21 To Buy A Handgun


PDA






limbaughfan
August 11, 2006, 07:32 PM
I think it is fedral law,anyway heres my question.Do yall think people should be able to buy handguns at 18,just like they can buy a shotgun or rifle.Do yall there is anyway the law can be chaged to 18.I think at 18 people should be able to buy a handgun.

If you enjoyed reading about "21 To Buy A Handgun" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Car Knocker
August 11, 2006, 07:35 PM
An FFL cannot sell a hanfgun to anyone under the age of 21. HOWEVER, if your state allows, a person under the age of 21 may buy a handgun in a private party sale.

limbaughfan
August 11, 2006, 07:36 PM
In Georgia can you privatly buy a handgun at 18

Evil Monkey
August 11, 2006, 07:40 PM
Michigan also allows 18+ to buy handguns from private individuals.

A gunshop owner once told me that my dad can buy a handgun then sell it to me because I'm 19 and then I'll register the gun to my name. Sounds cool.:evil:

30-06 lover
August 11, 2006, 07:40 PM
In Cali where I am, you can own a handgun at 18 so long as the gun is a gift from a family members. No private party, just family transfers if I understand correctly.

Do I think that if you are 18 and pass the background you should be able to get a handgun? Absolutely. If it was up to me the legal gun purchase age for all guns would be 16. At 16 I had to buy an adult hunting license and tags, but I couldn't even buy a gun to hunt with!?!?!?:banghead:
-Mike

1911JMB
August 11, 2006, 07:44 PM
Evil monkey, please be aware that what you're refering to is a straw purchase. Unless its a gift for you, nobody can buy a handgun from a dealer for you. If your dad wrote on a form 4473 that he was buying a handgun for himself and had every intention of selling it to you, he would be commiting a felony. I too am a michigan resident, and the only way I got my 2 handguns was littering gun forums classified sections with want adds.

Glock_10mm
August 11, 2006, 08:01 PM
You can also receive it through a will.

rangerruck
August 11, 2006, 08:32 PM
...or have it gifted to you.

Standing Wolf
August 11, 2006, 08:32 PM
If you're old enough to sign on the dotted line to risk your life in defense of your country, you should be old enough to exercise all your civil rights.

Evil Monkey
August 11, 2006, 08:40 PM
Evil monkey, please be aware that what you're refering to is a straw purchase. Unless its a gift for you, nobody can buy a handgun from a dealer for you. If your dad wrote on a form 4473 that he was buying a handgun for himself and had every intention of selling it to you, he would be commiting a felony. I too am a michigan resident, and the only way I got my 2 handguns was littering gun forums classified sections with want adds.

I don't think it's a straw purchase if dad was to register it on his name and then sell it to me and then I'd register it on my name becuase I would be the legitimate owner of the gun. Correct? Or am I missing something.

LkWinnipesaukee
August 11, 2006, 09:02 PM
^^

Its kind of like 'under 21's' roaming the streets looking for someone to buy booze for them.

gulogulo1970
August 11, 2006, 09:10 PM
I can buy a gun myself with the intent of giving it as a gift. Now I can't by one with your money or be paid later by you, but a family member can give gifts without breaking the law.

1911JMB
August 11, 2006, 11:27 PM
<I don't think it's a straw purchase if dad was to register it on his name and then sell it to me and then I'd register it on my name becuase I would be the legitimate owner of the gun. Correct? Or am I missing something.>

Yes you are missing something. Michigan law does not cancel out federal law.

Lupinus
August 11, 2006, 11:35 PM
unless state law prohibits you may get a handgun through a private party transfer. Basically the only people who cant sell you a firearm under federal law are those licensed such as FFL's and I believe C&R holders.

Evil Monkey
August 12, 2006, 12:27 AM
I'm 99% sure I was correct.:uhoh:

Person "A" buys a handgun and registers it on thier name. "A" owns this handgun. Now he doesn't want it, so he sells it to person "B". Now "B" registers the handgun on his name.

What's so illegal about that? It's a private transfer and in the state of MI, it's getting registered as well. So what's illegal?:confused:

Wes Janson
August 12, 2006, 12:57 AM
Proving intent would be the key of it. Prudence says that if you're going to do it, you damn well don't go around telling people you intend to break federal law, especially when the primary way you'd get convicted is because you publicly stated your intentions.

Matt King
August 12, 2006, 01:01 AM
If you can vote, drive, serve your country, and own a rifle or shotgun, I don't see why you shouldn't be able to own a handgun.

possum
August 12, 2006, 01:02 AM
Now i don't want to get hammered here by the other members of the forums i am by no means trying to piss anyone off. i enjoy my rights and am willing to die for the USA on a daily basis to ensure that those rights and freedoms are up held, but I personally think that the 21 age is ok for ownership of a handgun, i think that there is plenty rifles out there and shotguns to keep someone busy until they turn 21.

solareclipse
August 12, 2006, 01:16 AM
but a straw purchase has to be proven and when it comes to family, it pretty much never becomes an issue...

Evil Monkey
August 12, 2006, 01:39 AM
Proving intent would be the key of it. Prudence says that if you're going to do it, you damn well don't go around telling people you intend to break federal law, especially when the primary way you'd get convicted is because you publicly stated your intentions.

Let me make this clear:

I DO NOT INTEND TO INITIATE AND/OR PARTICIPATE IN A STRAW PURCHASE, AND/OR BREAK ANY FEDERAL AND/OR STATE FIREARM LAWS!

MatthewVanitas
August 12, 2006, 04:37 AM
but I personally think that the 21 age is ok for ownership of a handgun, i think that there is plenty rifles out there and shotguns to keep someone busy until they turn 21.

So you trust an 18 year old to vote, buy an AK47 or Mossberg 12ga, or drive a tank, but you don't trust him with a .38 revolver?

-MV

Byron Quick
August 12, 2006, 10:54 AM
I'm just old enough to have bought a few firearms before 1968. I turned fourteen in 1968.

Probably a good thing the GCA of 1968 was passed. I would have probably died of heat stroke cutting lawns to raise more money otherwise.

