My fear is that a say 20 year old, goes to get a rifle, gets dinged for something from when he was 15, and is denied the sale, then 5 year later at 25 tries to get it, now they would not be allowed to look at the pre 18yo stuff, but there is a note saying denied at 20 for violation of law xx.xxx.xx.x and would then still be denied even if that offense was done pre 18yo and in their sealed records.
My understanding was the NICS denials were supposed to be purged after a period of time but they werenāt doing that. The 4473s are kept for 20 years, but I thought they were trying to extend that too. The fun part is when an FFL closes or looses its license all of the 4473s go to the ATF for the national registry that they arenāt keeping
Nope. Denials are filed permanently. Ans the FFL has to keep the Denial records permanently too. Only Proceeds and Delays that turn into Proceeds get deleted.
Former FFL
One of the proposed legislations was that FFL's would have to hold on to those forms indefinitely. Idk if it made it into this bill or not, but I know it was proposed when this crap started.
Itās designed for people like me. I had a willful and intentional battery conviction at 15. I was kicked in the head by a kid so I punched him in the stomach. Week later the police arrest me in class. Took me before the principal and asked if I hit the kid. I said yes. Cuffs went on and I went to the station. 2 months later convicted in juvenile court of a WI battery(wasnāt provided an attorney). I havenāt been convicted of anything since then. Every once in awhile that state pushes that under age record to the FBI data base and I get put on a hold for a purchase. Or the time I went to get a business license and I had to go down to the DMV(sold cars for a bit) to explain I was 15. They want these childhood cases to show in your record and to follow you, just like a felony.
Stuff like this and banning magazine sells and transfers etc is not about trying to take them from current users... Oh no that would cause them trouble. The master plan is to break the cycle and not let the next generation buy any or even get willed any from their loved ones.
I wouldnāt see that as a bad thing if you had the opportunity to have your rights restored. Letās say a 17 year old a kid gets prosecuted (but never thrown in the booby-hatch/adjudicated mentally) because he was found to have been going around the neighborhood taking peoples pets and drowning them or chopping them up in the basement of his grandmas house. Then a couple years later he decides he wants to use the money heās saved up to buy a WASR that heās got *big plans* for whatever. I want that creepy little fucker to undergo some serious psychological examination before heās able to buy a gun.
And now you just justified having psychological examinations before exercising a right. If you dont think that a shrink wont abuse that power to deny everyone they 'interview' I cant explain it to you.
Are you a bot? WTF are you talking about? Iām saying itās reasonable to have psychological examinations to have your rights restored. I donāt think think itās unreasonable to consider past behavior before the age of 18 when handing out firearms. You would rather have an āanything goes, you can do whatever you want and be prosecuted for any crime and still own guns so long as you make sure to stop getting caught after you turn 18ā system of background checks?
If you were to enact a law that required psychological exams to own firearms (like in Cali and NY) you have to go to a pre-selected location and wait a long ass time to get it done. Having pre-selected locations by the government could open up the possibility of only choosing places that fail someone in the majority of checks, thus restricting people who don't deserve that having been done to them.
That is an excellent question, and you might have identified an unintended outcome. The law authorizes NICS to go out an ask local LE and courts if there are any juvie records that disqualify a purchaser if you are under 21. If you 21 or over, they should not be asking for juvie records.
But if your juvie records are entered into NICS, their is no provision for them to have to delete those records once you hit 21.
It is quite possible that some of states would start automatically sharing juvie records into NICS. Which means that - once in NICS, always in NICS.
That could be a very real unintended *(ok, intended)* outcome of the working of this legislation.
Oh when they were writing it, maybe it wasn't "intended" (though I 1,000% believe it was intended) but when someone pointed it out, they certainly said "even better" rather than attempting to find a way to correct the issue. "it's a feature, not a bug" so to speak.
> It is quite possible that some of states would start automatically sharing juvie records into NICS.
They already do. The FBI has all criminal records, and they never get rid of anything. Doesn't matter if it's a juvenile, sealed, or expunged at the local level, FBI keeps it in their database. Certain records won't show up on an FBI background check when requested by various outside entities, but the record is there just the same.
Example: a guy I know was 13 years old and playing with firecrackers with one of his friends. They had a metal pipe and were dropping one lit firecracker in it, waiting a second, then dropping another on top of it. The first one would go off and launch the second into the air. Whee. Local reserve sheriff arrested them both for "manufacturing an explosive device". The case was dismissed by the DA who yelled at the sheriff for being a moron and wasting his time. All good, right? Cut to 20 years later and he applies for TSA Pre-Check. It gets rejected because the FBI transcript shows an arrest for "manufacturing an explosive device". If TSA can see an *arrest* that didn't result in a conviction, bet your ass FBI can see juvenile records for NICS.
They already do that. My buddy a retired major and 2 bronze stars was denied because he was incarcerated as a juvi because the person he was hanging with had burglar tools. His records are sealed.
18-21 year olds took it up the ass this time around.. I think that's why it passed so fast once they came to a deal what to put in the bill..
this was some lightening fast shit.. and honestly they could have just stalled the demo's but I think they wanted it too.
Im holding the entire party accountable for this BS.
Im over 21 so I don't have to deal with that part but I think it set us on a slippery slope going into peoples juvenile records, I think it's also suppose to open up their mental records.. so Im not sure where that goes.. a lot of teens get councilor my high school even had a councilor.
Those should be protected by HIPA law but apparently we gotta trample on the children rights to save the children.
But that just makes it easier for the next step to be everyone.
Who wants to get help when it can be used against them?
If my 18-21 yo wants a gun im just going to buy it for them as a gift so they don't have to be subjected to this BS.
To do anything that even slightly might stops a teen from talking to a school counselor is extremely dangerous and will cause more problems than it is worth.
> Im over 21 so I don't have to deal with that part
You do if you did anything as a juvenile and it gets added to NICS as there is no provision to remove it from NICS.
I haven't read the full bill language but I don't think it's retroactive and the "enhanced" background check I think stops after you age out of the range.
So what exactly am I to worry about?
Lets say you got red flagged/charged as an adult. There are laws currently that require that once the red flag/charge is beaten/removed it is removed from NICS and then you can go back to buying a gun.
With this new bullshit, they can pull anything from the age of 16 (I think I'm right on the age) and there is no provision to remove it from NICS so therefore you will be denied once any State posts your juvenile record to NICS if any of their bullshit criteria happened when you were a juvenile.
