to whine and not actually do anything?

  4. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    Negotiating Rights Away since 1934 is willing to sue over the age however more than willing to go along with the multitude of other Infringements,it speaks volumes about the NRA.

    GOA !

    1. avatar Ad Astra says:

      Still waiting to hear about all the lawsuits filed by the GOA against waiting periods and gun violence restraining orders. But please continue the armchair quarterbacking.

  5. avatar DerryM says:

    California’s Legislative Fascists are already drawing up a law that raises the age for long gun purchases to 21 years, too. Better pony up some ca$h to NRA to fight for our younger brethren. Might be a multi-State battle.

    A friend told me Illinois is going to confiscate long arms registered to anyone under 21. I have not been able to find verification of that…anyone else know about this?

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      There is a proposal in the Illinois legislature to ban 18-21 year olds from owning “assault weapons”. “Underage” owners would have to sell them or give them to a family member until turning 21, at which time they could get the rifle(s) back.

      From what I read about it “Underage possession” would be a misdemeanor, at least for first offenses and would not result in loss of property but an order to get rid of it (as described above) until turning 21.

      That’s what I read about the proposed law as the bill stood yesterday.

      1. avatar DerryM says:

        Thank-you! The prospect of confiscation was dubious and intolerable, if stripping the rights of 18-20 year olds wasn’t egregious enough!

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          I’m not sure I’d use the word “confiscation” since you can just hand the rifle to your parent, older sibling or other family member until you’re 21 and then take possession again on your 21st birthday. Of course maybe that’s harder in Illinois than I make it sound. I’m not up-to-date on their possession/ownership laws.

          That said, the policy, were it to go into effect, is total horseshit and I’m not really sure where a state would even claim to have the authority to make such a law. Then again illegal laws are passed all the time and the only way we can get rid of them is for someone with standing, deep pockets and the conviction to see something through to come along and sue over said law.

        2. avatar DerryM says:

          The person who told me about this said it was “confiscation”, which made me doubt he had got it correct and got me to looking to verify his information and subsequently ask about it here when I was not finding any mention of it on the Internet. Your information that it was not confiscation was a relief and welcome news. The denial of purchase/ownership rights to 18-20 year olds is bad enough, if it gets enacted into Illinois Law. Thanks, again for your information on this matter!

    2. avatar Scoutino says:

      I would not believe that person much. We don’t have a firearm registration in Illinois. We register firearm owners instead. (FOID)

      1. avatar DerryM says:

        I found the Breitbart Article the other person was referencing. Looks like Breitbart got it wrong, according to what strych9 replied to me it’s not outright “confiscation”, but a denial of actual ownership to the 18-20 year olds provided they have someone to transfer the firearm to. Part of what made me doubt the accuracy of the first person’s report to me was my awareness of the FOID system in Illinois.

        Here’s Breitbart:

        Thanks for your information, too, SCOUTINO. Much appreciated. Being stuck in CA, with all it’s “gun control” abominations, I try to be empathetic to my POTG brethren wherever they are and whatever age they are.

  6. avatar Matt in FL says:

    Just another example of the rule that laws named after people, things, and events are almost universally bad laws.

  7. avatar JD says:

    Northern district court of Florida has upheld the Constitution many times. This part of the bill and hopefully the entire thing is toast.
    Does this bill prevent sales to under 21 by private sellers? I’ve heard it both ways.

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      It appears to apply only to FFL transfers:

      678 (13) A person younger than 21 years of age may not purchase
      679 a firearm. The sale or transfer of a firearm to a person younger
      680 than 21 years of age may not be made or facilitated by a
      681 licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer
      . A
      682 person who violates this subsection commits a felony of the
      683 third degree,

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:


        Just reading from the excerpt that you provided:

        678 (13) A person younger than 21 years of age may not purchase
        679 a firearm.

        Unless those two lines are the title of a paragraph (which is not obvious from your excerpt that you provided), that would seem to preclude private purchases as well if you are 18, 19, or 20 years old.

      2. avatar uncommon_sense says:


        Upon further review, the excerpt that you provided appears to say:
        (1) Adults under 21 who purchase a rifle commit a felony.
        (2) Licensees who sell to under 21 purchasers commit a felony.
        (3) Private sellers who sell to under 21 purchasers do NOT commit a felony.
        (4) Giving a rifle as a gift to someone under 21 is NOT a felony.
        (5) Someone under the age of 21 possessing a rifle is NOT a felony.

        The significance of (1) is that a person under 21 commits a felony when they purchase a rifle whether they purchase from a federal firearms licensee or a private seller.

