Changing AR15 Purchase Age to 21

[kenpoprofessor]

Your typical mass shooter is so maladjusted and socially awkward that even criminals don't want to deal with him. He can function well enough to go to the dealer and fill out a 4473, but he is not going to go all Jason Borne and procure one off the streets if the guns are outlawed.

I have no problem making the age the same for semiauto rifles and handguns. If anything, young people are better off starting with a bolt action so they can learn some markmanship. Plus at least at 21, you have a track record for any background check. At 18, all crimes committed under the age of 18 are mostly buried.

If anything in trade, drinking age should be lowered to 19, just old enough so they are out of high school. They are drinking illegally anyway, enforcement is just a fundraiser for the cops and lawyers. Should be more worried about chasing tail than guns at that age anyway.

And as far as the military thing, I would be totally supportive of keeping our serivcemembers under the age of 21 out of combat zones unless the United States is directly threatened. Make it less likely for leaders to throw their lives away on foreign boondoggles.

Ah, nice to hear from the FUDDs on this, we knew they're here. Bet you're a lifetime member of the NRA as well, with no regard to any other org., especially something like AZCDL. I'd almost bet money you came from somewhere else, am I right?

Either you're woefully ignorant, or, just plain stupid if you don't realize that this isn't the end of what they'll do if they're allowed to get something like this in law. Should we also curtail the use of the internet to those of drinking age? That'd be a great idea, no stupid nonsense from children, all we'd have to see and hear is nonsense from adults, like the above post.

Clyde

 

[87jeep]

Stupid is everywhere! Just got off the Marlin forum site and about a 1/4 of them think a restriction on AR's is good. Iam sure they will turn in their levers, for the children in due time.

Carry on

 

[Tenring]

Fudd
/fədd/

noun

1. Like Elmer: Slow, dumb, happily clueless.

2. Owns firearms commonly used for hunting.

3. Knows jackshit about the Constitution of the United States of America.

4. Believes the Second Amendment was written so he could own a shotgun and a bolt-action deer rifle.

5. Has no interest in other types of firearms, and may condemn, and even help ban them.

See: moron, useful idiot, target of scorn, cuck.
Bob the Fudd is helping ban AR-15's because he says they aren't needed for hunting.

 

[YNOTAZ]

Why do FUDDs have to infiltrate shooting sites, why can't they just form knitting circles like the others who have surrendered their "toxic masculinity"?
.
.

 

[paulgt2164]

Your typical mass shooter is so maladjusted and socially awkward that even criminals don't want to deal with him. He can function well enough to go to the dealer and fill out a 4473, but he is not going to go all Jason Borne and procure one off the streets if the guns are outlawed.

You honestly believe that? Lol. And sorry, when does buying a gun "off the streets" require some "Jason Bourne" style spycraft? Pretty sure anyone with 3/10ths a working brain could buy a gun without going through a background check these days - by your logic all those felon gang members killing each other in places like Chicago and LA must be ex-CIA or something. Also, criminals don't think "Man, this kid weird - I ain't gonna sell him this gun" - that is hilarious.

Evil isn't going to be like "I can't pass a 4473 so my plans of violence are now null and impossible, guess I am just going to have to return to being a normal person now. Guess I should meet a nice girl, settle down, have kids, watch the brady bunch, and help my neighbors with home improvement projects since I can't be evil and kill a bunch of people. Drat! "

I have no problem making the age the same for semiauto rifles and handguns. If anything, young people are better off starting with a bolt action so they can learn some markmanship. Plus at least at 21, you have a track record for any background check. At 18, all crimes committed under the age of 18 are mostly buried.

This actually makes zero sense what-so-ever. There are tons of kids who learnt marksmanship from firearms that aren't bolt action. Marksmanship has nothing to do with type of firearm. If you have someone who can't focus enough to shoot a semi-auto properly, they aren't going to shoot a bolt gun well either.You are blaming the firearm for a person problem, just like the people blaming the gun for shooting people. Lol.

If anything in trade, drinking age should be lowered to 19, just old enough so they are out of high school. They are drinking illegally anyway, enforcement is just a fundraiser for the cops and lawyers. Should be more worried about chasing tail than guns at that age anyway.

