Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner

Would rifles for 21+ at FFLs for the SAFE Act and nat reciprocity be a fair trade?

  • Yes

  • No

  • Unsure

Rifles for 21+ for SAFE Act and Nat Reciprocity

5K views 81 replies 21 participants last post by  moe mensale 
#1 ·
Would rifles changed to be treated like handguns (21+) for purchase at FFLs be a good trade for the SAFE Act and national reciprocity?
 
#2 ·
Only if it remained 18 for personal sales/purchases of any rifle, along with ammo for both handguns and minimum age to enlist became 21.

That deal would be worth considering.

Nemo
 
#3 ·
Yes, rifles would be treated just like handguns. 18 for personal/private sales, 21 for FFL in exchange for the SAFE Act and national reciprocity.
 
#4 ·
And we need to add to the requirements age 21 to vote and background check for registrations.

Once Constitutional requirement is the same as all the others.

Nemo
 
#9 ·
No, read above. You must be 21 to get in the military. At just 18 your brain is not fully functional for such activity. Have to treat them all the same.

Nemo
 
#6 ·
NO!!!

I am against taking rights away from anyone or any reason. I am also against the baby steps that my and others rights are being nibbled away at. This would be just another baby step IMHO. It's not just those 18 years old going out and committing evil acts with guns. Evil has been and will always be among us and no law, restriction or wishful thinking will dissolve it.
 
#7 ·
Why do we continually look at giving up one thing in order to get another thing as something worthy of pursuit? The libs, dems, gun grabbers - I know, I repeat myself - never try to maintain the status quo or go back. It's always forward. We, on he other hand, are just plain stupid in our approaches.

No!
 
#8 ·
Why is this relevant? One person does something horrific and that justifies taking Constitutional Rights away from all? When did we get to the point where we elected such demagogues and absolute craven people to represent us?
 
#10 ·
The idea is two steps forward, one step back. That's +1 step in our favor.
 
#14 · (Edited)
It's simple math. Two infringements removed, one added. Who wins?

Let's suppose the entire NFA is repealed in exchange for banning FFL sales for 18-21. If you wouldn't make that deal, you are an amazing, principled patriot. Freedom would certainly have won that day by God.
 
#16 ·
I have to say that is an impressive argument. However whose freedom would have been won by me selling out others freedom for my own benefit? It has been proven time and time again that once they take the freedom from one group they move to take it from the next then the next. No I would not sell out the rights of others to benefit myself. The Las Vegas shooting was not done by an 18 year old. So who do you sell out next? The 21 to 30 age group? Then the 30 to 40? Why not just go for the gusto and sell out everyone under the age of 65. Everyone knows only those of us that have reached the age of 65 can handle the responsibility of owning an AR15...

Amazing? Not really...
Principled Patriot? Probably more like Principled Idiot. But none the less principled.

I guess it's pretty easy for some to take away the rights of others for their own selfishness. It's just not my style...
 
#17 ·
Let's make this even more simple. Diane Feinstein gives us a $100 bill. We give her $50 back, but this is apparently a raw deal for us. :screwy:
 
#21 ·
I am not saying it would be a bad deal for those of us over 21. I am saying why should we be involved in advancing infringements upon others. I for 1 will not be involved in taking away rights from someone else for personal gains.

There are 240,000,000 adults 21+ who cannot buy a suppressor without a trust and a $200 tax stamp. There are 240,000,000 adults where 25% of the states will remain forbidden no matter how many permits they obtain because they are nonresident permit holders. These two facts of law are HUGE infringements on the 2nd Amendment happening right now.
The fact is the NFA is not going to go away even if long guns are limited to 21 and over. As of July 2016 a trust is no longer needed for NFA items. Local Sheriff no longer has to sign off on the forms. You only need to file notification after approval. The national carry act will also not get through the senate. Even if it did manage to get passed the states that don't allow us to carry now would place so many restrictions it would be an exercise in futility to attempt to carry in those states anyway. As for the $100 for a return of $50 that would be fine because no one else loses. Bad analogy...
 
#18 ·
I can’t find good statistics on the number of adult Americans age 18-20 (under 21), but the number of people in USA aged 18-24 is about 30 million.

I’m guessing that it would be 15 million for only ages 18, 19, and 20.

Telling 15 million people that they can’t buy rifles or shotguns at any gun store, sporting goods store, hardware store or pawn shop is a HUGE infringement on the 2nd Amd.

(Even if private sales or gift transfers are legal).
 
#19 ·
I can't find good statistics on the number of adult Americans age 18-20 (under 21), but the number of people in USA aged 18-24 is about 30 million.

I'm guessing that it would be 15 million for only ages 18, 19, and 20.

Telling 15 million people that they can't buy rifles or shotguns at any gun store, sporting goods store, hardware store or pawn shop is a HUGE infringement on the 2nd Amd.