Technosavant
August 12, 2006, 11:20 AM
Let me make this clear:

I DO NOT INTEND TO INITIATE AND/OR PARTICIPATE IN A STRAW PURCHASE, AND/OR BREAK ANY FEDERAL AND/OR STATE FIREARM LAWS!

If you claim that you want to have another purchase a handgun for you when you are unable to purchase a firearm under federal law, then yes, you are asking about a straw purchase, no matter what you post in large type and in standout colors. Call it what you like, but what matters is the ATF's definition of straw purchase.

Now, for example, if your father would buy a handgun, and after taking it to the range a couple times, decides he does not enjoy that handgun, from what has been said about your state law, it would not be illegal for him to sell that handgun to you as a private-party purchase. He would simply be fortunate that he would be able to recoup what he paid for the gun and that his loving and devoted son just happened to enjoy shooting that particular handgun, and wishes to keep it because of the sentimental value attached to it (it WAS your father's gun, after all). All fathers should be so fortunate. :evil:

For him to buy the gun and then immediately sell it to you or for you to hand him the money to buy the gun before the fact is going to look an AWFULLY lot like a straw purchase to the ATF. This will only become an issue if you do something with that handgun that would make the .gov take a good hard look at how it came to be in your possession.

Jamie C.
August 12, 2006, 12:51 PM
I'm probably gonna pi$$ everybody off by saying this, but I do not believe that anybody under the age of 21 should be allowed access to any firearm unsupervised.

The reason for this is both my own experience in law enforcement, dealing with kids who've broken the law, and the fact that biologically, an 18 year old doesn't have the ability yet to always make a rational decision.

Take a look at this:

"Dr. Deborah Yurgelun-Todd of Harvard Medical School has studied the relation between these new findings and teen behavior and concluded that adolescents often rely on emotional parts of the brain, rather than the frontal lobe. She explains,
the things that teenagers seem to do is to respond more strongly with gut response than they do with evaluating the consequences of what they’re doing.”
Also, appearances may be deceiving: “Just because they’re physically mature, they may not appreciate the consequences or weigh information the same way as adults do. So we may be mistaken if we think that [although] somebody looks physically mature, their brain may in fact not be mature.”

“The evidence now is strong that the brain does not cease to mature until the early 20s in those relevant parts that govern impulsivity, judgment, planning for the future, foresight of consequences, and other characteristics that make people morally culpable…. Indeed, age 21 or 22 would be closer to the 'biological’ age of maturity.”

The whole article can be found here. (http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/Adolescence.pdf)
It's a PDF file, so it'll take a minute to pull up, if you're on a dial-up.

And here's another article on the subject: Teen Brains on Trial (http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20040508/bob9.asp)


Now, take that information and couple it with the fact that kids are becoming more and more involved with violent crime ( The police chief for Nashville claims that 1/4 of the violent crime in Davidson county this year has been committed by 14 to 18 year olds).

So.... anybody else think that maybe not letting people have handguns until they're at least 21 is really such a bad idea? Especially when so many parents these days aren't really bothering to actually raise their kids?



J.C.

Evil Monkey
August 12, 2006, 01:43 PM
I'm 19 years old and I am definitely mature. I think for large periods of time before doing anything. I don't threaten people. I don't look for trouble. I'm always thinking about my future. I've been mad and wanted to "express" myself, but I did it through video games.

I could go on and on. But if there's one person like me, then there's a million. So 18yo minimum is fine.

Oh and, what about those 18yo soldiers we have in Iraq?:)

mattw
August 12, 2006, 01:53 PM
I'm probably gonna pi$$ everybody off by saying this, but I do not believe that anybody under the age of 21 should be allowed access to any firearm unsupervised.

That is just ignorant. I know more people over 21 that I don't trust with firearms than people under 21 that I do trust.

You were right about one thing though. You did piss me off with that comment.

Just because I might not be mature by some doctor's standards of mental developement does not mean I dont know whats right and whats wrong and whats safe and whats not.

I'm 19 and I probably own more firearms than you do and that includes 3 handguns. I also drive an 8,800 Lb 300 horse power truck which I consider much more dangerous.

Jamie C.
August 12, 2006, 02:01 PM
EM, come see me when you're 30, and tell me how mature you think you really were when you were 18-19. ;) ( Hell, looking back, I'm surprised that I survived my teen years, sometimes... And I was relatively well-behaved. )

Also, as for those 18 year old soldiers in Iraq... they're under the supervision and control of people a good bit older than they are, most of the time. They certainly aren't just running around on their own, doing whatever they please. ( Remember what I said about not letting sub-21 year olds have weapons unsupervised? ;) )

No matter though...I'd be shocked if I ever heard the first teenager claim that no, they didn't need less control or freedom to do as they please. They each and every one always think they're the exception to whatever rule is applied. I suppose it's just human nature.


J.C.

Jamie C.
August 12, 2006, 02:09 PM
That is just ignorant.

You were right about one thing though. You did piss me off with that comment.

Did you even bother reading the articles at the links I posted?


J.C.

mattw
August 12, 2006, 02:11 PM
Did you even bother reading the articles at the links I posted?


I read those last semester in General Psychology at college.

Though I may not be at the biological age of maturity because my frontal lobe is not fully developed, I am mature enough to realized that just because someone is a professor at Harvard doesn't mean that their work should be taken as the absolute on any subject.

Jamie C.
August 12, 2006, 02:23 PM
Then I'm kind'a curious that you find my opinion "ignorant" if what I'm basing it on is taught in college.
And we won't even get into the first-hand observation aspect of it...

Edit- I just read your own edit to your post... It's not just one professor who's come the these conclusions, it's several. And also my own step-daughter's neurologist, FWIW...


J.C.

mattw
August 12, 2006, 02:29 PM
Just because it is true that the human brain is not fully developed until the early twenties does not mean that it renders young people so impaired that they are incapable of making responsible, well thought out descisions. They don't teach that people under 21 should be supervised while engaged in potentially dangerous acts.

You are making blanket generalizations. Is that really the high road?

Assuming I'm wrong, should we create a new branch of law enforcement to supervise people under 21 while they use firearms? Because that is completely constitutional and in no way violates American ideals, right?

I could make a generalization about people from tennesse sticking their noses where they don't belong, but I'm not from Harvard or a neurologist.

Jamie C.
August 12, 2006, 02:35 PM
Mattw, I think you're doing more here to prove me right than you are to prove me wrong.... ;)


J.C.

mattw
August 12, 2006, 02:38 PM
Why, because I get angry when someone says I need supervision while enjoying my firearms because I am not mature and that person has never met me?

Sure I went with my gut feeling to argue with you instead of ignoring what you posted, but is that because my frontal lobe is not fully developed? That is entirely possible. But I did not grab my handgun and drive up to Tennessee to shoot you because I am unsupervised.

Are people under 21 more impulsive than those over 21? In most cases, yes.

Do people under 21 need to be supervised at all times when they are in possession of a weapon? Not unless they have a previous record of bad descisions, as is the same with anyone over 21.

Jamie C.
August 12, 2006, 03:01 PM
But I did not grab my handgun and drive up to Tennessee to shoot you because I am unsupervised.

No, but I'd bet good money that if you and I were having this conversation face-to-face, you'd probably try to take a swing at me before it was over. ;)

And i also can't help but notice that you get mad, "pop off" with a post, then go back and edit or add to it.... which also falls in line with the "acts on gut instinct and impulse" aspect of what the Doctors are claiming.

Fortunately, here, you get the chance to go back and correct a mistake. However, in the real world, without an edit function, that "popping off" and not thinking can get somebody killed.


J.C.

akodo
August 12, 2006, 03:16 PM
My understanding of straw purchase is when person A buys a gun legally and then sells/gives it to person B, when person B is prohibited from owning/posessing/purchasing firearms

In this case, person B is not prohibited from owning/posessing/purchasing the gun in question. However, another person, the FFL is prohibited from selling to him.

That's entirely different from person B being unable to own/posess/purchase guns on his own, and having person A buy then sell to him.

mattw
August 12, 2006, 03:49 PM
Fortunately, here, you get the chance to go back and correct a mistake. However, in the real world, without an edit function, that "popping off" and not thinking can get somebody killed.


Just for the record, each edit I made was to add something that I thought of after I had already posted and you had not responded, not because I had made a mistake. I was avoiding double posting.

I don't know about you, but I don't take posting on the internet as seriously as I do shooting at things.

My understanding of straw purchase is when person A buys a gun legally and then sells/gives it to person B, when person B is prohibited from owning/posessing/purchasing firearms

In this case, person B is not prohibited from owning/posessing/purchasing the gun in question. However, another person, the FFL is prohibited from selling to him.

That's entirely different from person B being unable to own/posess/purchase guns on his own, and having person A buy then sell to him.

I agree with akodo. I've had my father buy handguns for me recently and rifles and shotguns for me before I was 18. Each time the FFL knew exactly what we were doing and had no problem with it. This occurred over several years infront of many different dealers. I have even bought a shotgun for my younger brother because he was too young.

The way I understand the law is that there are only age limits on purchasing certain weapons from dealers. There is no age limit for ownership or use.

Byron Quick
August 12, 2006, 04:41 PM
Jamie,

I was hunting unsupervised by the age of 12. Alone, after school. In fact, I'd walk by my local high school on the way to the woods. No accidents. No incidents. I was well trained with firearms safety.

Heck, the kids in my neighborhood had regular rock throwing fights. No one ever escalated to sling shots, bows, pellet guns, or firearms. Everyone had access to all of them. Look back at pre-1968 police records and newspapers. There were no legal barriers to teenagers buying firearms and many did so. There wasn't blood in the streets.

I don't know if you've realized it yet, but there's a great deal taught in college classes that is ideologically driven or otherwise divorced from reality.

A good many of the instructors' greatest dilemma in their teaching career is how to wear their tinfoil hats in public.

Somethng that you might find valuable while taking classes in college is to look at classes in critical thinking. A good class in critical thinking will give you a stricter standard for validation of data than "it's being taught in college." Basket weaving is being taught in colleges.

crowbardog
August 12, 2006, 04:42 PM
I see both sides of the story.

Many young people would make good handgun owners at eighteen. Matt, I feel that you are probably a member of this group. You've been shooting for years, and likely, the misticism of firearms has worn off. You realize the level of responsibilty that comes with gun ownership; especially with a gun that you can carry around in your pocket everyday. Unfortunately, many young adults don't share these same qualities.

Young adults are much more likely to "sweat the little stuff." They take things more personally and are more likely to overreact, then an older adult with more life experience would, were that person in a similar situation. While variables such as like mental health, drug use, and even cultural upbringing come into play, these cases are the exception, not the norm. I'm reffering to your average, mentally stable individuals.

hso
August 12, 2006, 05:34 PM
Person "A" buys a handgun and registers it on thier name. "A" owns this handgun. Now he doesn't want it, so he sells it to person "B". Now "B" registers the handgun on his name.

EM,

Here's the interpretation of the law as provided by the ATF http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#b2 -
(B14) May a parent or guardian purchase firearms or ammunition as a gift for a juvenile (less than 18 years of age)? [Back]

Yes. However, possession of handguns by juveniles (less than 18 years of age) is generally unlawful. Juveniles generally may only receive and possess handguns with the written permission of a parent or guardian for limited purposes, e.g., employment, ranching, farming, target practice or hunting.

If you are 18 and your father buys it for you it looks like it is not a straw purchase.

hso
August 12, 2006, 05:44 PM
No, but I'd bet good money that if you and I were having this conversation face-to-face, you'd probably try to take a swing at me before it was over.

It may be that your unfortunate personal experience is such that you'd think this, but I see little indication that any of the youngsters posting so far deserve such an unfair characterization. If you've received a threatening PM, perhaps (and you should let the mods know if you have), but so far I think you're the only one with the belief that you could goad these kids into taking a poke at you.

I would not allow my own son to have unsupervised access to a firearm before the age of 21, but I’ve taught plenty of kids to shoot that exhibit more maturity and responsibility with a firearm than many “adults”.

