CCW at 18?


PDA






beehlebf
March 12, 2012, 09:36 PM
Georgia is changing its law for minimum age for a CCW from 21 to 18. Any opinions on if this is a good or bad idea? In MI you can own a handgun at 18 but can only open carry so its really a pain dealing with ppl. Is 18 too young for CCW any criminal would be doing it illegally anyway and uncle sam will trust u with a gun at seventeen.

If you enjoyed reading about "CCW at 18?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Eric M
March 12, 2012, 09:37 PM
If I can own a gun I don't see why I can't carry it. If I REALLY wanted to carry it to do anything bad I don't think I'd wait to get a CC permit.

writerinmo
March 12, 2012, 09:37 PM
Well, you can die for your country at 18 and people seem to be fine with that...just saying.

41
March 12, 2012, 09:39 PM
In my area of Alabama, you can carry at 19. We've never had a problem that I know of.

glock36
March 12, 2012, 09:45 PM
The more the merrier, if you can die defending your country then by God you should be able to cc a hand gun.

jakerr15
March 12, 2012, 09:53 PM
I've been carrying a hand gun my father gave me since I was 18 here in Indiana I'm turning 21 herevin July .. as long as the permit holder is responsible I think its just fine personally .. especially in bad areas.. I work near Gary in, and there are many people around this area including myself who don't leave home without one

jimmyraythomason
March 12, 2012, 09:57 PM
Alabama allows concealled carry at 18 however each county sheriff is allowed to set the minimum age for CCW permits for his county(18-21). My county(Blount)is now 21 thanks to our current sheriff but his predecessor set the minimum at 18. I got mine @20 and a friend got his @19.

jsj127
March 12, 2012, 10:25 PM
Im not sure how old you have to be. I was surprised a couple years ago when my son (19@ the time) came home and told me "I got my pistol permit today" I said i thought you had to be 21 he said nope sheriff said if i passed the background check he'd give me one. Hes been carrying for 2 years now.

jimmyraythomason
March 13, 2012, 12:06 AM
jsj127,Alabama state law allows sheriffs,so inclined,to issue CCW permits to 18 year olds. State law also allows sheriffs to raise that age in their county to 21 if they choose.

NavyLCDR
March 13, 2012, 12:37 AM
It's a step in the right direction. Next is to do away with the permit altogether!

au01st
March 13, 2012, 03:03 AM
My brother will be applying for his CCW permit in a few weeks when he turns 18. In Alabama carrying in a vehicle is considered "concealed", even if it's in the trunk unloaded and boxed up (unless you're on your way from the place of purchase to your residence). Of course, this means that someone who is 18 and legally owns a pistol, say that they receive as a birthday gift like my brother will get, must go to the range with someone who has a CCW, unless they walk there while carrying openly.

This is why under "reason for applying" he will be putting: "To lawfully carry in a vehicle". Hopefully the sheriff will see that my mom, dad, and I are all CCW permit holders and personal responsibility just runs in the family.

RhinoDefense
March 13, 2012, 03:22 AM
I've seen 50yo men that shouldn't be carrying a firearm

Davek1977
March 13, 2012, 03:25 AM
I was issued a concealed weapons permit the week I turned 18, and never had any issues (South Dakota)

jimmyraythomason
March 13, 2012, 08:42 AM
In Alabama carrying in a vehicle is considered "concealed", even if it's in the trunk unloaded and boxed up (unless you're on your way from the place of purchase to your residence).Or if moving from an old residence to a new one,or taking it to a gunsmith for repairs. The good news is that there is pending legislation(HB-132) which,if passed,will remove car carry from the concealed permit requirement.

The Sarge
March 13, 2012, 08:57 AM
In Texas if you are active duty military you can get your CCW @ 18 years old.
If you are not active duty military it is 21.
Makes sense to me.

Mr. D
March 13, 2012, 09:09 AM
Why limit the age at all? It's kinda like alcohol - Italy, which has no age limit for alcohol whatsoever, has a far lower rate of alcoholism than the USA.

Make gun carrying an accepted part of the culture, not a forbidden pleasure.

~D

hardluk1
March 13, 2012, 09:30 AM
Before 21 years of age being active military and haveing high school deploma , no GED , no misdemeanors as a minor should be a requirement atleast.

RhinoDefense
March 13, 2012, 10:41 AM
^ I disagree. It's a right. There shouldn't be restrictions such as you propose.