There should be nothing in trade, why do we have to "trade" our rights? What kind of f*cked up logic is that? While you are at it - lets have a little less freedom of speech, but lets lower the age someone can buy cigarettes. Totally a good trade off - we get arrested and Epstein'd if we talk bad about the government - but on every street corner there are 13 year olds puffin' on Marlboro reds. Genius! "Why yes, Officer - I will gladly allow you to render my guilt without due process in exchange for getting to have a beer a bit sooner!" See how absolutely retarded that logic sounds?

And yes, lets exchange a right for even younger people abusing alcohol. Makes perfect sense (not.) "Sorry kid, your too young to own an AR that will sit in a closet or safe 99.9% of it's life - but here - have a case of whiskey for you an all your 19 year old friends." Give 1000 19 years old free reign on alcohol, and then give 1000 19 year old people a rifle. Let see which causes more damage. Most 21 year old kids these days can't act responsibly when drinking - what makes you think a 19 year old would be more responsible with alcohol then a rifle? Brilliant logic there. Hate to tell you - many under 18 year olds have ARs. Hell, I was given one when I was 13.

And I hate to tell you - but if kids these days were chasing guns more than "tail" I bet the unplanned pregnancy and STD rates would plummet and mental health of them would improve 100%. Implying that chasing "tail" is any better than some young person investing time in a hobby that builds patience, process, concentration, mechanical aptitude, and responsibility is hilarious. "Hey little Timmy, forget having a rewarding firearms hobby, you should be running around town sticking your stump in every skank you can find - cause it is totally worth bragging about 20 years later as a last ditch effort to prove you have made something of your life to strangers at the bar....." Not.

And as far as the military thing, I would be totally supportive of keeping our serivcemembers under the age of 21 out of combat zones unless the United States is directly threatened. Make it less likely for leaders to throw their lives away on foreign boondoggles.

Define "directly threatened" - if something ever got put to law where 18 -20 year old people wouldn't be in combat unless the US was under direct threat - then the politicians would just say every mouse farting on another continent was a direct threat.

You post is a stunning example of failed logic, and not understanding the concept of "rights" and apparently you have no clue to how politicians and the government work. I never thought I would see someone use fewer brain cells than Kenpo and OldFurryDog arguing about who is the better veteran - and then you posted that dumpster fire.

 

[knockonit]

amazing, simply amazing the though process of some folks, liberalism, alive and well. its infected so many websites i have frequented over the decades, i'm old and old fashion, and not in style. have decided its not worth my time to attempt to educate anyone for any reason, just read the horsefeathers and giggle or shake me head and look elsewhere for a bonified conversation worth having
have a good weekend

rj

 

[paulgt2164]

amazing, simply amazing the though process of some folks, liberalism, alive and well. its infected so many websites i have frequented over the decades, i'm old and old fashion, and not in style. have decided its not worth my time to attempt to educate anyone for any reason, just read the horsefeathers and giggle or shake me head and look elsewhere for a bonified conversation worth having
have a good weekend

rj

At least it has been rather good at outing a few dingleberries here.

 

[knockonit]

lol, yeah, you can spot them if you pay attention to their posts, they all tend to step on their hootenanny eventually, their stance shows up
, lol, so be it, life is full of bullshite, just gotta wade thru it for the good parts. lol
Rj

 

[oldslurrydog1]

This gun control is only going to continue to ratchet up further and further until they come for all of the guns if people have that attitude. These gun grabbers want them ALL, and they're taking them away incrementally. As soon someone uses a scoped bolt action to go around killing people, they'll call them sniper rifles and want those gone as well. You have to draw a line in the sand.

Charles Whitman. I guess he's considered the first mass school shooter. Look up his weapons.

There used to be info about the students grabbing thier guns from thier dorms and shooting suppression fire to help the police gain entry into the tower.

Thanks to Google, that info has been erased.

Found it.
https://apps.texastribune.org/guns-on-campus/allen-crum-helped-stop-ut-tower-shooter-charles-whitman/

"Regular people from all over Austin had grabbed their guns from their trucks or homes that day and rushed to campus to fire at Whitman from the ground. Their bullets pelted the tower, kicking up clouds of limestone. At times, witnesses said, the campus felt like a war zone, but with armed frat boys and hunting enthusiasts instead of soldiers.

