You have to drive up to Vancouver, Washington to get to the nearest Fred Meyers, literally across the river from Portland, Oregon. Fred Meyers and Benjamin Franklins probably sold me every Joe and Transformer I owned as a child.
Security is private so I imagine if they need to provide their own gun, no they would not be able to. If its provided for them? I dunno. I'd assume maybe a waiver or something or you can't be an armed guard before you're 21? Either way that's fine. Don't need some power tripping 18 year old with a gun and a fake badge!
Police? I dunno. I assume you could get through the academy and on the street by 20 or something.. again, probably a waiver or special police rules.. like how they can buy certain guns we can't buy/etc.
Military would be a whole other thing. You get to do a lot of things in the military you're not allowed to do in normal life (ACTUAL ASSAULT WEAPONS!). By the time they get out (assuming not kicked out) they'd be 21 or near enough so they could buy their own weapons then if they wanted to.
Honestly I don't see an issue bumping it back to 21. I don't see someone 'taking up hunting' at the ripe age of 18. Either you've been hunting for a while using someone elses gun, or you can wait a little longer.
My real issue is what to do you do with/about parents who allow their shit kids access to their firearms? Throwing them in jail after the fact isn't really doing anything to solve the issue. Half the time the kids shoot their parents first anyways.
I guess if you make the punishments harsh enough for parents who give their kiddies unfettered access to their firearms, or are just careless, maybe they'll be more likely to be responsible? Isn't that we have laws and punishment to begin with? For prevention? Sure, it doesn't work some of the time, but that's the best you can do.
I mean, we can't prevent everything. Hoping for that unicorn world where a hot naked girl can walk around any city at night and not expect to get raped and we don't even need laws because every living soul is peaceful is more insane than the converse. Bad stuff is going to happen. Deal with it hippies.
You know what pro-2A peoples biggest downfall is and what might just lead to a total disarming? We aren't coordinated. When something like this happens we need to have a million man armed march to show that we mean business. What we do when we do nothing is tell them that if they chip away at us slowly, we won't try and stop them. Death by a thousand tiny cuts.
The wording is a bit confusing. Are they saying you can keep them without fine if they are broken down and or stored unloaded in a case?
it is unlawful for a person "to carry, keep, bear, transport or possess an assault weapon in the Village," except if the weapon is "broken down in a non-functioning state," is "not immediately accessible to any person," or is "unloaded and enclosed in a case, firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container by a person who has been issued a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card."
This makes it seem like they know they can't enforce it except at traffic stops or domestic disputes in the home, but the law makes it seem like they are doing something in the eyes of the anti-gun crowd who can't be bothered to read beyond the headlines. More votes.
Is having a magazine loaded considered "loaded gun"? What is considered a "case"? It's so watered down as to be irrelevant, but sounds big and scary to grab headlines and make non-gun people feel safe. This kinda sounds like what you deal with in Cali with having to keep it in the trunk of your car while transporting to and from the range.
Yeah, CA rules are stupid and mostly just time wasters more than anything else.. and again, someone who is going to use the gun to kill isn't following the rules in the first place.. so what's the point?