Ryanxia
March 13, 2012, 10:51 AM
Not sure what state you're in but in Maine you can get a CCW at 18.

NOLAEMT
March 13, 2012, 01:01 PM
what does being in the military, or being a high school grad have to do with being able to protect yourself?

Does that also mean that adults that haven't graduated high school should be prohibited from carrying?

Mr. D
March 13, 2012, 01:05 PM
hardluk1, What is your reason for saying that? Is there something magical that happens at age 21 that makes a person suddenly a responsible, level-headed adult? As others have pointed out, the right to carry is a God-given right, not to be restricted AT ALL unless an individual gives you very good reason to restrict his rights (i.e. the right to carry must obviously suspended for felons in prison). I know some 15-year-olds that I believe are very capable of carrying, while I know of some 30+ years that still aren't adults.

It comes down to the parents' training, not some arbitrary age.

~D

Nushif
March 13, 2012, 02:01 PM
You're legally able to be locked in the bog boy slammer, you're allowed to die for this country, you're allowed to operate a one ton missile going 60 miles an hour for about two years already and for some reason there's any doubt as to whether you should be legally carrying. Odd.
I don't see BLOOD IN THE STREETS! because an 18 year old has to get the same training as everyone else who has managed avoiding BLOOD IN THE STREETS! thus far.

JustinJ
March 13, 2012, 02:09 PM
Is 18 too young for CCW any criminal would be doing it illegally anyway and uncle sam will trust u with a gun at seventeen.

Believe it or not fear of prosecution does in fact influence criminal behavior. What my concern though is the younger a person is the less likely they are to make wiser decisions and have lower impulse control.

Is there something magical that happens at age 21 that makes a person suddenly a responsible, level-headed adult?

Does something magical happen at 5 that makes a kid ready for kindergarten? How about at 16 to drive a car? Or 18 to join the military, watch porn, have sex with an adult or vote? Or 17 to be tried as an adult or 21 to buy beer? Age restrictions are of course not perfect but a case by case examination is completely impractical.

Why limit the age at all? It's kinda like alcohol - Italy, which has no age limit for alcohol whatsoever, has a far lower rate of alcoholism than the USA.

Simply not true: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1913176,00.html

Nushif
March 13, 2012, 02:29 PM
Italy, which has no age limit for alcohol whatsoever, has a far lower rate of alcoholism than the USA.

Well, on the chance of going OT on this one, a factor that we do have to point out here is that "alcoholism" is a societal norm, not an actual you know ... germ/immune system type disease. That's just rhetoric.

And frankly what is considered "alcoholism" here is considered three drinks a week, "habitual drinking" (like a beer for dinner or a glass of wine) or something along those lines. So if an Italian, German or whatever reports five beers a week "habitually" they are an "American Alcoholic" while being a "German Pushover."

But in any case, back on topic it is true that this "case by case examination" is utterly impractical, arbitrary limits do have to be set. And in line with that, if they cant carry in a civilian line, they shouldn't be able to carry in the military, either. So ... what's so bad about 18?

Neverwinter
March 13, 2012, 03:02 PM
what does being in the military, or being a high school grad have to do with being able to protect yourself?

Does that also mean that adults that haven't graduated high school should be prohibited from carrying?
Those are simply qualifications for accessing that specific aspect of your rights early.

People who haven't graduated can still carry at the normal age.

Sent from Tapatalk

JustinJ
March 13, 2012, 03:05 PM
But in any case, back on topic it is true that this "case by case examination" is utterly impractical, arbitrary limits do have to be set. And in line with that, if they cant carry in a civilian line, they shouldn't be able to carry in the military, either. So ... what's so bad about 18?

In the military an 18 year old is within a very structured system with direct supervision and high degress of accountability. The military is also teaching discipline and accelerating the maturity of young adults at a much higher rate than in the civilian world. Even in the military, outside of combat, soldiers are restricted when and where they can be armed.

wild cat mccane
March 13, 2012, 03:14 PM
Your brain does not physically mature until around 25 on average.

Absolutely not.

Vector
March 13, 2012, 03:16 PM
My only concern is that many 18 year olds, especially now days, are very immature. Some are more like 14 year olds when it comes maturity, yet their hormones are raging. They are quick to act but slow to think until after they have gotten themselves into trouble.

Nushif
March 13, 2012, 03:21 PM
I wouldn't call this, mine, or any generation any more mature than any other one, to be honest, so this "nowadays" thing kinda falls on deaf ears for me. Sorry. Changing cultural norms don't have anything to do with maturity.