“There were lots of people carrying guns, mostly young men, mainly rifles,” said Ann Major, who was a senior at the time."

"Forrest Preece, who was stuck in a drugstore on Guadalupe Street, said he remembers seeing two students running across the porch of their fraternity house carrying rifles."

 

[Quake_Guy]

As someone mentioned, why no outrage for handguns being legal at age 21? You gotta pick a year unless you think 13 year olds buying handguns without an adult present is a great idea. Some of you probably do, you just need to realize how disconnected you are from the reality that most children are raised in nowadays.

In the olden days Hemmingway could roam Northern Michigan by himself with a 22 pistol strapped to his hip before he was 10 years old. But guess what, the olden days are gone. The maturity level of young adults is way less than it was even 20-30 years ago. Part of the blame is that we raised the age on everything else, treat young people like infants and you get infants. Other part is the social structure around people has crumbled, that isn't coming back.

Even Florida bans all gun purchases until the age of 21. You can either try to standardize at the Federal level or the states will implement even more restrictive measures. As far as being a Fudd, LOL, far from it. No, I'm just an adult who realizes the world isn't black and white.

 

[kenpoprofessor]

As someone mentioned, why no outrage for handguns being legal at age 21? You gotta pick a year unless you think 13 year olds buying handguns without an adult present is a great idea. Some of you probably do, you just need to realize how disconnected you are from the reality that most children are raised in nowadays.

In the olden days Hemmingway could roam Northern Michigan by himself with a 22 pistol strapped to his hip before he was 10 years old. But guess what, the olden days are gone. The maturity level of young adults is way less than it was even 20-30 years ago. Part of the blame is that we raised the age on everything else, treat young people like infants and you get infants. Other part is the social structure around people has crumbled, that isn't coming back.

Even Florida bans all gun purchases until the age of 21. You can either try to standardize at the Federal level or the states will implement even more restrictive measures. As far as being a Fudd, LOL, far from it. No, I'm just an adult who realizes the world isn't black and white.

You're a FUDD, however you try to rationalize your statements.


Clyde

 

[BigNate]

I'm curious of all of those opposed to a 21+ age requirement for AR type rifles; where is your outrage and loud vocal opposition for the age requirement for the purchase of handguns/frames/receivers?

Of all the various boards I visit multiple times per day, there isn't a single thread about fighting the age requirement for pistols...why not?

Did any of you follow the Natalia Marshall v ATF/DOJ case from last year?

Because "frog in the pot" - it is "normal" to them so they don't see the need to fight it (and I'll admit - I'm infected with that same disease). You are right - we should be just as frustrated by this as we are the attempts to remove the right to buy certain rifles.

That said - I gifted each of my children a handgun at 18, and before they turned 21 they could buy 9mm for them by invoking the fact (true) that we owned 9mm PCCs and the cartridge was a carbine cartridge. MOST gun store guys would grin and promptly sell them rounds.

 

[BigNate]

OK - I'm going to wade into this one and I'll probably catch some crap for some of this - but I think its worth discussing...

1) I think that preventing 18 year old people from buying an AR pattern rifle is simply stupid. I think that preventing 18 year olds from buying any semi-auto rifle is only slightly less stupid. While I don't support any restrictions as they are written, I think that getting some form of gun safety prior to buying your first firearm is a good thing - but I can't support legislating this because the 2nd Amendment says "shall not be infringed." There are things that I think are a good idea - that I truly believe would do much good - but that would also infringe on the liberties of law abiding citizens and the value of that liberty is greater than whatever good would come of the restriction. As a society we've generally determined that the age of majority in our country is 18. If we think that folks are not mature enough to own a rifle at 18 - maybe we raise the age of majority for everything to 21. Want to vote, join the military, etc... 21. Yeah... nah... I don't think so. Maybe we just put more energy into turning out 18 year old citizens who are responsible and educated about guns.

2) I think background checks are a good thing but I don't support expanding them. My lack of support for expansion of background checks comes from the fact that I simply don't trust government and I believe sincerely that at a minimum they WANT to use this information to catalog gun ownership and identify gun owners - and maximally they are actively doing this under the guise of some national security directive - but as a precursor for efforts to confiscate guns if they believe that they have the political will to do so. If there were a mechanism by which I could be assured that the background check was ONLY used to prevent sales to prohibited possessors - and that absolutely zero record of the purchase was to be kept or shared with the government - then I'd be more inclined to support expanded checks - but today I don't.