Jamie C.
August 12, 2006, 06:08 PM
I was hunting unsupervised by the age of 12. Alone, after school. In fact, I'd walk by my local high school on the way to the woods. No accidents. No incidents. I was well trained with firearms safety.

Heck, the kids in my neighborhood had regular rock throwing fights. No one ever escalated to sling shots, bows, pellet guns, or firearms. Everyone had access to all of them. Look back at pre-1968 police records and newspapers. There were no legal barriers to teenagers buying firearms and many did so. There wasn't blood in the streets.

In 1968 we never locked our doors, slept with the windows open, left the keys in the car (many times with the windows rolled down to boot. It really sucked when it rained that night and you jumped in the car the next morning. ), and had never even heard of a security alarm.

Most of the kids i grew up with engaged in pretty much the same pass-times as you've outlined, and did go hunting/shooting on a regular basis. It was a rare thing though for there not to be an adult in the near vicinity. And god help ya if you touched the guns without permission.

There was also both a respect (and fear) of the police, the courts, and the law in general. Nobody wanted to go to jail, nobody wanted to end up in court. And it was a rare thing to even know anybody who had been jailed. A kid who'd been jailed or in legal trouble was pretty much looked at like he or she was a 3 headed monster.

These days, most people wouldn't even think of leaving their doors unlocked during the day, much less at night. And security companies are making a fortune from residential homes.

And then there's the car alarms.... How many folks reading this have one, or at least know someone who does?

As for kids and the law.... anybody actually stopped and counted how many times in a year that they see a report on the evening news of some child killing or robbing somebody? Me, I've lost track. There's been at least 6 reports on the local news in the last week. Nashville's police chief, Ronal Surpas has also been on the new, talking about how juvenile involvement in violent crime is on the rise. Again, this was just in the past week.
And I won't even bother telling you the stories of the 15-17 year olds that I thought I was going to have to shoot, while I was with the S.O.


Sorry folks, but things are different now than they were in 1968. Very different. And no, I don't know exactly what has changed but it's pretty obvious that it's not for the better.


I don't know if you've realized it yet, but there's a great deal taught in college classes that is ideologically driven or otherwise divorced from reality.

A good many of the instructors' greatest dilemma in their teaching career is how to wear their tinfoil hats in public.

Something that you might find valuable while taking classes in college is to look at classes in critical thinking. A good class in critical thinking will give you a stricter standard for validation of data than "it's being taught in college." Basket weaving is being taught in colleges.


I've been to a college or 2 in my time... even have a degree in mechanical drafting and design. Also attended the local police academy.
So yeah, I have at least a bit of an idea how far out in "left field" some instructors and professors can be.
Due to my step-daughter's medical problems, I've also gotten to spend quite a bit of time with psychologists, psychiatrists, and neurologists, these past 7 years. We usually see one or the other of them about twice a month.

As for critical thinking.... that's a skill you can not survive without, when you spend as much time as I have, dealing with both "normal" and "problem" children. When I was around 11 or 12 years old, my parents decided that we needed to become a foster family for TN's then Department of Human Services. I've had more than 30 foster-brothers and foster-sisters in the 25 years my parents kept that up. Some quite normal, others about as messed-up as a human can get. We all got to attend more than a few classes and lectures on how they were best handled and dealt with.

So, although I'm certainly no expert, I believe I know a thing or two about children and how they think and operate. And anything i don't know, i have no problem asking the real experts about.

One way or the other, I most certainly don't think the people in the articles I linked to are the tinfoil hat-wearing variety. And if they are, I suppose I'd better go get fitted for one as well, since what they're saying very much fits in with what I've personally seen and experienced over the years.




J.C.

Ohio Rifleman
August 12, 2006, 09:14 PM
One question. I'm pretty new here, so don't make fun of me for asking this, but what does the term "tin foil hat wearing" mean? I guess it has something to do with gun-grabbing liberals.

Anyway, commenting on the original thread topic. I am 19 years old. I have a brother who is 27. He acts like he is about 12 quite a bit. Put it this way; the guy still buys toys and action figures and comic books. I don't think I'd trust him unsupervised with a handgun. I personally own two rifles, both of which are kept in my room, so I am "unsupervised" with them quite a bit. And I've never fired them except at the range.

Furthermore, does three years really make that big a difference in someone's maturity level? How much does someone really mature between 18 and 21?

Car Knocker
August 12, 2006, 10:32 PM
"Tin (or aluminum) foil hat wearing" originally applied to people who "weren't wrapped too tightly" and felt that wearing a foil hat would prevent space aliens from either controlling them with thought control beams or extracting their thoughts with a beam. It has come to apply to people, depending on the context, who see a government conspiracy in every event that occurs or believe in government thought control. It is still an allusion to a lack of grounding in reality.

EDIT: Some people do mature considerably between 18 and 21. Some people take much longer to reach the same stage. Some never do. Some people make an effort their entire life to continue to mature.

Think back three years to when you were 16. Have you matured since then? Did you stop maturing when you reached 18? Do you think, based on your experience, that you will be even more mature when you hit 21? 25? 40?

possum
August 13, 2006, 12:05 AM
So you trust an 18 year old to vote, buy an AK47 or Mossberg 12ga, or drive a tank, but you don't trust him with a .38 revolver?


Well where to begin, first off there are very very few 18 yr olds that i would trust to do much of anything especially make an informed or smart decission in the way of voting. i personally was driving a m2a2 BFV at the ag of 18, so that is nothing special. Heck most 18yr old kids shouldn't be allowed to drive a car much less a 32 ton military vehicle. I know from experience and the fact that i was once a kid as well as you, and everyone else on this forum, that some (not all) but some are not the brightest. Hell they should be lucky to have the freedom to even have a weapon, rifle or pistol. i personally have always preffered rifle shooting anyway, and have had ar's and ak's and mini-14's and such, and just kinda stayed away from handguns because they didn't have the same apeal to me. and only within the last year have i became a pistol shooter to the degree that i shoot rifles! You don't have to agree that is my opinion! Thanks!

