Supreme Court leaves in place Pennsylvania law barring people under 21 from carrying guns | CNN Politics
www.cnn.com
The Supreme Court on Tuesday overturned a lower court ruling from Pennsylvania that allowed residents under 21 to carry firearms in public, though the justices declined for now to hear arguments in the case themselves.
  • @[email protected]OP
    54•1 month ago

    This ruling would have been helpful to have stopped Kyle Rittenhouse from killing two people and wounding another back in 2020 in Wisconsin when he crossed state lines with an assault rifle as age 17.

    • themeatbridge
      23•1 month ago

      Not really. Kyle travelled from Illinois to Wisconsin with his rifle in order to kill two people. He did not travel through Pennsylvania, so this law wouldn’t have applied to him.

          • @stonerboner
            7•1 month ago

            The key context is that this type of law in Wisconsin would have made it illegal for Kyle to not only purchase a firearm, but illegal to own/brandish/carry one.

            Would it have stopped someone from illegally buying Kyle one or Kyle using it? No. But then he wouldn’t have gotten away with murder.

            • @[email protected]
              3•1 month ago

              Ok? You could play that game for any law with any crime.

              If Wisconsin had a law making it illegal to cross state lines then he would have been stopped too.

              You’re just saying “what if”. This has nothing to do with the Pennsylvania law.

              • @stonerboner
                5•1 month ago

                Yes, you could play that game for many laws. One like this, specifically, could have helped Kyle face justice. That’s the point.

        • @[email protected]
          2•1 month ago

          No…no it won’t. The fuck is with you people thinking criminals will magically follow the laws…you know the large inner cities have a problem with giggle switches on glocks being carried by literal kids right? Chicago tried to sue glock because of it.

          Criminals don’t magically stop doing something because you made it illegal.

          You fix the problem at the source, and focus on the why it’s happening, not with what was used.

  • @[email protected]
    13•1 month ago

    I’m not anti gun by any means, and I also do think that most people under 21 are not responsible enough to be carrying firearms around most of the time in their daily life.

    That said, I also don’t like how we sort of have different levels of adulthood.

    At 18 you’re old enough to vote, get drafted, serve on a jury, be legally responsible for your actions and are considered an adult with all of the responsibilities and privileges that comes with that

    Unless you want to buy alcohol, tobacco, carry a firearm, run for certain offices, etc. then you’re not adult enough.

    And put mildly, that rubs me the wrong way.

    I don’t necessarily disagree with the ages we set those restrictions at, overall I think they’re fairly reasonable.

    But I do think that it means that if they’re not getting all of the rights and privileges as an older adult, they shouldn’t be saddled with the same responsibilities.

    I think younger adults need to be compensated in some way for the rights and privileges they don’t get to enjoy. Lower taxes at least, maybe exemption from selective service (though I’d really like to abolish it entirely) until they’re old enough to carry a firearm any other time, if they’re not old enough to run for a particular office maybe their votes should count extra for those positions to ensure their voices are being heard, etc.

  • @[email protected]
    3•1 month ago

    At issue was a state law that barred 18-to-20 years olds from open carrying firearms during declared states of emergencies.

    So 99% of the time nothing’s different. 😐

    • @[email protected]
      1•1 month ago

      So do you suppose the SC is basically saying “quit bringing us these piss-ant rulings, bring us the real shit” by basically ignoring this one? Takes no work to just ignore it, but requires a lot of work to write up a contentious 6-3 ruling? I can’t understand it otherwise.