Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Yeah thats what I meant.
Its silly if you think about it. Why that one restriction?

gunderwood wrote:

ShortMan wrote:If you really think about it, kinda stupid that an 18 year old can own and carry a pistol, but cant buy it.
Understandable that many people (even cops) would get confused on the issue.

They can buy it, they just can't buy it from a FFL.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

There are two sides to this, and I will play the devil’s advocate.
If you think about it, it may make some sense. It makes someone at least 21 years old a gatekeeper for whether an 18-year-old gets his hands on a gun. Some 18 year olds are worthy to poses a handgun, some aren't. (And yes, the same is true of 40-year-olds, but one hopes to a much lesser extent) The object of that legislation may have been to put the parent or guardian in a position to make that judgment and act accordingly. That may not be all bad. While it's true they can buy from someone who does not hold an FFL, that someone becomes the gatekeeper. Note that a parent is a gatekeeper in the traditional sense of keeping the minor out of situations the parent deems he cannot handle. But when you as an unrelated private party sell a handgun to an 18-year-old, you have not only usurped the parent's role as gatekeeper; you may well have subjected yourself to liability if your judgment that the 18-year-old was worthy to possess a handgun was wrong. Maybe somebody's lawyer will convince a jury you recklessly disregarded an obvious danger. Again, this law does operate to protect the minor and society. I know that involves notions of restricting access to arms, but it is at least arguable that there are some legitimate state interests to protect here.

ShortMan wrote:Yeah thats what I meant.
Its silly if you think about it. Why that one restriction?

It's the best compromise the antis could get.

dorminWS wrote:There are two sides to this, and I will play the devil’s advocate.
If you think about it, it may make some sense. It makes someone at least 21 years old a gatekeeper for whether an 18-year-old gets his hands on a gun. Some 18 year olds are worthy to poses a handgun, some aren't. (And yes, the same is true of 40-year-olds, but one hopes to a much lesser extent) The object of that legislation may have been to put the parent or guardian in a position to make that judgment and act accordingly. That may not be all bad. While it's true they can buy from someone who does not hold an FFL, that someone becomes the gatekeeper. Note that a parent is a gatekeeper in the traditional sense of keeping the minor out of situations the parent deems he cannot handle. But when you as an unrelated private party sell a handgun to an 18-year-old, you have not only usurped the parent's role as gatekeeper; you may well have subjected yourself to liability if your judgment that the 18-year-old was worthy to possess a handgun was wrong. Maybe somebody's lawyer will convince a jury you recklessly disregarded an obvious danger. Again, this law does operate to protect the minor and society. I know that involves notions of restricting access to arms, but it is at least arguable that there are some legitimate state interests to protect here.

What about the 18 year old's that go through basic training in our armed forces? An 18 year old can vote, join the military, go to prison, is considered (for the most part) to be an adult. Yet these same individuals cannot purchase a handgun from the local gun shop, or have a cold one at the local watering hole!

IMHO, it all comes down to personal accountability. I'm sorry, but that is not something that you can legislate. You can, however, enforce it! That is where we, as a society, have failed.

Yarddawg wrote:IMHO, it all comes down to personal accountability. I'm sorry, but that is not something that you can legislate. You can, however, enforce it! That is where we, as a society, have failed.

+1

gunderwood wrote:

Yarddawg wrote:IMHO, it all comes down to personal accountability. I'm sorry, but that is not something that you can legislate. You can, however, enforce it! That is where we, as a society, have failed.

+1

+2

+12

I wouldn't expect every law enforcement officer to know every single law on the books. I wouldn't expect them to call a friend that knows either. Especially in front of the person on the receiving end of the conversation. The officer would lose all his credibility, and that could reflect on the entire department, depending on the situation. Law enforcement officers have a tough job, and they're just as human as the rest of us. Sometimes they get something wrong. That is exactly the wrong time to make an issue of it by arguing with the officer. Your best bet is to be well informed of the laws concerning your activities. Answer questions honestly and respectfully and you'll probably find that the encounter goes smoothly. Maybe the officer will feel compelled to look up whatever it was that caused the encounter, and learn something new. That's always a good thing.

That's been my experience. However, I read about encounters every day where rights were stomped on, people were wrongly arrested, and rainbows got tangled up. If you find yourself in a situation where you're sliding downhill, you need to keep quiet and not say a word. You don't need to be rude about it, just say that you want to assist in the investigation, but you want a legal expert to represent your side of the situation. After that, don't say a word. You will never win an argument with a law enforcement officer on the spot. If you're right, you'll win the argument in court. Call the supervisor? That's up to you. Personally, I wouldn't expect much to get accomplished by calling a supervisor. I'm no law enforcement officer, but I suspect there's a "Us vs. Them" mentality, and anything we say will be taken with a grain of salt. Can you blame them? Think about all the complaints they get every day from people that got all butt hurt over getting caught doing something wrong, and want to vent. If you have a legitimate complaint, I guess notifing the supervisor would be the first logical step. Make sure you state your position with facts and try to leave the emotions out of it. You can also make a complaint to their internal affairs, if the situation warrants it.