I'm 19 and I probably own more firearms than you do and that includes 3 handguns. I also drive an 8,800 Lb 300 horse power truck which I consider much more dangerous

nothing like a college kid that has no idea about the real world! being in the army and hatted by the local cops because we are military and the college kids are the ones they let off for speeding and such, and always target us, if there is a fight at the local club, no matter who started it the solider is going down town! we really don't take lightly to college kids. blasting off at the mouth, with no regards to the people that they are bashing. That person, might just be somebody that puts there life on the line to allow you to have the freedoms you don't deserve but by the Blood of all those before have gainned, think about it. I do what i do so you can say and do what the law allows and, on the flip side i am allowed to say what i wish, you don't have to agree. check out myspace maybe somebody there will, have your same outlook!

Wes Janson
August 13, 2006, 12:18 AM
All I have to say is, it really makes me sad and disappointed to see such bigotry and irrationality. I started to explain all of the myriad reasons why Jamie's argument is a crock, and then deleted it. There's no use arguing with a bigot, because no matter what you say they're never going to hear it. I could post ten thousand reasons and examples of responsible eighteen-year-olds, and people like Jamie will never accept it. Perhaps it's a failure on his part to imagine that other people could be more responsible than he was at that age. Maybe it's just exposure to too many bad examples of irresponsible teenagers. Heck, maybe he honestly believes in the Cause of protecting the children. It makes no difference.

It seems to me that once a man turns 21, he loses all memory of what it was like to live without the rights he suddenly takes for granted. He has all that he needs, all those behind him can suffer like he did. I can only hope that when I'm older I can look back and remember clearly, and sympathize with those less fortunate.

There is so much more I would like to say, but cannot fully nor clearly express in written words. Suffice it to say, the system of assigning responsibility based upon arbitrary dates and numbers is inherently unjust, no matter how many or how few are excluded. It always has been, and always will be.

I feel the temptation to go through Jamie's posts sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph, and point out each and every fallacy in them, but I will not do so. His mistakes are clear enough as it is. I only wish our elected officials did not share his mistaken beliefs.

carebear
August 13, 2006, 12:32 AM
If you are 18 and your father buys it for you it looks like it is not a straw purchase.

That's not quite correct. It used to be ATF's ruling that it was only a straw purchase if you bought a handgun for someone who was ineligible to purchase themself (under 21, felon etc). If you look on the FAQ for "straw purchse" they show that they dropped the "ineligible" interpretation a few years back.

Now, pretty much if you buy a firearm FOR someone else, eligible to possess or not, even if said subsequent sale was legal, you have committed a "straw purchase". You and I (non-felon, 35 yr old, perfectly legal) go to the gunstore and I hand you a few hundred before the sale to buy me a pistol or long gun because I don't like the new white color of the 4473; we've just committed a "straw purchase".

You go into the store with your own money and get the gun for me because I spilled a Coke on my pants and don't want to drip on the carpet and I pay you out in the parking lot? "Straw purchase."

It used to be the ATF was solely concerned with non-eligible types getting their hands on guns from dealers. Now they just want to be sure everyone buying a gun gets their own name on a 4473.

A small shift of emphasis in enforcement, but very telling. Makes their job easier by not having to prove "intent to arm a known badguy".

carebear
August 13, 2006, 12:36 AM
jamie,

Don't we have all sorts of other laws to handle those minors who commit a crime with a handgun?

You know, the same ones we use to control OVER-21 yr olds who misuse handguns?

The same ones we use to control those over 18 who misuse long guns?

Etc, etc, etc.

You remember those, laws that only criminalize behaviour that actually, directly interferes with the rights of others?

We used to rely on those before we got the idea that everything should be regulated beforehand for our own good.

Oh, those under-18 year old brains were just as "undeveloped" and "immature" back then before stuff was regulated. I bet the crime rate wasn't any worse.

Yeager
August 13, 2006, 12:51 AM
You want me to go fight and die for your freedom at 18 but you wont even allow me the rights that I would be fighting for?

If you strip my rights untill I turn 21 force the draft age up to 21.

Frog48
August 13, 2006, 12:55 AM
Are most 18 year olds mature enough to purchase firearms and use them unsupervised? Probably not, but thats not the point.

Since 18 year olds are considered old enough to vote, serve in the military, and be criminally tried as an adult, I think that ALL rights and priviledges should be granted at the same age. Which in this case is 18.

It is for this reason that I think that 18 years olds should be able to purchase alcohol, own handguns, etc. It has nothing to do with maturity. It has everything to do with a double standard. It doesnt make much sense to consider a person an adult in some regards, but not an adult in other regards. Either someone is an adult, or they are not.

Just my $0.02.

possum
August 13, 2006, 01:30 AM
You want me to go fight and die for your freedom at 18 but you wont even allow me the rights that I would be fighting for?

If you strip my rights untill I turn 21 force the draft age up to 21.

you can at ease that crap right now, this is an all volunteer military, no body is getting drafeted so that argument dosen't work there highspeed. strip you of what rights? please explain. Hey maybe if you were in the arena of willing to make the ultimate scrifice then i might fill sorry for you, but hey i don't! How do you think i feel, i spent all that time trying to stay alive, and come back to stateside and can't even have a drink to celebrate, get over it just like i did! heck american coke was enough for me after drinking there "coke". The bubbles kicked my butt, no telling what alchol would have done to me!You are not making any argument that i haven't heard before!

Yeager
August 13, 2006, 01:40 AM
you can at ease that crap right now, this is an all volunteer military, no body is getting drafeted so that argument dosen't work there highspeed. strip you of what rights? please explain. Hey maybe if you were in the arena of willing to make the ultimate scrifice then i might fill sorry for you, but hey i don't! How do you think i feel, i spent all that time trying to stay alive, and come back to stateside and can't even have a drink to celebrate, get over it just like i did! heck american coke was enough for me after drinking there "coke". The bubbles kicked my butt, no telling what alchol would have done to me!You are not making any argument that i haven't heard before!

It may be now but what happens when a mushroom cloud appears over some major city, or some terrorist gets his hands on some goold ole VX?