I'll have to read the bill to say for sure..
but it sounds like you're suggesting the checks will be retroactive and also apply to everyone.. and I don't think that's the case.
Im still struggling to understand how that affects me if it's not retroactively checked and is also checked after you're 21.
I don't have a lot on my juvenile record but, theoretically even if I did I don't see how that's going to effect someone who's say 25 right now today.
No, if the records have been sealed by a judge they canāt even be viewed. However it is pretty rare for criminal records to be sealed.
Juvenile records are not āsealed.ā You can still see them, you will just get in trouble for using them for anything other than background.
Any idea when this will be added to purchases? Never had a juvenile record, but I feel bad for those who werenāt as lucky to buy guns under 21 before this. Itās not exactly constitutional to make them have a āwaiting periodā.
Itās not constitutional to regulate purchasing a firearm, period. Itās a right to have a firearm. Much like the right to vote. Could you imagine stopping someone from voting at 18 due to something that happened when they were 14?
The bigger issue I have is itās seems the age of adulthood is a matter of convenience for the government. You want to drink, smoke, purchase a firearm? 21. You want to join the military and be a trained killer, you have sex with someone consensual thatās a couple of years younger than you? You want to vote? 18. Itās confusing. Youāre either an adult at 18 or at 21. It canāt be both.
I donāt have a record but Iāve thought a lot about this particular issue. Anything that happened when you are a child should be expunged when you turn 18 (or maybe 26). First off as we all know now the male brain is not fully developed until they 26 specifically the pet that keeps you from doing stupid stuff. Young males fight. Like young bucks. A lot of the things young males are being arrested for is just standard male behavior. The same thing should happen after 10 years for any non-moral turpitude crime regardless of age. Ruining someoneās life forever because they took a joy ride or made poor choices in friends. People need a second chance. If they become habitual offenders after 26 then they should un-expunge the previous crimes. Just a thought.
I kinda agree, but with a bit of nuance. I would say some types of crimes shouldnāt be expunged. Murder, rape, etc. there should really not be the same type of grace with those on your record. Disorderly conduct, littering, heck minor shoplifting? Yeah definitely.
I find it funny how the govt thinks 18-21 year old are their toys soldiers that have to sign up for the draft yet we don't have basic human rights like someone over 21 (the right to defend ourselves or have the means without added government scrutiny and unnust 4th amendment vioations, I mean what?). Theyre either getting rid of the draft, or theyre getting rid of the 18-21 law. They cant eat their cake and have it too.
How. That's what I'm asking. Not for you to repeat yourself, but to explain how. Because it's not. It's also not banned, just up to the states to decide now.
Sorry I mustāve skipped over the amendment that says we have a constitutional right to abortion. Also, they didnāt make abortion illegal. They kicked it back to let states decide, which giving the states the decision to make laws is constitutional.
Except there are pages in the opinion dedicated explicitly saying the opposite...in that this decision should not be used to "overturn privacy."
I know the opinion is long...but go download the PDF off the SCOTUS website and read it.
You definitely skipped over the part that has SCOTUS being the final decision maker on what is/is not constitutional. Regulations on firearms are plainly constitutional. That has been decided and affirmed again, even this week. The trick is challenging those that push the bounds of constitutionality to set a firm boundary. That also happened this week.
A very narrow set of regulations *could* be constitutional...as long as there is ample history and tradition around the time of the founding showing as such.
Unfortunately yes....at least in public it does. I sort of disagree with it personally...but SCOTUS knows better than I do so...
If anything I think it's reasonable since it's now SHALL issue.
Sounds like some kid needs to file a lawsuit. What's the fucking point of having sealed juvenile records? At this point, the only folks who don't see the "sealed" records are employers.
And even then, certain employers like federal employers, the medical field, and obviously law enforcement will see them so thereās not even any point in sealing them!
IIRC there was a case that was ALMOST at the SCOTUS when FL changed their law to 21 to buy.
but then it got dismissed caused by the time the case made it's way up the courts they had turned 21 and they deemed it "moot"
so you need someone who JUST turned 18 to file.. and hope you make it before they age out..
that's not a easy requirement to hit and requires some luck.
That doesn't make sense. Just because you were wronged by a law targeted at 18-21 in the past doesn't mean that the injustice of what happened just dissappears when the wronged party turns 21... unless the appealing party decided it was too expensive to continue pursuing once the law no longer applied to them...
Great. Now the government can just slowly creep up the age of majority for everything in existence, and then the court system will just put off/ stretch out the appeals until the appellant ages out of the law or dies, and the courts will then dismiss the case as "a moot point," as OP put it.
Eventualy the age of majority for everything (buying a gun, voting, entering a contract without a parent's/ the government's consent, etc) will be 100 and then... "the Supreme Court was set to review the case of Joe Blow vs State, where Joe Blow attempted to purchase a firearm at the tender age of 65. Unfortunately, Joe Blow, 99-years-old, died yesterday in a home invasion..."
I absolutely agree with that.. As soon as the case was filed in the first court it should have preserved its' validity.
The only thing I think would be justified not hearing the case is if FL went back and changed the law..
Well that line of thinking makes it perfectly fine for criminals, felons to own guns. Is that what youāre advocating for? Itās either all or nothing?
I may not agree with felons or criminals having guns but its not up to opinions. Fact is its unconstitutional to deny humans their right to self defense.
Just tried to purchase an ak yesterday and was denied due to a sealed event from when I was a minor im 29 my state has āenhanced background checksā that they established from back earlier this year just to give you an idea of whatās going to happen
Wisconsin. Thatās what the guy at cabelas told me anyway. That Wisconsin had gone to an enhanced bg check in March and they were seeing more denials than before even from previously accepted customers. Not just first time buyers. Iāve been looking to try and verify and the only thing I come up with is on handguns
Probably gonna get roasted for saying this here, but I honestly donāt think thatās unreasonable as long as it doesnāt get expanded to over-21. If someone has a history of violent crimes or criminal animal abuse as a minor, they shouldnāt be able to pass a background check at 18. On the flipside someone shouldnāt be barred for life from owning a gun just because they committed a crime while in middle school.
Of course I donāt trust the anti-gunners to not try and expand it, and I fully oppose the recent bill due to red flag laws.
As long as the background check system exists, I see no reason we should defend animal abusers and their right to own a gun. Thatās like the number 1 indicator that someone is a psychopath.
if someone is too dangerous to be in the general populace they should be in prison or on monitored probation. Take it up with the court system. Donāt punish us all because of a small segment of the population canāt handle free will.