As for the notion that the military makes people grow up ... I'm entirely unsure. I've seen myself and others in act much more immature than their civilian counterparts very, very often. IS there more rigor, more discipline and the like? sure. But in leisure time I find that the lack of rigor and discipline actually tends to make things go the other way. I find actually most GIs play more than their civilian counterparts, simply for access to toys!
You can let a construction crew of 18 years olds out of high school go to town in a foreign city without them having to be hauled in by the cops. As a lot of CCs know, this is not the case in the military.

Mr. D
March 13, 2012, 04:57 PM
Well, It looks like I was wrong about Italy having no limit. We were told that there was no limit when I went there for my senior trip in high school. Anyway, that was probably a poor illustration anyway.

The fact remains that our country went for many, many years without an age limit on carrying, concealed or otherwise, and I don't think anyone would even try to make the case that blood ran in the streets during the 1700's, 1800's, and early 1900's in the US. If you say that is because the general moral character was higher then, there's your solution. Fix the character of our nation, don't try to impose a high moral standard by legislating away the ability to carry for young people.

~D

paintballdude902
March 14, 2012, 02:15 AM
if you try hard enough you can find a way around the age law in alot of states.(if you're 18)


a buddy of mine got 2 out of state non resident permits so he could get a permit that was good in NC. called the DA about it and he guy said it all sounded legal to him.

another friend waited until this past year to do it. he only had to get one permit since in december NC began recognizing that states permits.


if you are going to go through the effort of getting a CCW then you probably arent going to be the type to get into much trouble

Davek1977
March 14, 2012, 04:26 AM
if you are going to go through the effort of getting a CCW then you probably arent going to be the type to get into much trouble

Exactly. I don't think the idea of issuing permits to 18 yr olds should be instantly discounted based on the fact there are immature 18 yr olds out there. There are immature 45 yr olds out there too....do we deny permits to ALL 45 yr olds based on the behavior of a small sample of them? The fact I got a permit at 18 meant I wanted to do things the right and legal ways. It DID NOT instantly give the ability to carry concealed....i had the ABILITY before any permit was ever issued. If i had wanted to carry, I could have....in violation of the law, but I certainly could have carried, having had access to handguns. I got the permit because I wanted to be legally compliant, not because I wanted the ABILITY to carry. If an 18 yr od abuses his permit or the privileges it symbolizes, by all means hold him or her responsible, but don't condemn them based on age alone, as maturity is rarely accurately measured by time spent alive....

Mxracer239y
March 14, 2012, 09:10 AM
Your brain does not physically mature until around 25 on average.

Absolutely not.

So should I, as a 24 year old, not be allowed to vote? Your assertion that an adult (between 18 and 24) with an 'immature brain' isn't capable of making decisions for themselves is intriguing, both legally and personally. If the human brain is unable to properly process and interpret data before that age, our military has some explaining to do regarding the poor, helpless children that they have been recruiting.*

The idea that my brain does not fully mature until age 25 does not mean that every decision I make before that age is incorrect. My state allows carry at 18. While I did not own firearms at that age, there is no question in my mind that there would have been no issue. At 18, you are an adult. Carry away.

* Note: hyperbole. The military is not made up of children. The idea is to discredit the concept of adults between 18 and 24 being unable to think for themselves.

SigP229R
March 14, 2012, 10:17 AM
I think it should be decided on a case by case basis. Like someone else already mentioned I have seen 50 year olds that had no business with any kind of agun let alone CC and then I have seen some younger people that are a lot more level headed than some older ones.

Gtimothy
March 14, 2012, 11:12 AM
It's a step in the right direction. Next is to do away with the permit altogether!
I agree

NavyLCDR
March 14, 2012, 11:51 AM
I think it should be decided on a case by case basis. Like someone else already mentioned I have seen 50 year olds that had no business with any kind of agun let alone CC and then I have seen some younger people that are a lot more level headed than some older ones.

And who do you propose makes that decision? Basically, it sounds like you are in favor of a "may issue" permit system where some government official gets to decide who gets a permit and who does not based upon their personal opinion and feelings.

NavyLCDR
March 14, 2012, 11:55 AM
Your brain does not physically mature until around 25 on average.

Absolutely not.

