NRA sues Florida hours after gun bill is signed by Gov. Scott

NRA sues Florida hours after gun bill is signed by Gov. Scott

NRA sues Florida hours after gun bill is signed by Gov. Scott

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:

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.

Written by

  • Next up: raise the minimum votin age for citizens not serving in the military to 21. (Actually, given all the ignorance displayed by the child crisis actors deployed by the left since Parkland, that might make sense.

  • SDN says:

    Oh, it’s worse than you think. Male citizens in this age-group are designated members of the unorganized militia by federal statute, 10 U.S.C. §246(a).

    This statute simply makes it especially egregious, as the Leftists can’t even claim that only militia members are covered by the Second Amendment; the group affected are already defined as members of the militia.

    This law violates EVERY clause of the Second Amendment.

  • Wfjag says:

    1. The law, also, allows for arming teachers. So, the ban on firearm sales to 18 – 20 year olds kept Dems from opposing the arming of teachers and thereby eliminating schools as “Gun Free (e.g., open season) Zones.” This can be used as a model for other states to enact laws arming teachers.

    2. It bans sales to, not possession by, 18 – 20 year olds. That puts an adult in the transaction. There’s a lot of maturation between 18 and 21 (you can’t legally drink alcohol before 21, because of the dangers of inexperienced drivers who drink), so it’s not an unreasonable restriction. And, don’t throw in the idea that military personnel less than 21 can use firearms. The example isn’t relevant. Carrying a privately owned firearm on a military facility is a felony, even if you have a state issued permit. Use of firearms by military personnel is strictly supervised.

    3. Juvenile records aren’t reported to the database that identifies people who shouldn’t be allowed to purchase firearms. It’s a big problem as a source for straw man sales to criminals. By the time such people reach 21, they will have a criminal record.

    Finally, it totally takes the wind out of the sails of the rhetoric that Republicans oppose reasonable gun control measures or are in the pocket of the NRA. Progressives will be forced to make more extreme demands, and discredit themselves.

    • Scott says:

      To your first point, yes, allowing teachers to be armed is good, but at what cost, to your second point, sorry, you screwed that one up, I most definitely will ” throw in the idea that military personnel less than 21 can use firearms” because your argument is BS on it’s face. There re plenty of 19-20 year old squad leaders in combat zones, and they ARE the “strict supervision” you mention. Either you’re an adult, or you’re not.. this distinction between 18 and 21 is crap plain and simple… here’s one you might like better, I’ll compare it to the right to vote. I believe one can make a very god argument that the 18-21 group an do MUCH more damage with their ability to vote than with guns, and these useful idiots from Parkland are a perfect your point three, yes, it is a huge problem that juvenile records are not included in NICS.. that’s something that should be fixed, not added to with another mistake, and lastly, it will OT take the wind out of the sails of the left… in case you haven’t been paying attention the last 50 yrs or so, no matter what gun laws are passed, the left screams for more, and republicans are always blamed for not going far enough.. this will never change until they’ve taken all of our guns..

  • Scott says:

    That Cameron Kasky kid is dumber than a bag of moldy hair… he has been thoroughly indoctrinated, and for that, his parents need to be slapped silly…

  • Casey says:

    Does anyone think that this murdering thug would be less dangerous in two years?

Leave a Reply

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

Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner