Name names.

PM your list to spmack.

Rick, the law already incentivizes being cautious about to whom you loan or gift weapons, in a variety of ways, without restricting my domain over property I ostensibly own. If I know or should know that dude is going to commit another armed robbery and I arm him, I have aided and abetted his crime (or entered into a conspiracy to commit a violent crime), making me criminally liable for his actions. If I know or should know that he is liable to be violent with the gun in general, and he goes off and kills someone, I can be found civilly liable for the destruction he causes (probably). On top of ALLLL of that, there is that big old law that makes his possession of a gun illegal, no matter how it is procured, and none of it requires a redefinition of "personal property".

Your domain over your property is restricted in many ways already. Now, to avoid you saying "slippery slope" this is simply to refute your idea that you have some sort of global right to do what you want with what you own. This has not been the case for hundreds of years here. If it were, then property taxes, estate taxes, local ordinances on what you can and can't do on your property, and even many illegal actions would be null and void. This seems to be a fairly common theme among many of your arguments. You attempt to start it from a rationale that just doesn't exist. I'll give you a good example. If I buy a 6 pack of beer I am not allowed to give or sell it to a 14 year old. Technically, I would need to check their government issued identification(background check). Does that redefine that the beer is not actually my "personal property"? Of course not. It's just part of the procedure of living in a land that restricts the transfer of certain goods and services without going through the proper channels that a business would have to.

Your domain over your property is restricted in many ways already. Now, to avoid you saying "slippery slope" this is simply to refute your idea that you have some sort of global right to do what you want with what you own. This has not been the case for hundreds of years here. If it were, then property taxes, estate taxes, local ordinances on what you can and can't do on your property, and even many illegal actions would be null and void. This seems to be a fairly common theme among many of your arguments. You attempt to start it from a rationale that just doesn't exist. I'll give you a good example. If I buy a 6 pack of beer I am not allowed to give or sell it to a 14 year old. Technically, I would need to check their government issued identification(background check). Does that redefine that the beer is not actually my "personal property"? Of course not. It's just part of the procedure of living in a land that restricts the transfer of certain goods and services without going through the proper channels that a business would have to.

(235 ILCS 5/6-20) (from Ch. 43, par. 134a)
Sec. 6-20. Transfer, possession, and consumption of alcoholic liquor; restrictions.
(a) Any person to whom the sale, gift or delivery of any alcoholic liquor is prohibited because of age shall not purchase, or accept a gift of such alcoholic liquor or have such alcoholic liquor in his possession.
(b) If a licensee or his or her agents or employees believes or has reason to believe that a sale or delivery of any alcoholic liquor is prohibited because of the non-age of the prospective recipient, he or she shall, before making such sale or delivery demand presentation of some form of positive identification, containing proof of age, issued by a public officer in the performance of his or her official duties.
(c) No person shall transfer, alter, or deface such an identification card; use the identification card of another; carry or use a false or forged identification card; or obtain an identification card by means of false information.
(d) No person shall purchase, accept delivery or have possession of alcoholic liquor in violation of this Section.
(e) The consumption of alcoholic liquor by any person under 21 years of age is forbidden.
(f) Whoever violates any provisions of this Section shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(g) The possession and dispensing, or consumption by a person under 21 years of age of alcoholic liquor in the performance of a religious service or ceremony, or the consumption by a person under 21 years of age under the direct supervision and approval of the parents or parent or those persons standing in loco parentis of such person under 21 years of age in the privacy of a home, is not prohibited by this Act.
(h) The provisions of this Act prohibiting the possession of alcoholic liquor by a person under 21 years of age and dispensing of alcoholic liquor to a person under 21 years of age do not apply in the case of a student under 21 years of age, but 18 years of age or older, who:
(1) tastes, but does not imbibe, alcoholic liquor

only during times of a regularly scheduled course while under the direct supervision of an instructor who is at least 21 years of age and employed by an educational institution described in subdivision (2);
(2) is enrolled as a student in a college,