3) I support putting more energy, effort and public money into early intervention for mental illness and for stripping the right to own guns from those who have been shown to be seriously mentally ill AND prone to violence. The bar here needs to be REALLY high - and I'm not sure how to objectively set such a bar in a way that protects those who don't present an immediate threat - but I do think that putting energy into preventing access to guns by people with serious mental illness is something worth working on. However this happens, it must include due process - it needs to go through the courts and be done in a manner that complies with the constitutional protections of individual liberties. This is one of those areas where even though I do support "something" I hesitate to say that I support it because I fear it's abuse by those who would use it to disarm people in general - you know - the types who would point to the owning of more than a gun or two as an evidence of a mental imbalance.

4) Red Flag Laws - Like #2 above - I'm truly torn. Are there people who are imbalanced, who make genuine threats, and who actually have the propensity to kill the person that they are mad at even though they have not yet committed a crime? Yep? Are there people who will vindictivly falsify threats in order to get their estranged spouse disarmed. Yep. This is one of those areas where I don't have a good answer because unhinged people do evil things. That said - while removing a raging, unhinged person's access to firearms may make them somewhat less immediately dangerous, it does not make them harmless. The best answer to this sort of issue, in my opinion, is for folks to be prepared and skilled in defending themselves. Making it easy to disarm someone without due process is something too easily abused.

At the end of the day - my view on these things boils down to a few principles:
* Evil exists and taking tools away from good people does nothing to prevent evil - rather - it advances the cause of the evil doer by weakening the ability of the victims to protect themselves.
* Liberty is more important than government-provided security.
* Portions of our population are completely willing to ignore the constitutional protections of our God-given liberties in order to either feel safe, or worse yet, advance an agenda that centralizes power in government and removes the ability of the citizen to defend themselves against evil, whether that be a street criminal, or the government. These attempts must be resisted...

 

[paulgt2164]

As someone mentioned, why no outrage for handguns being legal at age 21? You gotta pick a year unless you think 13 year olds buying handguns without an adult present is a great idea. Some of you probably do, you just need to realize how disconnected you are from the reality that most children are raised in nowadays.

In the olden days Hemmingway could roam Northern Michigan by himself with a 22 pistol strapped to his hip before he was 10 years old. But guess what, the olden days are gone. The maturity level of young adults is way less than it was even 20-30 years ago. Part of the blame is that we raised the age on everything else, treat young people like infants and you get infants. Other part is the social structure around people has crumbled, that isn't coming back.

Even Florida bans all gun purchases until the age of 21. You can either try to standardize at the Federal level or the states will implement even more restrictive measures. As far as being a Fudd, LOL, far from it. No, I'm just an adult who realizes the world isn't black and white.

Umm... Plenty of us are outraged at that - you live under a rock?


Sorry, but after your comment about supporting "trading" our rights for lower drinking age or some such total b.s. you can't backtrack from that. You seem content in a consulation prize in exchange for more "death by a thousand cuts" right-infringement legislation. In that same post you comment about lowering the drinking age, and that people below 21 should be more concerned with "chasing tail" - yet here are now talking about how the maturity level today is was less than it was previous - all kind of contradictory there aren't we?

There is black and white - and that is our rights. If your 13 year old can't handle the responsibility of a firearm - then that is a parental failing, plain and simple.The amount of 13 years old these days that can go out and drop several hundred bucks on a handgun is pretty much zero - so if you a parent who takes their kid to a gun store, and gives them the money to buy a gun (assuming your hypothetical comment above)and they aren't mature enough - how is that a failing of anything other than you as a parent? Maybe you should muzzle your kids, and take away their phones/computers/etc too, if they say things you don't agree with as well? Since you are so happy to bargain away our rights - why stop at the 2nd?

 

[kenpoprofessor]

OK - I'm going to wade into this one and I'll probably catch some crap for some of this - but I think its worth discussing...