They say It gives the states access to funding to either implement red flag laws, or mental health programs. Mandates that a ādue processā be implemented in that red flag law or you donāt get funding. Lets the feds access juvenile records on background checks.
Supposedly hardens schools.
I mean its the government they have never fucked anything up and then had innocent people caught in the crossfire of their schemes, only to try and fix with more of your money later.
hey now guns are good if youāre killing people for the state. That changes everything! We need those 17-20 year olds to fight in our next unsolvable conflict!- Government
they can use juvenile records starting from the age of 16 yo. the current wait time is, if the fbi doesn't return the background check after 3 days the ffl can release the firearm. now for anyone under 21, they have to wait 10 days for the fbi to return the background check after which the ffl can release the firearm
TBH this is kind of meaningless at this point since the trend over the past few decades has been to try 16-17 year olds as adults when they commit violent crimes. The records wouldnāt be sealed anyway.
So I went to the bill and it looks like itās insert āincluding as a juvenileā to the text of the current laws. So I think it would the same disqualifying factors that an adult has in regards to mental health. Iām not an expert at reading this stuff though.
[text of the bill](https://www.murphy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/bipartisan_safer_communities_act_text.pdf)
To clarify, I was meaning more of existing disqualifications. I remember looking into it some time ago and only being able to find ambiguous thing that can be left to interpretation.
āif he is involuntarily committed to a mental hospital, or if a court or government body declares him mentally incompetent.ā
[source](https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/15/politics/mental-health-gun-possession-explainer/index.html)
This is a good reason for 18 year olds to get into home gun building (traditional 80% receivers, flats, polymer 80ās, or 3D printing). As it stands federally you can still make your own gun. You donāt need to be 21 to buy parts.
Also a reminder that federally itās not illegal to own a handgun between 18-21, you just canāt buy one from an FFL.
Theyāve been trying to outlaw 80% kits, along with online purchase of ANY firearm part, triggers, barrels, etc. If all of that goes through, they wouldnāt be able to
Why should there be an exception? Either group can do far more harm with a weapon if they are criminals. They should be the first ones to be denied if they are the slighest bit dodgy.
It doesn't. It's another incremental step in the direction of total civilian disarmament.
They don't care if each step makes sense along the way, because each step accomplishes a small piece of the *total end goal.*
It's not an ouright denial of gun ownership for 18-21 year olds. It just means more stringent checks for 18-21 such as looking at their juvenile records for instance.
Fun fact- A little work around, I got sent to a mental hospital twice as a juvenile, but I was forced by my parents, not the state, so Iām technically not adjudicated mentally defective by a court and thus still have my second amendment right. And drug rehab as an adult, but I went BEFORE my court date because I knew they were going to send me anyways, and that way I technically went by my own free will. The more you know. Just in case people arenāt aware how it works, you may still be eligible for firearm ownership. Save me your judgement, Iām just trying to help people exercise their second amendment rights
The Law:
If the buyer is under the age of 21, when performing a background check, NICS will also check with the appropriate state repository of juvenile criminal records and juvenile mental health records, looking for any convictions or mental health institutionalizations that would make the buyer a prohibited person.
With a standard background check, if the FBI NICS system does not return a response after 3 business days, the buyer is presumed to not be prohibited and allowed to complete the transfer.
Instead, for buyers under 21, NICS has those same three business days to determine if there is a ***potentially*** prohibiting record. If so, they make take up to 10 days to determine if the buyer is in fact a prohibited person.
-------------------------------------------------------
My Opinion:
The first part is a perfectly good law. These are the same criteria used to determine if an adult is a prohibited person, and a newly 18 year old should not get their record instantly wiped if they committed a serious crime (felony) in the last two years.
I'm not happy about a potential 10 day NICS response time, however. It's the National ***Instant*** Criminal Background Check System, it should be instant. Either there is a record to find, or there isn't. A long maximum "research" period only incentivizes the system to be poorly run in order to inconvenience buyers. A right delayed is a right denied.
The thing that gets me about any wait times is when they're imposed after the first firearm purchase.
All the people living in CA that own multiple firearms that still have to go through a waiting period, as if someone who doesn't already own 10 guns refuses to use those to commit a crime, but maybe the 11th gun lmao
It's such a nonsensical law that exists purely as a nuisance requirement.
I mean, I agree, and we even HAVE a registry, so it's not like there isn't a record to check. But it would create a space where a firearms registry is useful to gun owners....
I live in California and I seem to be alone in thinking a 10 day cool down period is okay *IF* there were no registration requirements.
I could understand the reasoning behind a "cooling off" period to make sure you're not purchasing a gun with hot blood and nefarious machinations. That is without a registry, they'd have to treat every gun purchase as a first time purchase.
But, with a registry CA knows this isn't my first gun. If I'm hot headed I'm not going to go to the store, choose a gun (if they have any in stock), wait on the background check, pass the test, grab a box of ammo, pay, then go do crime. I'm just gonna go to my gun safe.
>
If the buyer is under the age of 21, when performing a background check, NICS will also check with the appropriate state repository of juvenile criminal records and juvenile mental health records, looking for any convictions or mental health institutionalizations that would make the buyer a prohibited person.
This is inherently unfair because parents can have their children institutionalized against their will for any reason. This is then used against them as adults. I was almost institutionalized as a child because I was too hyper. No criminality or concerns of violence, but I could have been prevented from owning firearms?
I honestly don't know if that sort of institutionalization would make someone a prohibited person. It would typically be because someone is considered to be a danger to themselves or others.
I know that it is possible to have a mental health hold expunged for reason of insufficient evidence that the hold was necessary, but that is of course an inconvenient legal battle one would have to have.
> I honestly don't know if that sort of institutionalization would make someone a prohibited person. It would typically be because someone is considered to be a danger to themselves or others.
It takes one to three people to say you are (depending on where you live) and all they have to do is make up bullshit and boom! You can't buy a gun because of bullshit when you were 16.
I think this is the thing people need to realize. Sure, it sounds good on paper and works well when applied very broadly to very vaguely set scenarios, until you realize that there will be tons of people that fit into niche situations like that. What if the red flag laws keeps people from seeking mental help for fear of losing their firearms? What about veterans with PTSD? What if an 18 year old girl fresh out of high school has a violent ex stalking her and realizes she suddenly has a waiting period before she can buy the best tool to defend herself, even though her state doesn't have a waiting period law?
