all anti-gun crap aside, it is an interesting question, from a layman’s legal sense at least. Minors can’t purchase alcohol, for example, and it’s also illegal for adults to purchase and give booze to minors. An imperfect analogy, but that’s why I think it’s interesting.
It'll be the end of buying pitchers of beer.
In Texas, It’s legal for a parent to purchase alcohol for their minor child in a restaurant, for example.
I think the analogy is too imperfect. A minor cannot have alcohol, regardless of the method of obtaining it. This case deals with US citizens who have a right to own a gun, and can buy it themselves.
In essence, this is about government interference in private transfers of goods that both parties are legally allowed to own. The trick is that the right to own a gun is getting detached from the right to get a gun without some government agent making a note in your permanent database records. Subjects of California do not have this right, with exception of spouses.
Not a good analogy at all. In this case, both the buyer and his friend are allowed to own guns.
That is imperfect because here BOTH parties were legally able to own a firearm.
They should loose this one, but given the composition of the Court and the fact that Roberts is Obama’s lapdog, means its open to dispute.
Should you be able to buy a bottle of wine or beer and give it to another family member of friend who is over 21? Are you required to ask for ID first? Can you only do this between the hours of 8am-2am m-sat and 12noon-12mid on Sunday?
Depends on the state. Some states(non-’nanny states’) allow minors to drink at home under parental supvervision.
Most rights have exceptions not applied for minors.
That analogy is not only imperfect, but completely inapplicable to the question. In the case you used, one is allowed to purchase and the other isn’t. In the case at hand, both the purchaser and the recipient are legally entitled to own the firearm.