Thanks to the infinite wisdom and dedication to disarmament of the California legislature and Governor Jerry Brown, Californians under the age of 21 will soon face yet another infringement on their Second Amendment rights. As of January 1, 2019, 18-, 19- and 20-year-olds will be able to own long guns, they just won’t be able to buy one (or have one transferred to them). Good times.
Anyone between the ages of 18 and 21 in the Golden State can vote. They can get married without permission. They can serve in the military (with real guns!). They can enter into binding contracts. But alcohol and firearms are clearly far too much responsibility to entrust to them. Legally, that is.
So the folks at the California Rifle & Pistol Association have sent out this helpful email blast that highlights a few of the new law’s finer points and exceptions:
California’s Legislative season has officially ended, finally. While many bad anti-gun-owner bills were defeated, Governor Brown did sign several bills that, while these new laws, piled on top of all the old laws, still won’t do anything to make us safer, will restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens.
Among these bills is Senate Bill No. 1100 (“SB 1100”), which raises the minimum age to purchase a “long gun” firearm. This restriction is scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2019.
Gun owners should be aware that the bill only prohibits dealers from selling or transferring firearms to folks under 21. Even if you are under 21 years of age you are not prohibited from owning or possessing a long gun. You just can’t go buy one because the dealer is prohibited from selling it to you.
What’s more, the bill provides for several exceptions, including:
- Persons over the age of 18 who possess a valid, unexpired hunting license issued by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife;
- Active duty law enforcement who are authorized to carry a firearm in the course and scope of their employment;
- Active federal law enforcement who are authorized to carry a firearm in the course and scope of their employment;
- Reserve peace officers who are authorized to carry a firearm in the course and scope of their employment; and,
- Persons who provide proper identification as an active or honorably discharged member of the United States Armed Forces, the National Guard, the Air National Guard, or the active reserve components of the United States.
Earlier this year, the National Rifle Association filed a federal lawsuit challenging a similar law enacted in the state of Florida. That lawsuit, currently titled NRA v. Bondi, challenges Florida’s law as a violation of the Second Amendment and Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. In addition to NRA serving as lead plaintiff, 19 year-old “Jane Doe” and 19-year old “John Doe,” who’s (sic) actual names have been redacted for their safety and privacy, are also challenging the law.
The NRA v. Bondi lawsuit could end up before the United States Supreme Court. A favorable decision there, or even in the Florida appeals court, would have precedential effect on similar laws — like SB 1100. In the meantime, NRA and CRPA attorneys are analyzing the effects of SB 1100 and are considering filing a lawsuit against California’s restrictions. With the midterm elections and all the other pro-Second Amendment lawsuits that NRA and CRPA are helping to support in California, funding is very tight. You can help aid in these legal efforts by donating to the NRA-ILA and the California Rifle & Pistol Association Foundation.
To donate to the NRA-ILA, click here.
To donate to the CRPAF, click here.
Those exceptions don’t make any sense.
You can’t be a LEO under 21, you’re too young to have an honorable discharge.
I know, I know, “features, not bugs”.
My father in law was honorably discharged for medical reasons shortly after boot camp. Not sure about the LEO one.
Ah. I had not thought of that scenario.
Seems to me that the Sheriffs in non-totalitarian counties should start deputizing posses of affected young adults.
I did three years in the Marine Corps and went to Viet Nam and received an Honorable Discharge all before my 21st birthday.
My brother was allowed to purchase a handgun (with parental permission, I think) for his job with a private security contractor when he was 19. That was back in the mid-2000s, but it was in California. He was also a reservist, so I have no exact idea why he was legally exempted. And as was mentioned, there are plenty of reasons one can be honorably discharged. I had a buddy who received an honorable discharge from the Montana Air National Guard because he impaled his shoulder on a ski in a snowmobile accident and could no longer perform his duties.
What about receivers? Just curious.
I would guess since typically long-arm receivers are serialized, therefore they are considered to be the firearm, I would say they are also banned for under 21s. An 80% receiver? Do you want to be the test case?
People under 21 in California are not prohibited from buying guns. It’s only dealers who can’t sell guns to them. 80% receivers are not a firearm, so it should be legal to buy them.
But if I remember correctly, since this is Cali, they need to register them and get serial numbers before finishing them into a firearm. Can’t have ghost guns spooking everyone. That might be a slight problem.
Seems to me there’s a loophole in that a person under 18 could first purchase a hunting license, even if they have no intention of actually hunting, and then would be given the green light to a gun purchase.
Of course that’s just added cost (how much is the cheapest applicable hunting license in CA anyway?) to get around a completely BS law, but if you live in CA you should be THOROUGHLY accustomed to BS laws by now.
it also mention that if you have hunting license you will be able to buy, so young man and women can take that hunting course and be able to buy.
So an under 21 years old adult can buy out of state correct?
Noooo.
How can you own something that no one can sell nor transfer to you?
Parental/family transfers/gifts. It’s a way we get around stupid UBC’s here. I have a buddy who happens to be long down the list in the family, but there’s a marriage or child along the line that connects us.
“gifts” are how many of us acquired our first firearm…
California Dreaming.
In a haze of THC, opiates, and cocaine. Meth for the lower classes.
I see the usual bigger government and police carve outs! Another words taking the rights of citizens and the government granting it to themselves… The Authoritarian Exception….
Oh Noes ..
I hope there are enough strict constructionists on Trump’s Supreme Court when Commiefornia gets its head handed to it 6 to 3 on the meaning of “Shall Not”.
Perfect case for it. Thanks, Nutbags.
XD
Coming soon…..States like California publicly ignoring SCOTUS rulings because it’s members are “sexual predators”.
But in reality Leftist states already ignore SCOTUS rulings they don’t like.
We’re just an 85YO Ruth Bader Ginsburg heart attack away from Civil War 2.0
The Democrats are stoking the Leftist rage and they are so stupid that they think they are going to be able to avoid the whirlwind.
there is really only one way for a political party to prevail…garner the votes and win an election…there are no shortcuts….
Umm lets just call another option “civil disobedience”.
With a fist bump to Doesky2.
the NRA is low on cash…but do expect them to get more active in this area…if you haven’t already joined, time to do so…
So if you buy a long gun privately in a free state will you be able to possess it in Cali if you are under 21?
Worst place I was ever stationed was CA. I’d rather live in Iraq.
at least in Iraq someone else was buyin the ammo….
So just gift them a gun and tell the gun grabbers to eat a Tide pod.
What would you expect from a Looney Bin state like California? Why anyone in their right minds would even consider living there is beyond all reason. Just be happy most of the crazy liberals in this country choose to live there instead of where the rest of the sane people live. It limits the damage those SOB’s can do elsewhere.
Comments are closed.