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.
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.
Pretty sure Kyle traveled without a firearm and had someone of-age purchase him one across state lines.
Here is an article about the guy who purchased him the gun, since Kyle couldn’t legally, taking a plea deal. https://abcnews.go.com/US/friend-bought-rifle-kyle-rittenhouse-plea-deal/story?id=82178053
All of that happened in Wisconsin. What does it have to do with Pennsylvania?
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.
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.
If other states adopt the law now that SCOTUS has blessed it, of course it will be useful.
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.
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.
I always thought this seemed sensible, but in practice the analysis is case by case. Can’t really do gun law that way.
Headline: Supreme Court
Me: oh here we go again
Headline: leaves in place PA…
Me: NICE
Good. Glad to see some progress.
CNN - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for CNN:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/15/politics/supreme-court-pennsylvania-under-21-guns/index.html