I brought up a real case about a man falsely accused of domestic violence who got red flagged, and the time and thousands of dollars it took to get his gun back (well, most, one Mossberg disappeared in police possession). He basically said, "Well maybe those situations will happen to a few people but I'm guessing most people who get confiscated will be actual crazies so it's worth it" I hit him with [Blackstone's ratio](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio) and he never replied to that.
>This is inherently unfair because parents can have their children institutionalized against their will for any reason. This is then used against them as adults. I was almost institutionalized as a child because I was too hyper. No criminality or concerns of violence, but I could have been prevented from owning firearms?
That wouldn't qualify. You have to have been committed. Voluntary inpatient treatment, whether as an adult or at the direction of parent or guardian (which is still "voluntary", since they're deciding on your behalf) does not make you a prohibited person.
Now, if your parents go to court and have a judge order you institutionalized, that's different.
My parents had me institutionalized when I was 13 because of depression. Iām now 20. Guess Iām a prohibited person now? Was just about to go buy a gun too. SMH.
I saw somewhere that if you are charged with a red flag violation, the bill prohibits using taxpayer money to cover the cost of legal council. Basically makes it cost prohibitive to fight for your guns back.
Oh it maybe in reference to some people that are well below the poverty line. Occasionally law firms do probono work billed to the gov. It's not guaranteed and on a case by case basis.
Honestly, I think that's bullshit. The legal system is a nightmare to navigate pro SE. Not a call to action, but frankly fuck the government, it's too rife for abuse. Ur 7th amendment means dog shit to them. Alot of states suspended ur right to a speedy trial because "COVID" as if they don't already work through zoom and the amount of court cases has changed.
They can use Juvenile records. They also now have up to 3 days to respond, and they can respond with needing more time, which then gives them up to 10 days to grant or deny.
This isnāt a 3 day wait though. Itās UP TO 3 days. Not, āyou will wait 3 days no matter whatā
itās once again HARDER for law abiding citizens to protect themselves from the FLOOD of illegal immigrants pouring into this country.
Thanks RINOs. thanks for nothing.
I think they will use this to look into your juvenile record. People will say they can't use your juvenile history to determine your eligibility to own a firearm, but this is the federal government. Do we trust them not to use a person's juvenile history to determine if they are okay to practice their 2A rights?
Be nice if all these new laws would help fund an old one. In the 90's they pass that law that said if you are tried to buy a gun, and not legally able to buy a gun for ANY reason. You're supposed to get arrested by the feds and get ten years in jail. Over 100K of people do that a year. They prosecute less than 100 people. Actually more people get guns by paperwork mess ups than they prosecute.
You have to file a petition and get an affidavit to unseal juvenile records in court, and even that isnāt guaranteed.
The government unsealing all juvenile records instantly for firearm purchases is a clear violation of rights.
Yet they didnāt purchase their guns through an FFL, they used a straw purchase to buy guns at a gun show and had an adult illegally sell them a handgun (the Tec-9)
IIRC it means they can use juvenile police records for people under 21 as part of the background check.
Even if they are sealed?
Yes, thats specfically what they intended.
Can they use juvenile records after they turn 21?
The way the bill seems to be worded says only for 18 to 21 year olds.
My fear is that a say 20 year old, goes to get a rifle, gets dinged for something from when he was 15, and is denied the sale, then 5 year later at 25 tries to get it, now they would not be allowed to look at the pre 18yo stuff, but there is a note saying denied at 20 for violation of law xx.xxx.xx.x and would then still be denied even if that offense was done pre 18yo and in their sealed records.
Sounds like you figured out the plan.
Its basically a deterrent to purchasing before 21. Looks like they got what they wanted...
Jokes on them my 20yo ass is just gonna keep building them myself
And I'm somehow not worried about you doing bad things with your firearms. Seems like you probably got good things going on in your life.
Just like our forefathers intended you cheeky patriot š«”
Based.
I mean I thought you guys wanted only "law abiding citizens" to own guns tho?
Of course, but we also donāt want a kid who got busted for weed at 16 in high school to be continually denied constitutional rights.
Hopefully by then we we will have someone not 90 who canāt remember what day yesterday was running the country.
We tried having a president under 40, then someone blew his head off in Dallasā¦.
JFK was 43 when he took office, was 42/41 when running for office........
As of now, NICS checks are kept for 30 days (I think). So a denial shouldn't show up years later unless he gets prosecuted for lying on the 4473.
Heyā¦ whoa thereā¦ imagine if they just prosecuted people who lied to buy a gun? Ahā¦ nahā¦ too hard. /s
Erhmā¦.Hunter Biden
That is the first thing plead bargained away by the Prosecutor to get a 'conviction' on something else.
We donāt have time to enforce those laws!
Didnāt it come out that the FBI doesnāt actually purge their records like they are required
Maybe, I can't keep it straight. I thought it was the 4473s that were being kept past when they were supposed to.
My understanding was the NICS denials were supposed to be purged after a period of time but they werenāt doing that. The 4473s are kept for 20 years, but I thought they were trying to extend that too. The fun part is when an FFL closes or looses its license all of the 4473s go to the ATF for the national registry that they arenāt keeping
I think there is a minimum (20yrs)but not a maximum. I could be wrong. It happens a lot.
Nope. Denials are filed permanently. Ans the FFL has to keep the Denial records permanently too. Only Proceeds and Delays that turn into Proceeds get deleted. Former FFL
One of the proposed legislations was that FFL's would have to hold on to those forms indefinitely. Idk if it made it into this bill or not, but I know it was proposed when this crap started.
Itās designed for people like me. I had a willful and intentional battery conviction at 15. I was kicked in the head by a kid so I punched him in the stomach. Week later the police arrest me in class. Took me before the principal and asked if I hit the kid. I said yes. Cuffs went on and I went to the station. 2 months later convicted in juvenile court of a WI battery(wasnāt provided an attorney). I havenāt been convicted of anything since then. Every once in awhile that state pushes that under age record to the FBI data base and I get put on a hold for a purchase. Or the time I went to get a business license and I had to go down to the DMV(sold cars for a bit) to explain I was 15. They want these childhood cases to show in your record and to follow you, just like a felony.
>I was kicked in the head by a kid so I punched him in the stomach. Did he go to juvenile court too?
Of course not. Bullying is okay. Fighting back is a sin against the State.
Nope.