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Northern district court of Florida has upheld the Constitution many times.”

      The removal of the age restriction does not impair the remainder of the bill. The appeals court can only rule on the case before it. Striking down one provision does not nullify the entire bill.

  8. avatar ATFAgentBob says:

    Ok let’s break down this event and see what if anything could have prevented it….

    First our offender- he is a 19 year old with a history of violent behavior and or mental illness. He purchased his tool legally in his home state of Florida, his adopted caregiver actually let him do this even though he had multiple run ins with police for violent attacks on her and others. He was suspended from school multiple times and removed from multiple alternative schools including one that was actually helping his behavior but he apparently hated it there so his mother removed him from it. Now there are no fewer than 15 (numbers vary wildly here) instances that he could have lost his 2A rights but didn’t because of his status as a minor at the time, such as when he attacked his adopted mother knocking 3 teeth loose. Had he been 18 he would’ve been eligible for a domestic violence charge but he was a minor at the time and as such could not be charged with domestic violence.

    Solution to the offender- Involuntary committal for mental healthcare could have been justified due to his penchant for violent attacks and self harm. Placing offender in metal healthcare facility would have prevented event taking place on 14, February 2018 had law enforcement been properly trained and instructed as to how to obtain permission from court to commit offender to metal healthcare institution. Charged with Domestic Violence misdemeanor and banned from owning guns. We really probably should reform some of these minor protections and allow minors to get charged with Domestic Violence and that charge to actually follow them into adulthood.

    Now the event itself- After multiple LE, school, CPS and government failures offender entered school shooting 34 people injuring 17 and killing 17. LE stationed at the school did not engage shooter and instead set up a cordon of the area. Result is offender was unopposed while engaging students, faculty, and staff.

    Solution to event- Better officer training, officers need to enter the building as quickly as possible and engage the offender in or to stop the blood shed and lessen the amount of time offender is allowed to move unopposed. FBI needs to better communicate and better act on intel received about dangerous individuals. Schools need to inform local LE of dangerous or violent students. Schools should not be rewarded for lowering crime rates but rather for reporting dangerous, violent, or criminal student to police and federal authorities and academic performance. Same effect will be achieved should the criminal students be removed rather than swept under the rug.

    Finally Prevention- In order to prevent future events such as this we could arm school staff thus creating a ready response already in the classroom should an event take place. Teachers are already in the school and more able to react to a shooting instantaneously than an SRO patrolling the grounds. Future offenders should be more closely monitored if observed exhibiting violent anti social and self destructive behaviors. Law Enforcement, schools, CPS, and local government should have the tools available to detain such individuals and or remand them to a mental institution, jail, or mental health professional for examination and treatment should it be needed SO LONG AS the parent or guardian gives permission. Should they deny permission they will agree, by their denial, to assume responsibility for the offender and any further actions they may commit. In the case of this offender he should have been remanded to a mental institution after displaying self destructive behavior and violent outbursts causing injury to others before he escalated to murder.

    Notice I never said anything about banning guns, gun sales, or any accessories that’s because they didn’t play a part in this event the gun was merely the tool used to commit the act, his age is immaterial to the act (murder is murder whether your 19 or 99), and no gun accessory makes a gun more dangerous or lethal. This is just a quick common sense shake down and I’m sure I probably have a few mistakes in there and I’ll own up to it. I’m not a rocket surgeon but I do attempt to play one in my community theater group.

  9. avatar Cole says:

    So will the NRA also now sue the federal government over not allowing 18-20 year olds to buy handguns as well? I sure hope so but I doubt it. Maybe if this suit is successful there is a chance they will.

    1. avatar Divemedic says:

      What makes it so likely to prevail in this case is that, with the Florida ban on long guns, there is now no means for an 18-20 year old to own ANY firearm. This is a total ban for anyone 18-20. Any time the government wants to infringe on a right, that infringement has to be narrowly tailored to accomplish the goal. This doesn’t do that.

      It seems like a no brainer, but the courts don’t appear to be on the side of liberty lately.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        “It seems like a no brainer, but the courts don’t appear to be on the side of liberty lately.”

        Huh, imagine that: government refusing to smack-down government.

    2. avatar Binder says:

      I will not be surprised if that argument about handguns under 21 gets pushed all the way to SCOTUS.

      The long gun suit is a second amendment argument it will go Federal, and I see the long gun ban having a.hard time standing up. Once there is there precedent for long gus, combined with Heller, it is going to be interesting.

      There is no Federal law about an 18 year old owning one, just buying one from a FFL. That’s probably there to avoid the court case that will get the limited age restriction on handguns

  10. avatar Ralph says:

    “So will the NRA also now sue the federal government over not allowing 18-20 year olds to buy handguns as well?”