university, or post-secondary educational institution that is accredited or certified by an agency recognized by the United States Department of Education or a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association, or that has a permit of approval issued by the Board of Higher Education pursuant to the Private Business and Vocational Schools Act of 2012;
(3) is participating in a culinary arts, fermentation

science, food service, or restaurant management degree program of which a portion of the program includes instruction on responsible alcoholic beverage serving methods modeled after the Beverage Alcohol Sellers and Server Education and Training (BASSET) curriculum; and
(4) tastes, but does not imbibe, alcoholic liquor for

instructional purposes up to, but not exceeding, 6 times per class as a part of a required course in which the student temporarily possesses alcoholic liquor for tasting, not imbibing, purposes only in a class setting on the campus and, thereafter, the alcoholic liquor is possessed and remains under the control of the instructor.
(i) A law enforcement officer may not charge or otherwise take a person into custody based solely on the commission of an offense that involves alcohol and violates subsection (d) or (e) of this Section if the law enforcement officer, after making a reasonable determination and considering the facts and surrounding circumstances, reasonably believes that all of the following apply:
(1) The law enforcement officer has contact with the

person because that person either:
(A) requested emergency medical assistance for an

individual who reasonably appeared to be in need of medical assistance due to alcohol consumption; or
(B) acted in concert with another person who

requested emergency medical assistance for an individual who reasonably appeared to be in need of medical assistance due to alcohol consumption; however, the provisions of this subparagraph (B) shall not apply to more than 3 persons acting in concert for any one occurrence.
(2) The person described in subparagraph (A) or (B)

of paragraph (1) of this subsection (i):
(A) provided his or her full name and any other

relevant information requested by the law enforcement officer;
(B) remained at the scene with the individual who

reasonably appeared to be in need of medical assistance due to alcohol consumption until emergency medical assistance personnel arrived; and
(C) cooperated with emergency medical assistance

personnel and law enforcement officers at the scene.
(j) A person who meets the criteria of paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (i) of this Section shall be immune from criminal liability for an offense under subsection (d) or (e) of this Section.
(k) A person may not initiate an action against a law enforcement officer based on the officer's compliance or failure to comply with subsection (i) of this Section, except for willful or wanton misconduct.
(Source: P.A. 99-447, eff. 6-1-16; 99-795, eff. 8-12-16.)

Wait a minute. Are you saying that a person who is 21 or over years old can legally give or sell alcohol to a minor as long as they are not a licenced store owner or his/her agents? I find that very hard to believe.

.

The menstrual cycle changes among Hassidic Jewish women was something as well.

No because if you sell liquor without a liquor license (nevermind to a minor or not) you are in deep shit. Bear in mind I have never taken issue in this thread with mandated background checks for guns at the point of sale. In fact I would very much be in favor of increasing funding for the FBI's NCIC to be more comprehensive in its search capabilities, instead of relying on properly filled out paperwork from other agencies across thousands of miles.

Can a person who is 21+ give alcohol to a 14 year old legally?

So we're at the point where you are intentionally over-simplifying things to play a game of "Gotcha!". You can play with yourself this time around.

Wait, who's premise doesn't exist?

This seems to place the burden on the minor. And before you go nuts, subsection (b) is referring to the sale of liquor by a licensed store owner or his/her agents.

Now Rick, you'd be smart to argue in return that "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" places a de facto restriction on my ability to give a beer to an adolescent. My reply would be that the act of handing a beer to a minor is not unlawful, but encouraging them to drink and imbibe it, knowing they are a minor, is the unlawful act, not handing a piece of my property to another.

If I'm not allowed to transfer alcohol to a person who is not allowed to have it because they have not provided the necessary government documents to prove they can have it then why can't I also not transfer a gun to a person who has not provided the necessary documents to prove they can have it?