Bottom line is to understand that not every law enforcement officer is going to have every single law memorized. They're doing the best they can to protect the public at large. If you attract their attention, be respectfull and know when to keep your mouth shut. You'll have less to argue about in court.

To the OP, glad everything worked out for your son. Sounds like he handled the situation right.

@Rod - if you were talking about something a little more obscure than guns I would agree with you but VA LEOs have no excuse for not being familiar with VA gun laws since they are such a prevalent part of our society here...common in many parts...and, cops can potentially create a dangerous situation when none existed by harassing someone illegally over a gun issue...not good and no excuse for them not knowing the law...please correct me if I'm wrong but I dont think LE can haul you in because they didnt know you were breaking the law...sounds dumb right...about as dumb as hauling you in for a law you didnt break cause they didnt know their job...and course they have a hard job...tough...if its too hot then get out of the kitchen...

I can't disagree with your point zephyp. Law enforcement officers are held to a high standard and are supposed to be the professionals when it comes to knowing and enforcing laws. That being said, let me throw out some questions that might shed some light on why every law enforcement officer doesn't know every law concerning firearms....

How many firearm laws are on the books and how long does each officer spend studying each law to its full extent? I don't know, but I seriously doubt it's as much time as we gun enthusiasts do. Most everyone knows that it's legal to carry a firearm openly in most places, or that AR15 rifles are perfectly legal to own. But, do they know a slamfire stock being used does not make a semi auto rifle into a full auto rifle, even though the rate of fire is about the same? I'm willing to bet there are lots of law enforcement officers whose experience and knowledge of firearms extends no further than what they need to know to qualify with their service weapon.

Do all law enforcement officers support 2A rights? It shouldn't matter. An officer is sworn to uphold all the laws, no matter what he personally thinks. Would it surprise you that there might be one or two officers out there that would love to make your life miserable because he/she thinks only cops should be allowed to own guns?

When a new law takes effect, how is that information passed out to those who are to enforce that new law? Are there lawyers that explain to all officers the fine points of the new law or is a brief summary just casually mentioned in a daily briefing, or maybe a short memo saying that as of today, people can do this or not do that. I really don't know how each jurisdiction does it.

Again, I completely agree that all law enforcement officers should know the laws they are to enforce. Like you said, situations can turn dangerous when officers step outside the boundries of their authority. All I'm saying is that we as gun owners, need to look at the big picture and understand the opposing point of view, if we are ever to make a difference in improving relationships between law abiding gun owners and law enforcement. We can turn on the local news or read in the paper any day of the week about situations involving guns and how the owners of the guns are portrayed as evil renegades that hate butterflies; and how the police show up in their tacticool capes and disarm the bad guys that exercise their rights. I guess we need to ask ourselves if there is a common denominator in all these situations and if so, to what extent (if any) do we attempt to resolve the problem. Is it something that can be handled on a case by case basis or, do we need to address a common issue on a larger scale. To be honest, I'm not sure. Sounds like a topic for a new thread.

@Rod - what an LEO knows or doesnt know is not germane...and I agree with you...they cant know every law, However...they have no business harassing or hauling someone in if they dont know...if they think you are breaking the law they kinda need to check before acting in an official capacity...I dont like the idea of an LEO being able to ruin my day or several of them only to learn later that I wasnt doing anything wrong and its then up to me to seek recourse...if they dont know then they need to keep to themselves...

zephyp wrote:@Rod - what an LEO knows or doesnt know is not germane...and I agree with you...they cant know every law, However...they have no business harassing or hauling someone in if they dont know...if they think you are breaking the law they kinda need to check before acting in an official capacity...I dont like the idea of an LEO being able to ruin my day or several of them only to learn later that I wasnt doing anything wrong and its then up to me to seek recourse...if they dont know then they need to keep to themselves...

Amen. I absolutly 100% agree.

zephyp wrote:...if they dont know then they need to keep to themselves...

Its good to have a health fantasy life. That's the only place that's going to happen.

jdonovan wrote:

zephyp wrote:...if they dont know then they need to keep to themselves...

Its good to have a health fantasy life. That's the only place that's going to happen.

Yeah, I know...there is the way things are and the way they should be...

@Rod...apologies, perhaps we were just speaking past each other...

@ zephyp, no apologies necessary. I think we were saying the same thing, just from two different angles. I appreciate your perspective and feel a little smarter because of it.

rod wrote:@ zephyp, no apologies necessary. I think we were saying the same thing, just from two different angles. I appreciate your perspective and feel a little smarter because of it.

whoa...if you feel smarter after hearing my perspective then either I hit a couple of very cogent moments or you've led an extremely sheltered life...

Actually, an apology is appropriate as I leaped afore looking...but, pay no mind to me. I'm getting old and set in my ways and opinions...plus I sometimes feel like I spent 20 years working in a glue factory long before OSHA showed up...

This law sounds kinda STUPID, If bought from a FFL then there would be a Background check on the person buying the gun, buying from anybody else there would be No background check.??????
Simple!
The people that write our laws!