Yesterday Florida Governor Rick Scott, signed into law the state’s reaction to the Parkland school shooting that left seventeen dead. The new law prohibits all gun sales to individuals aged 18-20.

The ink was not even dry on the new law before the National Rifle Association had filed a law suit against the state. The suit asserts that prohibiting law-abiding people between the ages of 18-20 is a violation their constitutional rights under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. Anyone violating this law may be convicted of a felony, serve up to five years in prison, and be fined up to $5,000. Law enforcement and military members are exempt.

The NRA suit lists all the other state laws that are in effect that rightfully limits purchase of a gun: no one convicted of a felony, or who is the subject of an injunction regarding domestic violence, or anyone under 18, or anyone adjudicated mentally defective or committed to a mental institution. These laws prohibit guns from being in the hands of those who are unstable, unsafe, or incapable of safely handling a firearm. If these were followed in the vast majority of mass shooting cases, mass shootings would have been prevented – the most significant failing being the lack of mental health adjudication.

The Parkland shooting was committed by a 19 year old. The average age of mass shooters is 34. Many shooters younger than 21 did not purchase or obtain their firearms through a federally licensed firearms deal, nor from a legal private sale. Some were straw purchases, and some obtained the firearms from their parents’ gun cases. Congratulations to gun control activists – this is finally a law that is actually relevant to the facts of the case! On its face, this law would have provided an obstacle to Nicholas Cruz’ ability to obtain a gun. But so far as I can remember, he would have been the only young shooter that this would have affected. Very few, if any, other shooters under 21 obtained a gun in a legal way or was even the true owner of the firearm used in the crime. Further, these other cases show that while this could have provided an obstacle to Cruz, it probably would not have stopped him.

It’s bad enough that the idea of banning 18-20 year olds from buying guns will not demonstrably stop mass shootings – simply because most mass shootings are not done by 18-20 year olds. But the idea is inconsistent with what we expect of young adults, so inconsistent, that they had to carve out an exception for those stellar under 20s that find a career in law enforcement or serve our country. If we think 18-20 year olds are capable of those enormous responsibilities, then a law banning their peers from buying guns is ridiculous in theory. On the flip side, if average law-abiding 18-20 year olds don’t have the wherewithal to manage gun ownership properly, then what the hell are we doing allowing them into law enforcement and the military? It’s simply indefensible. If you have to have an exception for this law, allowing some 18-20 year olds to purchase guns but not others, you need to have a good reason. So far I do not see any reason set forth other than, “We missed stopping an obviously mentally unstable from obtaining a gun. We need to do something to cover our asses for the next one.”

And there will be a next one! Which is the thing that makes me most angry about this situation. They will pass this dumb law that will have no effect, and then reason their way into another law that also feels good, but will do nothing. And the mass shootings will happen anyway. Because no one is addressing the real issues!

And, right on time. We can count on the Parkland kids to sweep in with their activist-crafted talking points and high-minded cynicism to set the correct tone for the debate:

The NRA almost undoubtedly gave @FLGovScott permission to sign that legislation so they could get a federal lawsuit and have more people buying guns because they’re being tricked into thinking their guns are being taken away. Let’s not give them what they want.#NeverAgain

— Cameron Kasky (@cameron_kasky) March 10, 2018

The NRA’s lawsuit is just a fundraiser to keep giving their executives like Wayne LaPierre millions of dollars a year (despite being a ‘non-profit’ and all.)

Don’t give them attention. As always, they’re just trying to peddle weapons of war. #NEVERAGAIN #MarchForOurLives

— Cameron Kasky (@cameron_kasky) March 10, 2018

Of course, the biggest problem with this law is that it is truly unconstitutional on its face. It puts a different burden on law-abiding citizens of a younger age – but still considered an adult – without any justification for violating constitutional rights. So far as I know, when another person commits a crime, it is not a fair reaction to punish me for that crime. But this is exactly what this law will do.

In addition to the general burden placed on young adults, the NRA points out that females are even more inequitably treated because they account for far less violent crime than their male counterparts of the same age, 1.8% to 8.7% respectively. But, even better than that, males aged 21-24 account for 9.2% of violent crime. So this law will not even touch those who arguably are much more responsible for violent crime. It’s clear that if the aim is to prevent gun violence, the wrong target is being attacked. This law would never be allowed to target 21-24 year olds though – despite them being responsible for more crime!

I suppose gun control activists will claim victory with this, but even if a constitutional right were not at issue, this will fix nothing. And to me, that is probably the worst part of all of this.