So we should raise the drinking age to 25? Tobacco age to 25? Driver's license to 25? Voting to 25? Military enlistment? Marriage? You mean I am going to have to be responsible for my daughter until she is 25? And to think I can't wait until she is 18 (and YOU tell her that everything that happens at 18 and 21 is going to have to wait until 25 now....I'm not going to!)

Why is firearm possession and carrying any different?

aeriedad
March 14, 2012, 12:09 PM
1. The Second Amendment states a right of citizens.
2. A citizen may vote at the age of 18.
3. The Second Amendment ought to apply to citizens at the age of 18.

Whether or not an 18-year old is mature enough to safely exercise the right to keep and bear arms was settled when we gave them the right to vote. The issue isn't whether ALL 18-year olds are mature, but whether our society recognizes them as responsible for their behavior. If they can vote in our society, then they can bear arms in our society. To argue otherwise undermines the rights of all citizens.

Old krow
March 14, 2012, 12:18 PM
It's extremely slippery slope this topic. RKBA is a right. At what age do rights start? Does the Constitution not apply until the brain is fully developed? Who's going to determine when my brain is fully developed and when I can "good" decisions?

If you ask an anti, they'll say that NO gun owner's brain is fully developed. Who sets this standard? Rights were not meant to be able to be taken away simply because someone else deemed that we didn't "need" something, or didn't "need" to do it.

I've been in the military for almost 20 years. In that time I've seen a lot of 18-20 year olds. Nushif is right, military guys tend to play a little harder than their average civilian counterpart. Does it matter? I don't know. I can tell you, the difference between this 18-20 year old and that 18-20 year old can be immeasurable. No 2 are alike and they mature at different rates. It's inconceivable to be think that we can implement a "one size fits all" solution and it not take away the rights of someone for whom it was perfectly safe.

Many of the people that I know in that age bracket, even the ones that grew up around guns, really don't want to concealed carry anyway. They've got other things on their minds. :rolleyes: Those that would give it more thought see it as more of a danger than the prevention thereof. This is of course from a military perspective and CCing is considerably more difficult for these young adults anyway, it should be of no surprise that the numbers would be low. As my own children have grown up and I see the same age bracket in the civilian world, I really haven't seen THAT big of a difference. They're typically ten foot tall and bullet proof with other things on their minds. I think that those that do want to CC are in a considerably smaller minority than the adults with "fully developed brains."

That small group of young adults that are CCing, or would, have at least acknowledged that there is a law, they've at least attempted to follow that law thus far, they're willing to pay for their permit, and at least become somewhat educated on the matter. I have no problems with them carrying a gun, those aren't the guns that I am worried about. Just remember, it's tough to get back a right that you willingly allows to take away from someone else. We should all tread carefully here.

Red October
March 14, 2012, 01:00 PM
^ Excellent post.
Not to get off topic here, but personally I think that having some age limits at 18 and others at 21 makes no sense. If you can join the military at 18, you should be able to buy and carry a handgun (concealed or otherwise). For that matter, I think you should be able to buy alcohol, too.
As for maturity, I know some people older than me who are less mature (or fit to carry a weapon) than some younger people I know.
As others have said before, that is really depends on the individual, and not so much on an arbitrary age.

Mr. D
March 14, 2012, 01:08 PM
In my opinion, no-one should be able to make the decision that someone is or is not mature enough to carry until that person has shown that they should NOT be allowed to carry. In other words, allow ANYONE (like Old Krow said, the constitution applies to everyone, no matter what their age) to carry. If they abuse the right, THEN take it away from them.

The default should be all rights allowed unless they need to be RESTRICTED, not all rights restricted unless ALLOWED by whatever arbitrary standard the government see fit to use.

~D

JustinJ
March 14, 2012, 02:54 PM
If one takes the position that concealed carry is a right all adults are entitled to by the second amendment then they must oppose restricting guns to people with mental disorders. The constitution does not exclude these people so if we're going by a strict literal interpretation paranoid schizophrenics would be allowed to carry so long as they have not committed a crime. I would hope that most would agree that such a position is far from pragmatic.

Also, the fact is there have been a number of concealed carriers, of all ages, who have made extemely poor decisions with their weapons. These incidents put the right to carry of everybody at risk. I have little doubt that the frequency of these incidents would be higher with people in the 18 to 21 age bracket. Enough bad incidents happen and we could all lose the right of legal carry so we should consider these things. In principle i do agree that every adult should be allowed to carry unless convicted of a crime or found to be mentally deficient but i believe there are certainly valid concerns with allowing 18 years olds to carry in the real world.