What rights? Did you even read what Jamie posted?

I don't want your or anyone elses pitty. Nor do I want to fight and die as a second class citizen for the rights of a first class citizen. ;)

possum
August 13, 2006, 01:57 AM
yeager,
simple solution don't fight then, be a good citizen and pay your taxes and everyone else will do the dirty work!

carebear
August 13, 2006, 02:00 AM
I'm not one to interrupt a good pissing match but y'all are drifting the heck out of this thread.

Maybe you could try using the PM function for the whole "who's more patriotic" thing and get back on point.

possum
August 13, 2006, 02:03 AM
i agree this is stupid!

Jamie C.
August 13, 2006, 09:49 AM
So now I'm a bigot, and both my experience and the experience and research of other far more educated people than me (and I suspect most of you) is a "crock"?

I guess maybe I am a bit "off", 'cause I find that more than a little amusing. *g*

Oh, and as for lawmakers seeing things the same way I do, or the general public, for that matter... take a look at these 3 news stories:

Four Suspects Arrested In Hopkinsville Killing (http://www.wsmv.com/news/9654081/detail.html)

City Touts Gun Buy-Back Program (http://www.wsmv.com/news/9671467/detail.html)

Local Mall To Begin Youth Policy (http://www.wsmv.com/news/9668872/detail.html)

Keep in mind these 3 are from the last 2 days.... and there have been many before them with pretty much the same theme... youth violence, and what to do about it.

Now.... apply a bit of that critical thinking Mr. Quick mentioned, and think about what John Q. Public is going to make of the apparent trend shown with these stories, and what they, the Brady camp, and our own elected officials are most likely going to do and say.


Edit: I should probably add that although I'm quite sure many of the under-21 year olds here are indeed the "exception to the rule"..... it's not the exception that the rules are written for.



J.C.

mattw
August 13, 2006, 12:54 PM
nothing like a college kid that has no idea about the real world! being in the army and hatted by the local cops because we are military and the college kids are the ones they let off for speeding and such, and always target us, if there is a fight at the local club, no matter who started it the solider is going down town! we really don't take lightly to college kids. blasting off at the mouth, with no regards to the people that they are bashing. That person, might just be somebody that puts there life on the line to allow you to have the freedoms you don't deserve but by the Blood of all those before have gainned, think about it. I do what i do so you can say and do what the law allows and, on the flip side i am allowed to say what i wish, you don't have to agree. check out myspace maybe somebody there will, have your same outlook!

Just because I am in college and you are supposedly in the military doesn't mean I don't support the military. In my town Marines, soldiers, sailors, and airmen get out of tickets and trouble alot more easily than anyone else. Sounds like you just live in the wrong place.

Don't guilt trip me about going to college and not enlisting straight out of high school. I have my own reasons for the path of my life and just because you were deployed doesn't give you the right to pass judgement on my support or the armed forces or this country.

My father was in the Marines for 22 years, I know all about the military and sacrifices and bleeding for our country.

I wasn't bashing anyone, especially not you but since you want to blast off at the mouth also, you can take your "I'm a vet" guilt trip and stick it up your ass. Just because you did one honorable thing that I respect does not mean that you don't escape a bashing if you turn out to be an ass hole. Being in the military doesn't make you special. Anyone can be in the military. It is all about how you make SELFLESS sacrifices and risk life and limb for the USA and the love of your country. Not about being able to have stories about how dangerous your tour in wherever was so you can guilt others into saying that they owe you something.

My father was in the Marines for 22 years and fought in Vietnam and countless other engagements all over the world and he never asks anyone for respect or acts like he is owed anything because he made a choice for a cause that he believed in. He didn't do it for bragging rights. Those are the only kind of vets I respect.


How did this go from asking about the relevancy of the handgun age limit to a patriot pissing contest? This thread needs to be locked. No constructive discussion is coming out of here.

Jamie C.
August 13, 2006, 01:23 PM
carebear wrote:
jamie,

Don't we have all sorts of other laws to handle those minors who commit a crime with a handgun?

You know, the same ones we use to control OVER-21 yr olds who misuse handguns?

The same ones we use to control those over 18 who misuse long guns?

Etc, etc, etc.

You remember those, laws that only criminalize behavior that actually, directly interferes with the rights of others?

Hey Carebear... Sorry I missed this the first time around.

If you'll go back and read the articles I linked to in my earlier posts concerning brain development, you'll notice that the argument is that those "other laws" that govern how all the rest of us are treated concerning criminal behavior shouldn't and can't be applied to minors, people with "mental defects", etc. In other words, doctors and lawyers are saying that there's a certain group that are outside of the usual laws.

Now, if you can't prosecute them for their actions or hold them accountable because it's "not their fault", and you can't keep the items they mis-use out of their hands.... what do you do?

Personally I believe that anyone who commits murder or any other violent crime should be held to the same standard as anyone else, no matter what their age or mental state. But apparently that is no more popular an opinion than restricting access to guns and other weapons to anyone under 21 is.



J.C.

mattw
August 13, 2006, 02:05 PM
Are you putting people under 21 into the category of mental defect because of some articles you read?

Jamie C.
August 13, 2006, 02:31 PM
Are you putting people under 21 into the category of mental defect because of some articles you read?

The simple answer here is "no".

The long-winded answer is that not having the mental capacity or capability to make decisions in the same manner a fully-mature adult is supposed to be able to can be a defect, if a person is past the physical age where the brain and corresponding ability should be fully developed.

It is not a defect to simply be too young to not have that development yet.

However, in most cases, the courts and the law treat both instances in the same manner.
The crime committed has to be pretty severe, and/or there be some sort of mitigating circumstances for a minor to be tried as an adult, for instance.

As for "some articles you read".... My wife and I could flood this forum with links and scans of medical documents and texts concerning brain development, neurology, child psychology/psychiatry, etc.

This is because of, as I've said elsewhere, my step-daughter's medical problems. She has epilepsy, Asperger's syndrome, and a couple of other neurological/behavioral issues.

