Calling all legalesians

Anything and Everything dealing with Political issues.
Post Reply
Bugman
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2018 6:58 pm

Calling all legalesians

Post by Bugman » Tue Sep 25, 2018 11:12 pm

Helpme out
I have read this thing backwards and forwards

From what I can tell this new law about being 21 to purchase only applies to retailers

skip to the midddle of page 24
https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2 ... ext/er/PDF

User avatar
flcracker
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2018 3:21 pm
Location: Sarasota

Post by flcracker » Wed Sep 26, 2018 5:08 am

Not trying to be a smart-ass, but just read it forwards and not backwards.
(13) A person younger than 21 years of age may not purchase a firearm.
It seems pretty clear - someone under 21 may not purchase a firearm after October 1, unless they fall under the LEO/.mil exemption for 18 & up.

The only "out" that I see is that it doesn't prohibit the free gifting of a firearm, but if that gift requires a legal transfer through an FFL dealer/licensee, the transfer of the gift is forbidden as well.
....and some rin up hill and down dale, knapping the chucky stanes to pieces wi' hammers, like sae mony road-makers run daft — they say it is to see how the warld was made!
Saint Ronan's Well - Sir Walter Scott, Bart. (1824)

Bugman
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2018 6:58 pm

Post by Bugman » Wed Sep 26, 2018 12:54 pm

The following sentences and all other wording reference retailers specifically.

This is not an issue I have been concerned with until now.

I can't see anything in here that changes the conditions for possession or ownership

User avatar
flcracker
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2018 3:21 pm
Location: Sarasota

Post by flcracker » Wed Sep 26, 2018 3:08 pm

Bugman wrote:
Wed Sep 26, 2018 12:54 pm
The following sentences and all other wording reference retailers specifically.
You are correct. But that doesn't change the plain-English meaning of the statute.
790.065 Sale and delivery of firearms.—
(13) A person younger than 21 years of age may not purchase a firearm. The sale or transfer of a firearm to a person younger than 21 years of age may not be made or facilitated by a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer. A person who violates this subsection commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. The prohibitions of this subsection do not apply to the purchase of a rifle or shotgun by a law enforcement officer or correctional officer, as those terms are defined in s. 943.10(1), (2), (3), (6), (7), (8), or (9), or a servicemember as defined in s. 250.01.
First sentence: No-one under 21 may purchase a firearm.

Second sentence: Not only may a licensee not sell a firearm to someone under 21, a licensee also may not facilitate the sale or transfer of a firearm to someone under 21.

So, like I said - a firearm can still be GIVEN to a person under 21, but not SOLD. If the GIFT were to require a Form 4473 to complete a legal TRANSFER, then a licensee may not facilitate that TRANSFER.

Let's say you were my 18 year old nephew/hunting buddy/love-child, and we both lived in Florida. I could GIVE you a firearm as a GIFT simply by handing it to you (or mailing a long gun to you in-state. However, if I lived in another state and wanted to GIVE you a firearm such as by mailing you a long gun, I would have to wait until you were either 21 or you were 18 and became a LEO/.mil/corrections officer and send it to an FFL licensee for the TRANSFER; if you went in to complete the Form 4473 before your 21st birthday and were not a LEO/.mil/corrections officer, the licensee would be prohibited from facilitating the TRANSFER.
Bugman wrote:
Wed Sep 26, 2018 12:54 pm
I can't see anything in here that changes the conditions for possession or ownership
Correct again. A person under 21 may still possess and/or own a firearm.
....and some rin up hill and down dale, knapping the chucky stanes to pieces wi' hammers, like sae mony road-makers run daft — they say it is to see how the warld was made!
Saint Ronan's Well - Sir Walter Scott, Bart. (1824)

User avatar
Firemedic2000
Posts: 172
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2018 4:01 pm
Location: Tampa Bay

Post by Firemedic2000 » Sat Oct 20, 2018 3:37 pm

Man that is just wrong in so many ways. I feel if your old enough to vote, enlist, work as a first responder even though you may chose not to. Those should not hamper your rights and I say RIGHTS as an AMERICAN. The BILL of RIGHTS was put in place as a way to RECOGNIZE OUR RIGHTS NOT GRANT US OUR RIGHTS. Also especially not to regulate them out of existence.

Oh left out by a bunch of self serving POLITICIANS all for the sake of getting votes to get elected. These POLITICAL LEADERS are basically deciding who the BILL OF RIGHTS applies to.
RANGER AIRBORNE, FIREMEDIC, NRA BENEFACTOR, OATH KEEPER 
In the Government's/Elitist eye's I'm a Terrorist for believing in the Constitution and taking an oath to defend it instead of destroying it

Post Reply