In regards to military and maturity i think that anytime a large group of unsupervised young men get together the pack mentality comes into play and they are much more open to poor decisions than in other situations.

aeriedad
March 14, 2012, 03:21 PM
If one takes the position that concealed carry is a right all adults are entitled to by the second amendment then they must oppose restricting guns to people with mental disorders. The constitution does not exclude these people so if we're going by a strict literal interpretation paranoid schizophrenics would be allowed to carry so long as they have not committed a crime. I would hope that most would agree that such a position is far from pragmatic.


The Constitution doesn't restrict persons guilty of murder from exercising their Second Amendment right either. Should we allow convicted felons to maintain the right to keep and bear arms too? Of course not. The Fifth Amendment says, "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Murder is a state crime, yet a murderer's civil rights are forfeit. It's no different for mental illness. Though not a criminal matter per se, due process of law is required when restricting the civil rights of those with mental disorders. It usually takes an order from a judge.

Besides, I don't think surviving the calendar for 18 years is the equivalent of having a mental disorder.


Also, the fact is there have been a number of concealed carriers, of all ages, who have made extemely poor decisions with their weapons. These incidents put the right to carry of everybody at risk. I have little doubt that the frequency of these incidents would be higher with people in the 18 to 21 age bracket. Enough bad incidents happen and we could all lose the right of legal carry so we should consider these things. In principle i do agree that every adult should be allowed to carry unless convicted of a crime or found to be mentally deficient but i believe there are certainly valid concerns with allowing 18 years olds to carry in the real world.

In regards to military and maturity i think that anytime a large group of unsupervised young men get together the pack mentality comes into play and they are much more open to poor decisions than in other situations.

Mr. D already answered this. I believe he has it right:
The default should be all rights allowed unless they need to be RESTRICTED, not all rights restricted unless ALLOWED by whatever arbitrary standard the government see fit to use.

~D

Old krow
March 14, 2012, 03:32 PM
I have little doubt that the frequency of these incidents would be higher with people in the 18 to 21 age bracket.

Is there any proof of this? Would you be willing to strip away someone's right because you "feel" that more shootings MIGHT happen? In fact, I'd be willing to bet you a Starbuck's coffee that this is NOT the case at all. There is data out there that suggests that the risks of a shooting are increased IF I own a gun at all. Should any of us be allowed to own them because that risk exists regardless of age, although it diminishes, never completely?

The answer is, it's not yours to take away from me, hence it is a right. I am free to exercise my rights. You may exercise your as you feel the need. In addition to the 2nd there are the 4th and 5th. How can someone be held accountable for a crime that has not happened and still expect to maintain the semblance of freedom?

As far as mental disorders go, it's can of worms that I'd rather not see opened. The reason being is that I think that there is a larger picture in the OP that should really be looked at in terms of how tolerance is related to liberty. However, there are certainly some good reason to prevent the ownership of firearms to certain people. I do not however believe that the ability to restrict them should be allowed without due process and the democratic process. There's a very distinct difference in the two categories of people though.

CountryUgly
March 14, 2012, 04:12 PM
Or if moving from an old residence to a new one,or taking it to a gunsmith for repairs. The good news is that there is pending legislation(HB-132) which,if passed,will remove car carry from the concealed permit requirement.
I hope this law passes and the current law also states that you can carry in the vehicle if you are travling to or from your place of business to your residence.

Lakeshore
March 14, 2012, 05:22 PM
I fully support the issuance of concealed carry permits to 18 year olds as long as they meet all the requirements of their particular state.

I disagree with an earlier poster who suggested that permits be issued on a case by case basis. That would only take us back to the bad old 'may issue' days.

laguna0seca
March 14, 2012, 05:29 PM
In Utah you can CC in a car at 18 with no permit. I would be more comfortable with issuing CCW permits to 18 year olds at they will at least have to sit through a class and hear the laws and restrictions.

.....and its good for business.

jimmyraythomason
March 14, 2012, 05:30 PM
That would only take us back to the bad old 'may issue' days. While I understand this sentiment,we(Al.)are still a "May issue"state and have no problem getting a CCW permit if able to pass the background check. Another reason for wanting a CCW besides on-person carry is the above mentioned vehicle carry even for transporting to and from a shooting range or hunting trip. Unless some-one has a CCW permit(as per current Al. law),they can only legally use a handgun with-in walking distance of their home.(I'm speaking only as it pertains to my state).