We have had to do a lot of study and research, as well as spend many hours with doctors, in an attempt to understand what's going on with her, and how best to handle much of what we encounter with her.

The bottom line is that no, I am not basing my opinions on nothing more than a "couple of articles" I've read.


J.C.

BergaminoCAV
August 13, 2006, 02:43 PM
Okay, I just wanna clear somthing up, my buddy at the store is 19, he wants to buy my baby eagle (9mm), someone I know who is a cop said I could sell it to him but I dont know if I trust this guy! I am pretty sure it is legal but I just need to clear so confusion. Is it legal in Jersey for someone under 21 to buy a handgun from a private owner???

hso
August 13, 2006, 02:46 PM
That's not quite correct. It used to be ATF's ruling that it was only a straw purchase if you bought a handgun for someone who was ineligible to purchase themself (under 21, felon etc). If you look on the FAQ for "straw purchse" they show that they dropped the "ineligible" interpretation a few years back.

Carebear,

The material I provided was a paste from the ATF FAQ on Straw purchases and it clearly stated that a father could buy a firearm for a juvenile.
B14) May a parent or guardian purchase firearms or ammunition as a gift for a juvenile (less than 18 years of age)? [Back]

Yes. However, possession of handguns by juveniles (less than 18 years of age) is generally unlawful. Juveniles generally may only receive and possess handguns with the written permission of a parent or guardian for limited purposes, e.g., employment, ranching, farming, target practice or hunting.

I don't get how this interp from ATF isn't pretty clear or in conflict. A father or guardian may purchase a firearm to give to child. The minor child may possess the handgun if written permission is given. I know we're dealing with interpretation or regulations and that doesn't always have to be logical, but I don't understand how this can be viewed as not allowing a father to purchase a handgun to give to anyone under the age of 21 since the parent is the actualy purchaser and can't be engaging in a straw purchase.

mattw
August 13, 2006, 02:53 PM
Sorry to hear that about your stepdaughter, J.C.

hso
August 13, 2006, 02:57 PM
Sorry folks, but things are different now than they were in 1968. Very different. And no, I don't know exactly what has changed but it's pretty obvious that it's not for the better.

J.C.,

Either society has devolved somehow due to the incomplete development of the frontal lobes of young adults these days or I've missed your point altogether. If you and I and Byron and many of us that were young adults in 1968 (and earlier) were capable of safely using firearms with our still developing brains, why does that incomplete development in current youth have any bearing on their safe handling of firearms? Do their brains somehow develop slower than ours did? Did your's and mine develop quicker? Or is it solely that we were were raised differently than a lot of kids these days?

If nothing has changed in our biology, then age has nothing to do with whether a 16, 17, 19 or 20 year old is incapable of handling a firearm safely. It has to do with culture, training and how much responsibility the individual can handle.

mattw
August 13, 2006, 03:17 PM
Personally I think all that frontal lobe stuff is a bunch of crap that proper parenting can fix.

Jamie C.
August 13, 2006, 03:22 PM
Hso, you said earlier:

'I would not allow my own son to have unsupervised access to a firearm before the age of 21..."

Why is that?

You also said:

"If nothing has changed in our biology, then age has nothing to do with whether a 16, 17, 19 or 20 year old is incapable of handling a firearm safely."


Am I seeing a bit of a contradiction between your two statements, or is my tinfoil hat letting me down again? :uhoh:

Also, what determines this one?
"how much responsibility the individual can handle."

Isn't it biology and maturity?

Now, as to what has changed, or what has gone wrong, from the time you, I, and many others were kids... I'm not entirely sure. However, I think this, from the first news article I linked to back in one of my first posts today, might offer a clue:

Teague’s mother, Joan Jones, said she had been sitting by the phone waiting to hear something from her son.

Jones said officers came to her home and picked Teague up Tuesday afternoon. That's when she learned her son was wanted for murder.

“Austin didn't do nothing like that, not my son. I can see if Austin was a wild kid, but he never was, he always stayed to himself,” she said.

Jones said her second shock of the day came when an officer returned to her home with a search warrant, and went to her son's room and found what police believed to be the murder weapon.

“He went on back in there and got it and I said ‘Wow I've been in my house and there's a gun in my house, what in the world is a gun doing in my house?” she said.


These kinds of statements and reactions are all too common these days, in my opinion. And for me, it points to the parents, and their negligence in doing what they should, both for and with their kids, as being the real problem.

But then, as I said, that's just my opinion. *shrug*


J.C.

carebear
August 13, 2006, 03:40 PM
hso,

That FAQ refers to a gift. If his dad was to give him the gun then there's no problem whatsoever. Giving is legal, as is possession of the gun as the receiver is over 18.

What was being discussed was not a "gift" though. It was a "buying for", where money changes hands from the receiver to the seller.

Even that sale would be legal if his dad bought it for himself with no prior intention of selling it to his son.

The "straw man" (and illegality) comes in if, prior to or at the time of purchasing the gun, the father (and son) have the intention that it is actually being purchased by the father to be sold to the son. This is a "straw" transaction because when the father fills out the 4473 he is checking the box stating that the "purchaser is the intended recipient" of the firearm. If he's decided to sell it at the time of purchase, that statement isn't true. To a certain extent he's also engaged in dealing without a license.

Here's teh ATF circular (for the industry) addressing the issue

http://www.atf.treas.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/geninfo.htm

15. "STRAW PURCHASES"


Questions have arisen concerning the lawfulness of firearms purchases from licensees by persons who use "straw purchasers" (another person) to acquire the firearms. Specifically, the actual buyer uses the straw purchaser to execute the Form 4473 purporting to show that the straw purchaser is the actual purchaser of the firearm. In some instances, a straw purchaser is used because the actual purchaser is prohibited from acquiring the firearm. That is to say, the actual purchaser is a felon or is within one of the other prohibited categories of persons who may not lawfully acquire firearms or is a resident of a State other than that in which the licensee's business premises is located. Because of his or her disability, the person uses a straw purchaser who is not prohibited from purchasing a firearm from the licensee. In other instances, neither the straw purchaser nor the actual purchaser is prohibited from acquiring the firearm.