1) I think that preventing 18 year old people from buying an AR pattern rifle is simply stupid. I think that preventing 18 year olds from buying any semi-auto rifle is only slightly less stupid. While I don't support any restrictions as they are written, I think that getting some form of gun safety prior to buying your first firearm is a good thing - but I can't support legislating this because the 2nd Amendment says "shall not be infringed." There are things that I think are a good idea - that I truly believe would do much good - but that would also infringe on the liberties of law abiding citizens and the value of that liberty is greater than whatever good would come of the restriction. As a society we've generally determined that the age of majority in our country is 18. If we think that folks are not mature enough to own a rifle at 18 - maybe we raise the age of majority for everything to 21. Want to vote, join the military, etc... 21. Yeah... nah... I don't think so. Maybe we just put more energy into turning out 18 year old citizens who are responsible and educated about guns.

2) I think background checks are a good thing but I don't support expanding them. My lack of support for expansion of background checks comes from the fact that I simply don't trust government and I believe sincerely that at a minimum they WANT to use this information to catalog gun ownership and identify gun owners - and maximally they are actively doing this under the guise of some national security directive - but as a precursor for efforts to confiscate guns if they believe that they have the political will to do so. If there were a mechanism by which I could be assured that the background check was ONLY used to prevent sales to prohibited possessors - and that absolutely zero record of the purchase was to be kept or shared with the government - then I'd be more inclined to support expanded checks - but today I don't.

3) I support putting more energy, effort and public money into early intervention for mental illness and for stripping the right to own guns from those who have been shown to be seriously mentally ill AND prone to violence. The bar here needs to be REALLY high - and I'm not sure how to objectively set such a bar in a way that protects those who don't present an immediate threat - but I do think that putting energy into preventing access to guns by people with serious mental illness is something worth working on. However this happens, it must include due process - it needs to go through the courts and be done in a manner that complies with the constitutional protections of individual liberties. This is one of those areas where even though I do support "something" I hesitate to say that I support it because I fear it's abuse by those who would use it to disarm people in general - you know - the types who would point to the owning of more than a gun or two as an evidence of a mental imbalance.

4) Red Flag Laws - Like #2 above - I'm truly torn. Are there people who are imbalanced, who make genuine threats, and who actually have the propensity to kill the person that they are mad at even though they have not yet committed a crime? Yep? Are there people who will vindictivly falsify threats in order to get their estranged spouse disarmed. Yep. This is one of those areas where I don't have a good answer because unhinged people do evil things. That said - while removing a raging, unhinged person's access to firearms may make them somewhat less immediately dangerous, it does not make them harmless. The best answer to this sort of issue, in my opinion, is for folks to be prepared and skilled in defending themselves. Making it easy to disarm someone without due process is something too easily abused.

At the end of the day - my view on these things boils down to a few principles:
* Evil exists and taking tools away from good people does nothing to prevent evil - rather - it advances the cause of the evil doer by weakening the ability of the victims to protect themselves.
* Liberty is more important than government-provided security.
* Portions of our population are completely willing to ignore the constitutional protections of our God-given liberties in order to either feel safe, or worse yet, advance an agenda that centralizes power in government and removes the ability of the citizen to defend themselves against evil, whether that be a street criminal, or the government. These attempts must be resisted...

Well reasoned arguments, well said sir. I may not agree with all that you've written, but you bring your reasons according to your logic, not your emotions. The other guy is a FUDD, 100%.

Have a great, gun carryin', Kenpo day

Clyde

 

[BigNate]

A few questions for you...

As someone mentioned, why no outrage for handguns being legal at age 21? You gotta pick a year unless you think 13 year olds buying handguns without an adult present is a great idea. Some of you probably do, you just need to realize how disconnected you are from the reality that most children are raised in nowadays.

In the olden days Hemmingway could roam Northern Michigan by himself with a 22 pistol strapped to his hip before he was 10 years old. But guess what, the olden days are gone. The maturity level of young adults is way less than it was even 20-30 years ago. Part of the blame is that we raised the age on everything else, treat young people like infants and you get infants. Other part is the social structure around people has crumbled, that isn't coming back.