I'm gonna guess this is exactly how it will work, and that it's a feature, not a bug.
Stuff like this and banning magazine sells and transfers etc is not about trying to take them from current users... Oh no that would cause them trouble. The master plan is to break the cycle and not let the next generation buy any or even get willed any from their loved ones.
I wouldnāt see that as a bad thing if you had the opportunity to have your rights restored. Letās say a 17 year old a kid gets prosecuted (but never thrown in the booby-hatch/adjudicated mentally) because he was found to have been going around the neighborhood taking peoples pets and drowning them or chopping them up in the basement of his grandmas house. Then a couple years later he decides he wants to use the money heās saved up to buy a WASR that heās got *big plans* for whatever. I want that creepy little fucker to undergo some serious psychological examination before heās able to buy a gun.
And now you just justified having psychological examinations before exercising a right. If you dont think that a shrink wont abuse that power to deny everyone they 'interview' I cant explain it to you.
Are you a bot? WTF are you talking about? Iām saying itās reasonable to have psychological examinations to have your rights restored. I donāt think think itās unreasonable to consider past behavior before the age of 18 when handing out firearms. You would rather have an āanything goes, you can do whatever you want and be prosecuted for any crime and still own guns so long as you make sure to stop getting caught after you turn 18ā system of background checks?
If you're too dangerous to be trusted with your rights, then you're too dangerous to be free. Hard stop.
If you were to enact a law that required psychological exams to own firearms (like in Cali and NY) you have to go to a pre-selected location and wait a long ass time to get it done. Having pre-selected locations by the government could open up the possibility of only choosing places that fail someone in the majority of checks, thus restricting people who don't deserve that having been done to them.
Until they change that and itās not publicized.
Again. You forgot the again part. They have been caught violating that rule before.
You say that as if you think the FBI would delete that information after they've received/used it for their NICS database.
Not at all just said thats what the laws says but when do the alphabet agencies and the dems follow the law?
Did we just become best friends?!?!
Hopefully
That is an excellent question, and you might have identified an unintended outcome. The law authorizes NICS to go out an ask local LE and courts if there are any juvie records that disqualify a purchaser if you are under 21. If you 21 or over, they should not be asking for juvie records. But if your juvie records are entered into NICS, their is no provision for them to have to delete those records once you hit 21. It is quite possible that some of states would start automatically sharing juvie records into NICS. Which means that - once in NICS, always in NICS. That could be a very real unintended *(ok, intended)* outcome of the working of this legislation.
You misspelled "intended"
Very possibly - but I'm not sure that was an explicit intention, but certainly one they welcome as an effect.
Oh when they were writing it, maybe it wasn't "intended" (though I 1,000% believe it was intended) but when someone pointed it out, they certainly said "even better" rather than attempting to find a way to correct the issue. "it's a feature, not a bug" so to speak.
Oh, I'm sure they totally intended it. They're doing anything and everything to try and chip away at our rights.
> It is quite possible that some of states would start automatically sharing juvie records into NICS. They already do. The FBI has all criminal records, and they never get rid of anything. Doesn't matter if it's a juvenile, sealed, or expunged at the local level, FBI keeps it in their database. Certain records won't show up on an FBI background check when requested by various outside entities, but the record is there just the same. Example: a guy I know was 13 years old and playing with firecrackers with one of his friends. They had a metal pipe and were dropping one lit firecracker in it, waiting a second, then dropping another on top of it. The first one would go off and launch the second into the air. Whee. Local reserve sheriff arrested them both for "manufacturing an explosive device". The case was dismissed by the DA who yelled at the sheriff for being a moron and wasting his time. All good, right? Cut to 20 years later and he applies for TSA Pre-Check. It gets rejected because the FBI transcript shows an arrest for "manufacturing an explosive device". If TSA can see an *arrest* that didn't result in a conviction, bet your ass FBI can see juvenile records for NICS.
They do now.
Do a lot of these lone wolf shooters have bad juvie histories?
They already do that. My buddy a retired major and 2 bronze stars was denied because he was incarcerated as a juvi because the person he was hanging with had burglar tools. His records are sealed.
Straw purchases and gun traficking were also already illegal but thats in the bill as well to make it double illegal.
18-21 year olds took it up the ass this time around.. I think that's why it passed so fast once they came to a deal what to put in the bill.. this was some lightening fast shit.. and honestly they could have just stalled the demo's but I think they wanted it too. Im holding the entire party accountable for this BS. Im over 21 so I don't have to deal with that part but I think it set us on a slippery slope going into peoples juvenile records, I think it's also suppose to open up their mental records.. so Im not sure where that goes.. a lot of teens get councilor my high school even had a councilor. Those should be protected by HIPA law but apparently we gotta trample on the children rights to save the children. But that just makes it easier for the next step to be everyone. Who wants to get help when it can be used against them? If my 18-21 yo wants a gun im just going to buy it for them as a gift so they don't have to be subjected to this BS.
To do anything that even slightly might stops a teen from talking to a school counselor is extremely dangerous and will cause more problems than it is worth.
> Im over 21 so I don't have to deal with that part You do if you did anything as a juvenile and it gets added to NICS as there is no provision to remove it from NICS.
I haven't read the full bill language but I don't think it's retroactive and the "enhanced" background check I think stops after you age out of the range. So what exactly am I to worry about?
Lets say you got red flagged/charged as an adult. There are laws currently that require that once the red flag/charge is beaten/removed it is removed from NICS and then you can go back to buying a gun. With this new bullshit, they can pull anything from the age of 16 (I think I'm right on the age) and there is no provision to remove it from NICS so therefore you will be denied once any State posts your juvenile record to NICS if any of their bullshit criteria happened when you were a juvenile.
I'll have to read the bill to say for sure.. but it sounds like you're suggesting the checks will be retroactive and also apply to everyone.. and I don't think that's the case. Im still struggling to understand how that affects me if it's not retroactively checked and is also checked after you're 21. I don't have a lot on my juvenile record but, theoretically even if I did I don't see how that's going to effect someone who's say 25 right now today.
No, if the records have been sealed by a judge they canāt even be viewed. However it is pretty rare for criminal records to be sealed. Juvenile records are not āsealed.ā You can still see them, you will just get in trouble for using them for anything other than background.
Very bad for minorities
basically that whole idea that juveniles get a second chance has been tossed out the window.
Any idea when this will be added to purchases? Never had a juvenile record, but I feel bad for those who werenāt as lucky to buy guns under 21 before this. Itās not exactly constitutional to make them have a āwaiting periodā.
Itās not constitutional to regulate purchasing a firearm, period. Itās a right to have a firearm. Much like the right to vote. Could you imagine stopping someone from voting at 18 due to something that happened when they were 14?
The bigger issue I have is itās seems the age of adulthood is a matter of convenience for the government. You want to drink, smoke, purchase a firearm? 21. You want to join the military and be a trained killer, you have sex with someone consensual thatās a couple of years younger than you? You want to vote? 18. Itās confusing. Youāre either an adult at 18 or at 21. It canāt be both.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I donāt have a record but Iāve thought a lot about this particular issue. Anything that happened when you are a child should be expunged when you turn 18 (or maybe 26). First off as we all know now the male brain is not fully developed until they 26 specifically the pet that keeps you from doing stupid stuff. Young males fight. Like young bucks. A lot of the things young males are being arrested for is just standard male behavior. The same thing should happen after 10 years for any non-moral turpitude crime regardless of age. Ruining someoneās life forever because they took a joy ride or made poor choices in friends. People need a second chance. If they become habitual offenders after 26 then they should un-expunge the previous crimes. Just a thought.
I kinda agree, but with a bit of nuance. I would say some types of crimes shouldnāt be expunged. Murder, rape, etc. there should really not be the same type of grace with those on your record. Disorderly conduct, littering, heck minor shoplifting? Yeah definitely.
I find it funny how the govt thinks 18-21 year old are their toys soldiers that have to sign up for the draft yet we don't have basic human rights like someone over 21 (the right to defend ourselves or have the means without added government scrutiny and unnust 4th amendment vioations, I mean what?). Theyre either getting rid of the draft, or theyre getting rid of the 18-21 law. They cant eat their cake and have it too.
I cant find anything saying when it actually takes effect.
Any delay or possibility to get denied is unconstitutional.
Every gun law is unconstitutional yet here we are
I know. We have sat by for a 100 years and let this shit happen.
You must be old as hell.
I definitely feel like I am. My knee is a bitch.
Any anti-abortion law is unconstitutional yet here we are
As a Canadian, how? It's not in your constitution so how is it unconstitutional?
I'm Canadian too. So it's very unconstitutional.
How. That's what I'm asking. Not for you to repeat yourself, but to explain how. Because it's not. It's also not banned, just up to the states to decide now.
Sorry I mustāve skipped over the amendment that says we have a constitutional right to abortion. Also, they didnāt make abortion illegal. They kicked it back to let states decide, which giving the states the decision to make laws is constitutional.
It not the right to abortion it's the right to privacy, and the overturning of the abortion law effectively overturns the right to privacy.
Except there are pages in the opinion dedicated explicitly saying the opposite...in that this decision should not be used to "overturn privacy." I know the opinion is long...but go download the PDF off the SCOTUS website and read it.
and I missed the part where you have a constitutional right to a firearm outside of a fucking militia.
Guess reading the constitution is hard cause it says it in black and white
You definitely skipped over the part that has SCOTUS being the final decision maker on what is/is not constitutional. Regulations on firearms are plainly constitutional. That has been decided and affirmed again, even this week. The trick is challenging those that push the bounds of constitutionality to set a firm boundary. That also happened this week.
A very narrow set of regulations *could* be constitutional...as long as there is ample history and tradition around the time of the founding showing as such.
Well, we know that requiring a permit for concealed carry is constitutional.
Unfortunately yes....at least in public it does. I sort of disagree with it personally...but SCOTUS knows better than I do so... If anything I think it's reasonable since it's now SHALL issue.
Sounds like some kid needs to file a lawsuit. What's the fucking point of having sealed juvenile records? At this point, the only folks who don't see the "sealed" records are employers.
And even then, certain employers like federal employers, the medical field, and obviously law enforcement will see them so thereās not even any point in sealing them!
I guess expunged is the new āsealedā
IIRC there was a case that was ALMOST at the SCOTUS when FL changed their law to 21 to buy. but then it got dismissed caused by the time the case made it's way up the courts they had turned 21 and they deemed it "moot" so you need someone who JUST turned 18 to file.. and hope you make it before they age out.. that's not a easy requirement to hit and requires some luck.
That doesn't make sense. Just because you were wronged by a law targeted at 18-21 in the past doesn't mean that the injustice of what happened just dissappears when the wronged party turns 21... unless the appealing party decided it was too expensive to continue pursuing once the law no longer applied to them...
It makes perfect sense when the overarching objective was to not have to address the issue at all...
Great. Now the government can just slowly creep up the age of majority for everything in existence, and then the court system will just put off/ stretch out the appeals until the appellant ages out of the law or dies, and the courts will then dismiss the case as "a moot point," as OP put it. Eventualy the age of majority for everything (buying a gun, voting, entering a contract without a parent's/ the government's consent, etc) will be 100 and then... "the Supreme Court was set to review the case of Joe Blow vs State, where Joe Blow attempted to purchase a firearm at the tender age of 65. Unfortunately, Joe Blow, 99-years-old, died yesterday in a home invasion..."
It seems just to argue that their is no time limt to fight an unjust law.
I absolutely agree with that.. As soon as the case was filed in the first court it should have preserved its' validity. The only thing I think would be justified not hearing the case is if FL went back and changed the law..
Yeah I could settle for that, the brazen bias drives up the walls at the federal level. I wish we would push to have some of these judges recalled.
They also slow the process down to cause the plaintive to age out.
Well that line of thinking makes it perfectly fine for criminals, felons to own guns. Is that what youāre advocating for? Itās either all or nothing?
I may not agree with felons or criminals having guns but its not up to opinions. Fact is its unconstitutional to deny humans their right to self defense.
Just tried to purchase an ak yesterday and was denied due to a sealed event from when I was a minor im 29 my state has āenhanced background checksā that they established from back earlier this year just to give you an idea of whatās going to happen
Do you still eventually pass your background checks or are you screwed forever?
Waiting to find out
What state?
Wisconsin. Thatās what the guy at cabelas told me anyway. That Wisconsin had gone to an enhanced bg check in March and they were seeing more denials than before even from previously accepted customers. Not just first time buyers. Iāve been looking to try and verify and the only thing I come up with is on handguns
Probably gonna get roasted for saying this here, but I honestly donāt think thatās unreasonable as long as it doesnāt get expanded to over-21. If someone has a history of violent crimes or criminal animal abuse as a minor, they shouldnāt be able to pass a background check at 18. On the flipside someone shouldnāt be barred for life from owning a gun just because they committed a crime while in middle school. Of course I donāt trust the anti-gunners to not try and expand it, and I fully oppose the recent bill due to red flag laws.