You can gift or transfer alcohol, it is on the recipient if they are not of legal age to possess the gift, to refuse it, then if you persist, you are knowingly contributing to the delinquency of a minor. If you make a gift of a beer and they accept, the onus is on them. The only unlawful act on your part would be the delinquency thing, but that is only criminal insofar as you inciting a minor to commit a misdemeanor or felony, it is not tied to the act itself.

Can a person who is 21+ give alcohol to a 14 year old legally?

Providing alcohol to an individual under the age of 21: Maximum $2,500 fine and up to a year in jail for a misdemeanor offense. Felony offense can result in a prison sentence of a year or more and fines up to $25,000.

You can gift or transfer alcohol, it is on the recipient if they are not of legal age to possess the gift, to refuse it, then if you persist, you are knowingly contributing to the delinquency of a minor. If you make a gift of a beer and they accept, the onus is on them. The only unlawful act on your part would be the delinquency thing, but that is only criminal insofar as you inciting a minor to commit a misdemeanor or felony, it is not tied to the act itself.

A person over the age of 21 cannot lawfully contribute to the delinquency of a minor.

While true, it is also a specific crime to provide them alcohol.

I think "Gun violence is okay because of George Washington" is the worst over-simplification of them all.

Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.

Is this a joke?

Caleb Williams isn't really a "true" rookie because he turned 23 late into his 1st season in the NFL!"

Oh really? Which statute is that? I'd like to be able to read it. Because that means you can't hand a beer to a minor to run over to an of-age party guest without breaking the law, and that doesn't sound right.

My suspicion is, Rick, that the "specific crime" that you reference from a page that is not a criminal statute, is actually just reciting the maximum penalty for a Class A misdemeanor in Illinois (up to 1 year and a $2500 fine): http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/do ... 4.5-55.htm

And do you remember what the offense is for contributing to the delinquency of a minor in Illinois? A Class A misdemeanor. We've covered already (well, I have, I don't know if you followed along) how the delinquency charge is not a de facto restriction on a piece of property (beer or liquor, in this case), it is a restriction on inciting a minor to break the law.

Defendant moved to dismiss the information, arguing that the statutory subpart under which she was charged was not intended to apply to minors.   That provision, section 6-16(a)(iii) of the Liquor Control Act of 1934 (the Act) (235 ILCS 5/6-16(a)(iii) (West 2006)), reads as follows:

“No person, after purchasing or otherwise obtaining alcoholic liquor, shall sell, give, or deliver such alcoholic liquor to another person under the age of 21 years, except in the performance of a religious ceremony or service.”   235 ILCS 5/6-16(a)(iii) (West 2006).

The offense is a Class A misdemeanor, but it may be charged as a Class 4 felony if a death occurs as a result of the violation.1  235 ILCS 5/6-16(a) (West 2006).

I posted a link directly to the illinois government website stating it was illegal and virtually every lawyer website about the subject covering Illinois mentions it as being illegal regardless of the circumstances.

Yes, I'm guessing that giving an open container to a minor at a party would be technically against the law. Though, the argument may be that if it was fully supervised that they would just be a carrier.

So yes, there is a law for that.

Yes, you're right, a law meant to keep certain things out of the hands of minors, a type of person treated differently from adults almost everywhere else in law. You want to say someone can't give a gun to a minor, that seems prudent. Requiring background checks to give my gun to another adult is still ludicrously unconstitutional.

Thank you.

Now, since we have a law designed to keep my personal property(beer) from being transferred to someone who is not legally allowed to have it, then why can't we have a law that is designed to keep my personal property(gun) from being transferred to someone who is not legally allowed to have it? Please don't answer with "THE CONSTITUTION!".

Because as I've stated before, we already have a litany of laws that dissuade such things, on top of the law that makes it illegal for the recipient to possess it.

It's really hard to believe that we believe in restricting the ability for felons to get guns when there are arguments like this that basically make any background checks meaningless.

Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.