In both instances, the straw purchaser violates Federal law by making false statements on Form 4473 to the licensee with respect to the identity of the actual purchaser of the firearm, as well as the actual purchaser's residence address and date of birth. The actual purchaser who utilized the straw purchaser to acquire a firearm has unlawfully aided and abetted or caused the making of the false statements. The licensee selling the firearm under these circumstances also violates Federal law if the licensee is aware of the false statements on the form. It is immaterial that the actual purchaser and the straw purchaser are residents of the State in which the licensee's business premises is located, are not prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms, and could have lawfully purchased firearms from the licensee.

This article does not purport to cover sales to persons who purchase firearms with the intent of making gifts of such firearms to other persons. In instances such as this, the person making the purchase is indeed the true purchaser. There is no straw purchaser in these instances. The use of gift certificates would also not fall within the category of straw purchases. The person redeeming the gift certificate would be the actual purchaser of the firearm and would be properly reflected as such in the dealer's records.

carebear
August 13, 2006, 03:45 PM
Hso, you said earlier:

'I would not allow my own son to have unsupervised access to a firearm before the age of 21..."

Why is that?

You also said:

"If nothing has changed in our biology, then age has nothing to do with whether a 16, 17, 19 or 20 year old is incapable of handling a firearm safely."

Am I seeing a bit of a contradiction between your two statements, or is my tinfoil hat letting me down again?

There's no contradiction whatsoever. hso was clearly referring specifically (and only) to his own son. He could have any number of reasons other than age for not wanting that particular person to have unsupervised access.

However, that does not mean he has to think there needs to be a law to keep all persons under 21 from having such possession.

Personal responsibility versus nanny-stateism.

Jamie C.
August 13, 2006, 03:58 PM
Personally I think all that frontal lobe stuff is a bunch of crap that proper parenting can fix.

Well, if it were crap, then a frontal lobotomy and certain types of head/brain injuries wouldn't cause such a profound change in people's personality and behavior.

As for proper parenting... yes, it can certainly help. But the thing is, "proper parenting" involves paying attention to the child, learning what he/she's strong or weak in, where they are likely to use poor judgment, etc., and keeping them away from, or restricting access to, certain things or situations until they can be taught to deal with them. This last part may only come with age and the maturity brought on by their own development.

There's also the problem that sometimes, with some kids, the "raising just don't take".

Then there's the other problem of what do you do when, for one person that does do a "proper" job of raising and teaching their kids, there's a hundred, or even a thousand, that don't?

Do you pass more laws? If so, concerning what?


J.C.

carebear
August 13, 2006, 04:21 PM
jamie,

You do what has already been done, pass laws that punish the behaviour, not that attempt (with blatant failure every time it's tried) to preempt it.

Preemptive gun laws don't prevent a kid who wants a gun from getting one.

They don't prevent a kid who wants to commit a crime (a very distinct thing from just wanting to own one) with that gun from committing the crime.

They are prima facia useless.

Think of it this way. I live in Alaska. You can now, if over 21 and not barred from possession, carry a concealed weapon without a permit. However, if you are under 21 and/or not barred, you can carry without a permit too, just not legally.

The net difference to society in those two groups of carriers? ZERO.

That is, zero until they commit a real violent crime. At that point I don't care if they were legal or illegal to carry the weapon before, they have just now, and not before, actually caused a real problem.

At that point, they are eventually going down on a conviction that makes misdemeanor carry meaningless.

So the carry law does not do one thing to make us safer. The legal carriers aren't a problem and even the illegal carriers aren't a problem until they actually do something illegal with the weapon.

Until that point, assuming they know how to carry, society will never know. In fact, the only way to make carry laws meaningful is to give the police the ability to stop and search people for weapons at will.

They are a functionally useless preemptive law. Just like juvenile possession laws are.

Wes Janson
August 13, 2006, 06:47 PM
These kinds of statements and reactions are all too common these days, in my opinion. And for me, it points to the parents, and their negligence in doing what they should, both for and with their kids, as being the real problem.

But then, as I said, that's just my opinion. *shrug*


Am I the only one here who sees how ridiculous this argument is? Damnit, that's the EXACT same line of reasoning used by every single gun control organization: gun violence is too common these days, and thus their ownership should be restricted. Where are the statistics? Where is the evidence linking the legal possession of firearms by 18-20 year-olds to increased crime? Absolutely anyone who has ever had even the slightest amount of education in the field of logic and debate will tell you that citing one example as evidence for your argument doesn't prove anything, and in this case it's just an emotional appeal.
As for proper parenting... yes, it can certainly help. But the thing is, "proper parenting" involves paying attention to the child, learning what he/she's strong or weak in, where they are likely to use poor judgment, etc., and keeping them away from, or restricting access to, certain things or situations until they can be taught to deal with them. This last part may only come with age and the maturity brought on by their own development.
Why is 21 the magic age that suddenly brings enlightenment and self-control? Why is it that before that day, humans are assumed to be second-class citizens who must be protected and sheltered, but after midnight it changes? And explain how it is that keeping firearms away from legal adults teaches them anything. Your logic is unclear on how restricting access consequently leads to responsibility, indeed, I think many would argue that the very opposite is true.

You won't care what I say, or you won't believe me, but for what it's worth I keep a 1911 with a loaded magazine in my computer desk, and have for some time. At no time when I am home am I more than a few seconds away from a loaded firearm. In fact, I'm the only one in my home who even knows how to get into the safe, simply because it's my responsibility to maintain, store, and supervise the firearms of the household. One of my old classmates from highschool is the manager of a retail store. Two of my closest friends just got done with their summer job at a camp, supervising children with disabilities. Another friend of mine has been living on his own for more than a year now, holding a job, attending a university full-time, and participating in ROTC. All of us are younger than 21, and by your definition we all lack responsibility and the capability to make decisions. I could go on with examples, but what's the point. As they say, arguing on the internet...

Justin
August 13, 2006, 07:27 PM
Criminitly.

I'm gone for not even two days, and look what happens.

If you enjoyed reading about "21 To Buy A Handgun" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!