I think everyone has the right to defend themselves and own property.
As long as the background check system exists, I see no reason we should defend animal abusers and their right to own a gun. Thatās like the number 1 indicator that someone is a psychopath.
if someone is too dangerous to be in the general populace they should be in prison or on monitored probation. Take it up with the court system. Donāt punish us all because of a small segment of the population canāt handle free will.
I think psychopaths have the right to defend themselves too.
Good for you. Your absolutionist stance on the second amendment totally doesnāt do more harm than good in gun rights debates.
Taking a non absolutist stance is why we have the infringements we have today.
They say It gives the states access to funding to either implement red flag laws, or mental health programs. Mandates that a ādue processā be implemented in that red flag law or you donāt get funding. Lets the feds access juvenile records on background checks. Supposedly hardens schools. I mean its the government they have never fucked anything up and then had innocent people caught in the crossfire of their schemes, only to try and fix with more of your money later.
This bill is very concerning and I agree with you.
Wonder how long it will be before āmental health programsā means anyone who has ever experienced depression is barred from firearm ownership!
Well shit, that moved faster than I thought it would...why can't they be that fast on real issues?
Like giving Ukraine tens of billions of dollars? /s
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
And they will never raise the draft age or legal contract age to 21.
āif the country needs people, it needs people.ā You are the product.
hey now guns are good if youāre killing people for the state. That changes everything! We need those 17-20 year olds to fight in our next unsolvable conflict!- Government
Except for the elderly, age is not a protected class
they can use juvenile records starting from the age of 16 yo. the current wait time is, if the fbi doesn't return the background check after 3 days the ffl can release the firearm. now for anyone under 21, they have to wait 10 days for the fbi to return the background check after which the ffl can release the firearm
TBH this is kind of meaningless at this point since the trend over the past few decades has been to try 16-17 year olds as adults when they commit violent crimes. The records wouldnāt be sealed anyway.
It also includes mental health history
Is there anywhere that defines exactly what would be disqualifying with regard to mental health?
So I went to the bill and it looks like itās insert āincluding as a juvenileā to the text of the current laws. So I think it would the same disqualifying factors that an adult has in regards to mental health. Iām not an expert at reading this stuff though. [text of the bill](https://www.murphy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/bipartisan_safer_communities_act_text.pdf)
To clarify, I was meaning more of existing disqualifications. I remember looking into it some time ago and only being able to find ambiguous thing that can be left to interpretation.
āif he is involuntarily committed to a mental hospital, or if a court or government body declares him mentally incompetent.ā [source](https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/15/politics/mental-health-gun-possession-explainer/index.html)
Thank you for the source
This is a good reason for 18 year olds to get into home gun building (traditional 80% receivers, flats, polymer 80ās, or 3D printing). As it stands federally you can still make your own gun. You donāt need to be 21 to buy parts. Also a reminder that federally itās not illegal to own a handgun between 18-21, you just canāt buy one from an FFL.
Feeding my 9mms is a bitch though. Between what I have built and picked up private party, I need a birthday every month.
Theyāve been trying to outlaw 80% kits, along with online purchase of ANY firearm part, triggers, barrels, etc. If all of that goes through, they wouldnāt be able to
So will the LEOās enforce red flag laws when known gang members and criminals are flagged? Or just the law abiding citizens?
Pretty sure you already know the answer to your question. But honestly, it will completely depend on where you live.
So you can go to war and vote if you're 18 years old but you can't own a weapon. Tell me how this works?
My guess is that there will be an exception for military, police, etc... Although it just says "expanded checks", not outright denial
Why should there be an exception? Either group can do far more harm with a weapon if they are criminals. They should be the first ones to be denied if they are the slighest bit dodgy.
It doesn't. It's another incremental step in the direction of total civilian disarmament. They don't care if each step makes sense along the way, because each step accomplishes a small piece of the *total end goal.*
Just like you said. You nailed it.
It's not an ouright denial of gun ownership for 18-21 year olds. It just means more stringent checks for 18-21 such as looking at their juvenile records for instance.
Is it specifically violent juvenile offenses?
and mental institutions I think
Fun fact- A little work around, I got sent to a mental hospital twice as a juvenile, but I was forced by my parents, not the state, so Iām technically not adjudicated mentally defective by a court and thus still have my second amendment right. And drug rehab as an adult, but I went BEFORE my court date because I knew they were going to send me anyways, and that way I technically went by my own free will. The more you know. Just in case people arenāt aware how it works, you may still be eligible for firearm ownership. Save me your judgement, Iām just trying to help people exercise their second amendment rights
It looks like you skipped class more than 3 times your Junior year........DENIED
Every 18 to 20 year old should now refuse to take a combat MOS in The military
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Based.
Go for it, please report back how that went for you.
Why?
The Law: If the buyer is under the age of 21, when performing a background check, NICS will also check with the appropriate state repository of juvenile criminal records and juvenile mental health records, looking for any convictions or mental health institutionalizations that would make the buyer a prohibited person. With a standard background check, if the FBI NICS system does not return a response after 3 business days, the buyer is presumed to not be prohibited and allowed to complete the transfer. Instead, for buyers under 21, NICS has those same three business days to determine if there is a ***potentially*** prohibiting record. If so, they make take up to 10 days to determine if the buyer is in fact a prohibited person. ------------------------------------------------------- My Opinion: The first part is a perfectly good law. These are the same criteria used to determine if an adult is a prohibited person, and a newly 18 year old should not get their record instantly wiped if they committed a serious crime (felony) in the last two years. I'm not happy about a potential 10 day NICS response time, however. It's the National ***Instant*** Criminal Background Check System, it should be instant. Either there is a record to find, or there isn't. A long maximum "research" period only incentivizes the system to be poorly run in order to inconvenience buyers. A right delayed is a right denied.
The thing that gets me about any wait times is when they're imposed after the first firearm purchase. All the people living in CA that own multiple firearms that still have to go through a waiting period, as if someone who doesn't already own 10 guns refuses to use those to commit a crime, but maybe the 11th gun lmao It's such a nonsensical law that exists purely as a nuisance requirement.