Here you imply that because a portion of our society has failed in parenting we should restrict the liberty of those young men and women who were well raised. From the perspective of the constitution I only see one option and that is to raise the age of majority. If we said that a person is not an "adult" until 21 then that would leave the individual under their parent's authority until that point of their life. I'm assuming that you don't want to do this? Otherwise, what you are saying is that because some people are not trained well as children, all people between 18-21 need to have their rights restricted. I can't go there with you. My kids were safer, more skilled, and more respectful towards firearms at 13 than about 50% of the people that I see at Ben Avery on a Saturday morning. Why should they have their rights infringed upon because other knuckleheads fail their children?

Even Florida bans all gun purchases until the age of 21. You can either try to standardize at the Federal level or the states will implement even more restrictive measures. As far as being a Fudd, LOL, far from it. No, I'm just an adult who realizes the world isn't black and white.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." - Amendment X

As I read through the Constitution of the United States, nowhere do I find that any of the three branches of the federal government is expressly granted authority to "standardize at the federal level" our gun laws. In fact - I find this little nugget that seems to actually preclude the state's rights asserted in Amendment X from being asserted to pass "even more restrictive measures:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. - Amendment II

Some things ARE black and white. Even if we don't like it.

Just suggesting that taking the attitude that we can make the words mean whatever we find convenient today - is a recipe for disaster.

 

[kenpoprofessor]

A few questions for you...

As someone mentioned, why no outrage for handguns being legal at age 21? You gotta pick a year unless you think 13 year olds buying handguns without an adult present is a great idea. Some of you probably do, you just need to realize how disconnected you are from the reality that most children are raised in nowadays.

In the olden days Hemmingway could roam Northern Michigan by himself with a 22 pistol strapped to his hip before he was 10 years old. But guess what, the olden days are gone. The maturity level of young adults is way less than it was even 20-30 years ago. Part of the blame is that we raised the age on everything else, treat young people like infants and you get infants. Other part is the social structure around people has crumbled, that isn't coming back.

Here you imply that because a portion of our society has failed in parenting we should restrict the liberty of those young men and women who were well raised. From the perspective of the constitution I only see one option and that is to raise the age of majority. If we said that a person is not an "adult" until 21 then that would leave the individual under their parent's authority until that point of their life. I'm assuming that you don't want to do this? Otherwise, what you are saying is that because some people are not trained well as children, all people between 18-21 need to have their rights restricted. I can't go there with you. My kids were safer, more skilled, and more respectful towards firearms at 13 than about 50% of the people that I see at Ben Avery on a Saturday morning. Why should they have their rights infringed upon because other knuckleheads fail their children?

Even Florida bans all gun purchases until the age of 21. You can either try to standardize at the Federal level or the states will implement even more restrictive measures. As far as being a Fudd, LOL, far from it. No, I'm just an adult who realizes the world isn't black and white.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." - Amendment X

As I read through the Constitution of the United States, nowhere do I find that any of the three branches of the federal government is expressly granted authority to "standardize at the federal level" our gun laws. In fact - I find this little nugget that seems to actually preclude the state's rights asserted in Amendment X from being asserted to pass "even more restrictive measures:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. - Amendment II

Some things ARE black and white. Even if we don't like it.

Just suggesting that taking the attitude that we can make the words mean whatever we find convenient today - is a recipe for disaster.

NOT FUDD talk, thank you. Again, well articulated. You probably won't change his opinion with all that logic and reasoning, it's better to just call a FUDD a FUDD and ignore what they say.

Have a great, gun carryin', Kenpo day

Clyde

 

[tripletap]

what about the 19 yr old single mom that cant afford to move out of a bad hood? what about her rights? this is bullshit- fuds justifying it on every news channel- im glad im old and closer to death- f***ing bullshit

 

[QuietM4]

what about the 19 yr old single mom that cant afford to move out of a bad hood? what about her rights? this is bullshit- fuds justifying it on every news channel- im glad im old and closer to death- f***ing bullshit

Just buy a double barreled shotgun. Duh.

 

[Drmark]

I'll admit, I was totally unaware of the Natalia Marshall court case, but the ruling was very favorable to the 2A community.

https://nypost.com/2021/07/13/appeals-court-rules-handguns-can-be-sold-to-18-year-olds/

Not being a lawyer, so the government passes the bullshit law stating the age limit being raised to 21 for an AR purchase, how long before it is appealed?

Just like all the "knee jerk" gun laws the mayor is running through in NY. She damn well knows they will not be upheld come appeal time.