(Even if private sales or gift transfers are legal).
There are 240,000,000 adults 21+ who cannot buy a suppressor without a trust and a $200 tax stamp. There are 240,000,000 adults where 25% of the states will remain forbidden no matter how many permits they obtain because they are nonresident permit holders. These two facts of law are HUGE infringements on the 2nd Amendment happening right now.
 
#20 ·
and what kind of firearms-related activity more directly fits the core purpose and intention of the Second Amendment: (A) buying Rifles and Shotguns through normal retail purchases, or
(B) buying silencers through normal retail purchases, no special taxes or paperwork,
or
(C) carrying loaded handguns on your person in every state you visit?
 
#22 ·
Guys, I will give you a $50 bill if you give me a $100 bill, but you'll be the winners in the end—promise. :lol:
 
#29 ·
Guys, I will give you a $50 bill if you give me a $100 bill, but you'll be the winners in the end-promise. :lol:
And 15 million give up $100 for 3 year.

It's win only if under 21 is the new definition of a minor. That's going to echo through juries, voting, military service, tax code, crime treatment, contract law, and a whole bunch of other stuff though. Banks aren't going to be excited about giving up 3 years of debt recruitment so it's unlikely to happen.
 
#27 ·
Just for starters,

Massive increase in GFZ's and additional restrictions as to where you are allowed to carry.

Compliance with the laws of certain states will require registration of your firearm(s) with that particular state.

This puts the Federal Government in charge of the process. That means they decide what, when and where you can carry. If you thought REAL ID was bad, image the REAL Carry Permit.

The vast majority of firearm laws and regulations have been at the state level, that is where they need to stay. Getting the Feds involved will not be a good thing.
 
#28 ·
My read of the statute says the feds are not involved and states issue as that state decides is proper. Just like car inspections, drivers licenses, bar membership and many other things.

Feds only "power" is to require states to give validity and recognize permits/licenses issued by another state. Basically a requirement to apply 14A to those permits/licenses.

Nemo
 
#33 ·
Our grandparents or great grandparents allowed the NFA to pass and start the down hill slide of our 2A rights. Now we have a new set of grandparents or future grandparents willing to let it slide a little farther down the infringement hill. Remember the NFA just started as a $200 tax on full auto and it keeps expanding. Sorry but I will not take away someones rights to expand my own. Some of us here know the difference between right and wrong.
 
#34 · (Edited)
In support of our grandparents and great grandparents, news wasn't on a 24/7 cycle back then, alternative (non-mainstream) news was non-existent and most people rarely got politically involved in anything because they actually believed the politicians had the peoples' best interests at heart.

And the NRA was a marksmanship, hunting and conservation organization. It's political stance was decidedly pro-gun control. It didn't become a real grass roots pro-gun rights organization until the 1977 Cincinnati Revolt.
 
#37 ·
Maybe this is a compromise in my principles or maybe not. You decide...

How about placing students that have demonstrated disciplinary problems being placed on the prohibited persons database for a period of 5 years after graduation? Attach felony charges if they attempt to buy or are found in possession of a firearm. I'm not talking about those that may get a detention for some minor infraction but those who get expelled for actually causing real problems. The 5 year restriction will allow them to gain a little more maturity and maybe get a degree and actually make something of their life. It will also allow enough time to show if they are really bad actors and be permanently be disqualified. This will not punish those millions who are not problem children that are 18 and responsible enough to own and use firearms. Of course we would have to rely on the school systems to accurately report the exact details of the expulsion but it is an alternative to punishing millions for the actions of couple of bad actors. Will this prevent this kind of tragedy? More than likely not but it may have prevented this one.
 
#38 ·
This would turn unelected, unaccountable school administrators into judge and jury. School infractions leading to expulsion would become crimes. Due process would be completely gone.
 
#42 ·
Would you throw people under the bus so you could get what you want? That's how I see the question.

The Goal is to remove 2A restrictions and infringements, not trade them around to get the parts YOU want.
 
#43 ·
It's already been stated how many people stand to benefit from national reciprocity and NFA suppressor removal, and it's hundreds of millions more than in the 18-21 year old group. Also, the 18-21 group would still be able to own and buy rifles. They would also benefit from the rearrangement of rights by being able to purchase suppressors free of NFA taxes and legal nonsense. It's a net benefit of gun rights. The total bar would be moved in our favor.

I have to say, I'm rather surprised at how many of you are terrible at negotiating and in total denial about the state of our gun rights. Pretending things aren't the way they are is foolish.
 
#46 ·
I'm tired of negotiating. I'm tired of "compromising". I think it's time to stop giving the other side the benefit of thinking that they are "negotiating" or "compromising" in good faith. They're traitors. There should be no negotiations. Period.
 
#47 ·
This entire discussion as well intended as it may be goes back to the Basic Laws Of Physics you start taking bricks out of a wall and the Damn thing will fall.
 
#52 ·
Net gain. Net gain. Net gain. No one understands the term.
 
#53 ·
Ad hominem. The fact that one does not agree that it is a net gain, or disagrees with the strategy, does mean they do not understand.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top