    You’re a little behind the times. The NRA did sue over handguns, and lost. In 2013.

    The NRA is going to lose this case too.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      The reason they lost in 2013 was the fig leaf was that the ban did not take away the right of a 18-20yo to buy a gun, just a handgun. This ban would rip off that fig leaf.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        There will be a new excuse this time. Probably to the effect that this ban on purchases from an FFL doesn’t disqualify an 18-20 from owning a gun or buying one from a relative, friend or stranger, or getting one as a gift.

        1. avatar doesky2 says:

          This <21 ban will essentially just increase the number of straw purchasers.

      2. avatar Binder says:

        Pwrserg; you nailed it. This law is going to fall. Does anyone who writes these laws do any resurch into court rulings.

        It said that Congress had tailored a reasonable solution to the problem by restricting the ability of persons under age 21 to purchase handguns from FFLs, while allowing (1) 18-20-year-olds to purchase long guns, (2) people under age 21 to acquire handguns from parents or guardians, and (3) people under age 21 to possess handguns and long guns. In other words, Congress deliberately adopted a calibrated, compromise approach, the court said

  11. avatar J says:

    Please help save our 2nd Amendment rights. The petition web site has a lot of pro-2nd Amendment petitions that need people to view and sign if possible. Look at these and decide which to sign. There are too many to link here.

    A lot of anti-2nd Amendment petitions are post there also.

  12. avatar Hannibal says:

    It is a good area of the bill to target. 21-25 year old men are also much more likely than 30 year olds to commit crimes with guns, why not raise it to 25?



    They’re all arbitrary numbers but you need to pick one, and the one we have for every other Constitutional right is 18.

    1. avatar Ed Schrade says:

      Once a law is on the books it is easy to amend it to raise the age limit. All this can be discouraged by court challenges and voting the bums out. Also demand a decal vote law that states ” Anyone in public elected office can be removed when they sponsor, introduce or vote for a bill that infringes on a citizens rights.”

  13. avatar Libertarian says:

    Privat prisons need more innimates ………………..

  14. avatar Bubba says:

    The constitution doesn’t specify an age of adulthood.

    Florida doesn’t ban private party sales or transfers to 18 year olds.

    This challenge won’t win.

    1. avatar binder says:

      It will win, the ruling against handguns sales already specified that long guns can’t be banned. In addition it also specified that the state can’t ban handgun possession to people 18 and older. But it was the Fifth Circuit. It’s going to be interesting it this manages to get all the way to the Supreme Court.

  15. avatar a bloke says:

    the three-day waiting period and the ERPO seems to me to be where the NRA should be focussing its attn.

    the bump-fire ‘ban’ can be easily reversed if its only an “EO” …..

    the under-21 age limit looks like some-thing that could not be reasonably challenged….
    after all: TPTB arbitrarily set “18yrs” as an adult …… why not “16” or “17” [?]
    after all: many of that age are adults for all intents and purposes …. so …..

  16. avatar Jason somers says:

    The “you can buy it from anyone but a FFL until your 21” tightened Florida’s noose. That’s litteraly the definition of a straw purchase. What person has been to a dealer with the poster of the term “straw purchase” and the definition? I can only imagine the AR’s given to 18 year olds as birthday presents or bought for a crisp $1 dollar bill. What’s next? You can buy your cocaine from anyone but a Columbian?

    1. avatar binder says:

      Straw Purchase is when you buy a gun for someone. Gifted guns are not a straw purchase. Even if a sell a gun 10 seconds after I buy it it is NOT a straw purchase unless I arranged the sale BEFORE I bought it.

      1. avatar Jason somers says:

        It’s ok Mr ATF agent, I BOUGHT it from him after he went in to the gun store and purchased the exact gun to the specs I wrote down. No laws broken here. Don’t get me wrong, I think this is stupid. I hope it is shot down in flames. If not I see a lot of lowers turned in. That would be poetic justice.

        1. avatar Binder says:

          Well at least you now understand why it is such a PITA to catch straw purchasers. Unless you can get them to confess, or they are stupid enough to leave a paper trail, you really have nothing. But one of the stupidest things you can so is sell you gun to your kid for $1. Just gift it.

  17. avatar borg says:

    A good lawyer would argue that the majority of those impacted by this ban are minorities especially when you consider all the women among the impacted minorities since women are typically regarded as a minority. If the majority impacts are minorities then the state law is in direct violation of federal and state anti-discrimination law as they apply to minorities.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email