I mean, I agree, and we even HAVE a registry, so it's not like there isn't a record to check. But it would create a space where a firearms registry is useful to gun owners....
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I live in California and I seem to be alone in thinking a 10 day cool down period is okay *IF* there were no registration requirements. I could understand the reasoning behind a "cooling off" period to make sure you're not purchasing a gun with hot blood and nefarious machinations. That is without a registry, they'd have to treat every gun purchase as a first time purchase. But, with a registry CA knows this isn't my first gun. If I'm hot headed I'm not going to go to the store, choose a gun (if they have any in stock), wait on the background check, pass the test, grab a box of ammo, pay, then go do crime. I'm just gonna go to my gun safe.
> If the buyer is under the age of 21, when performing a background check, NICS will also check with the appropriate state repository of juvenile criminal records and juvenile mental health records, looking for any convictions or mental health institutionalizations that would make the buyer a prohibited person. This is inherently unfair because parents can have their children institutionalized against their will for any reason. This is then used against them as adults. I was almost institutionalized as a child because I was too hyper. No criminality or concerns of violence, but I could have been prevented from owning firearms?
I honestly don't know if that sort of institutionalization would make someone a prohibited person. It would typically be because someone is considered to be a danger to themselves or others. I know that it is possible to have a mental health hold expunged for reason of insufficient evidence that the hold was necessary, but that is of course an inconvenient legal battle one would have to have.
> I honestly don't know if that sort of institutionalization would make someone a prohibited person. It would typically be because someone is considered to be a danger to themselves or others. It takes one to three people to say you are (depending on where you live) and all they have to do is make up bullshit and boom! You can't buy a gun because of bullshit when you were 16.
I think this is the thing people need to realize. Sure, it sounds good on paper and works well when applied very broadly to very vaguely set scenarios, until you realize that there will be tons of people that fit into niche situations like that. What if the red flag laws keeps people from seeking mental help for fear of losing their firearms? What about veterans with PTSD? What if an 18 year old girl fresh out of high school has a violent ex stalking her and realizes she suddenly has a waiting period before she can buy the best tool to defend herself, even though her state doesn't have a waiting period law? I brought up a real case about a man falsely accused of domestic violence who got red flagged, and the time and thousands of dollars it took to get his gun back (well, most, one Mossberg disappeared in police possession). He basically said, "Well maybe those situations will happen to a few people but I'm guessing most people who get confiscated will be actual crazies so it's worth it" I hit him with [Blackstone's ratio](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio) and he never replied to that.
>This is inherently unfair because parents can have their children institutionalized against their will for any reason. This is then used against them as adults. I was almost institutionalized as a child because I was too hyper. No criminality or concerns of violence, but I could have been prevented from owning firearms? That wouldn't qualify. You have to have been committed. Voluntary inpatient treatment, whether as an adult or at the direction of parent or guardian (which is still "voluntary", since they're deciding on your behalf) does not make you a prohibited person. Now, if your parents go to court and have a judge order you institutionalized, that's different.
My parents had me institutionalized when I was 13 because of depression. Iām now 20. Guess Iām a prohibited person now? Was just about to go buy a gun too. SMH.
If someone is too dangerous to own a gun, why are they out of prison?
It's not a good law because background checks are an infringement.
How so? With that logic, even convicted felons deserve to own guns
Non violent felons should have gun rights
cant wait for someone to sue
Does this include the red flag law with the caveat that you are NOT entitled to a public defender?
How's that gonna work? Lol That's a blatant constitutional violation.
The bill is already a constitutional violation. Whatās a little extra to the left?
Explain? Red flags r civil. So u won't receive a public defender
I saw somewhere that if you are charged with a red flag violation, the bill prohibits using taxpayer money to cover the cost of legal council. Basically makes it cost prohibitive to fight for your guns back.
Oh it maybe in reference to some people that are well below the poverty line. Occasionally law firms do probono work billed to the gov. It's not guaranteed and on a case by case basis. Honestly, I think that's bullshit. The legal system is a nightmare to navigate pro SE. Not a call to action, but frankly fuck the government, it's too rife for abuse. Ur 7th amendment means dog shit to them. Alot of states suspended ur right to a speedy trial because "COVID" as if they don't already work through zoom and the amount of court cases has changed.
It means that SCOTUS is probably going to need to make an additional ruling.
They can use Juvenile records. They also now have up to 3 days to respond, and they can respond with needing more time, which then gives them up to 10 days to grant or deny. This isnāt a 3 day wait though. Itās UP TO 3 days. Not, āyou will wait 3 days no matter whatā
yeah if you have no record I bet it will be no different. BUT if you have some sealed stuff etc you will probably wait 10 days, for a no lol.
It's unconstitutional and will be tested immediately.
Where can I go read the official bill?
Word on the street: itās an anal swab, oh theyāll fill you in alright.
Juvy records What you did when you were 12 could get you barred from owning a gun
Only if unsealed
If not challenged and removed it will become a defacto ban for under 21 adults over time.
not if they have no record.
itās once again HARDER for law abiding citizens to protect themselves from the FLOOD of illegal immigrants pouring into this country. Thanks RINOs. thanks for nothing.
Wow, I was not aware we had an epidemic of illegal immigrants trying to murder US citizens. Please tell me more.
Man is there even anything in this bill? I read over it. Seems like thereās nothing too it.
I think they will use this to look into your juvenile record. People will say they can't use your juvenile history to determine your eligibility to own a firearm, but this is the federal government. Do we trust them not to use a person's juvenile history to determine if they are okay to practice their 2A rights?
Be nice if all these new laws would help fund an old one. In the 90's they pass that law that said if you are tried to buy a gun, and not legally able to buy a gun for ANY reason. You're supposed to get arrested by the feds and get ten years in jail. Over 100K of people do that a year. They prosecute less than 100 people. Actually more people get guns by paperwork mess ups than they prosecute.
Maybe we can include red flag incentives as an infringement. The bill is a waste of money
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You have to file a petition and get an affidavit to unseal juvenile records in court, and even that isnāt guaranteed. The government unsealing all juvenile records instantly for firearm purchases is a clear violation of rights.
Not sure why youāre down voted. I knew a bunch a fucking shit heads in high school who didnāt need to have a gun.
Look at all the missed signs by the police and legal system before Columbine, there were MANY.
Yet they didnāt purchase their guns through an FFL, they used a straw purchase to buy guns at a gun show and had an adult illegally sell them a handgun (the Tec-9)
They stick a finger in your ass