JustinJ
March 14, 2012, 06:51 PM
Is there any proof of this? Would you be willing to strip away someone's right because you "feel" that more shootings MIGHT happen? In fact, I'd be willing to bet you a Starbuck's coffee that this is NOT the case at all. There is data out there that suggests that the risks of a shooting are increased IF I own a gun at all. Should any of us be allowed to own them because that risk exists regardless of age, although it diminishes, never completely?

There is plenty of evidence showing that the age bracket in question has a much higher incidence of risky activity and crime. The question is not if there is a higher risk of shootings but a higher risk of unjustified shootings. Many laws infringe on individual rights in an attempt to serve the greater good. How one weighs the value of each varies from person to person.

Mr. D already answered this. I believe he has it right:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. D
The default should be all rights allowed unless they need to be RESTRICTED, not all rights restricted unless ALLOWED by whatever arbitrary standard the government see fit to use.

Mr. D has expressed an opinion as opposed to giving an answer. That statement is great on paper but in the real world irresponsible activity of individuals does in fact often result in a loss of liberty for the whole.

The Constitution doesn't restrict persons guilty of murder from exercising their Second Amendment right either. Should we allow convicted felons to maintain the right to keep and bear arms too? Of course not. The Fifth Amendment says, "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Murder is a state crime, yet a murderer's civil rights are forfeit. It's no different for mental illness. Though not a criminal matter per se, due process of law is required when restricting the civil rights of those with mental disorders. It usually takes an order from a judge.

Besides, I don't think surviving the calendar for 18 years is the equivalent of having a mental disorder.

Did i say being 18 is equivalent to having a mental disorder? No, so please don't put words in my mouth as doing so makes it harder for conversations to remain civil. The fifth amendment does not say that it applies only the federal crimes but i'm not sure how that is germane. The fifth amendment was written to protect people accused of crimes and whose property is to be taken for public use. If you want to stretch due process to include a judge taking away liberties based on mental capacity you may as well say congress passing a law is due process as well.

"nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

Vector
March 14, 2012, 07:08 PM
Exactly. I don't think the idea of issuing permits to 18 yr olds should be instantly discounted based on the fact there are immature 18 yr olds out there. There are immature 45 yr olds out there too....do we deny permits to ALL 45 yr olds based on the behavior of a small sample of them?

The point that many of us are making and presumably why the law exists is because there is a much higher % of immature 18 year old vs. 45 year olds.
Many studies have been done to show the immaturity level of people under 21 hence the reason many of our laws do not allow kids to do certain things like drink. Heck many rental car companies will not rent a car until you are 25, not to mention how expensive it is to get insurance for young adults under 25.

aeriedad
March 14, 2012, 07:20 PM
If one takes the position that concealed carry is a right all adults are entitled to by the second amendment then they must oppose restricting guns to people with mental disorders. The constitution does not exclude these people so if we're going by a strict literal interpretation paranoid schizophrenics would be allowed to carry so long as they have not committed a crime. I would hope that most would agree that such a position is far from pragmatic.

Did anyone say that a right to keep and bear arms for all adults is the same as a right to keep and bear arms for those with mental disorders? No, so please don't put words in anyone's mouth, as doing so makes it hard for conversations to remain civil.

The Fifth Amendment has a number of clauses. Though they are somewhat related, they do not strictly impose on one another. In a criminal case, a defendant may not be compelled to be a witness against himself. Also, no citizen may be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

JustinJ
March 14, 2012, 07:31 PM
Did anyone say that a right to keep and bear arms for all adults is the same as a right to keep and bear arms for those with mental disorders?

Actually, and i didn't accuse anybody of saying that. But i'll gladly clarify the point:

"If one takes the position that concealed carry is a right all adults are entitled to by the second amendment, then logic dictates that they must oppose restricting guns to people with mental disorders."


The semicolons of the fifth amendment clearly indicate to what situation due process is reffering to:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

AABEN
March 14, 2012, 07:52 PM
FIRST of all the form that you fill out to get any gun will remove a lot of people from getting any gun!! So I think it is good to have an 18 year old to get one. When you have one you will think twice before you do things! For you know that if you do it you can lose your permit for the rest of your life. This has keep me in line. Here in IN you can get your permit for life time.

Old krow
March 14, 2012, 08:56 PM
Many laws infringe on individual rights in an attempt to serve the greater good.

Which oddly enough is the mantra of the anti-gun movement. It's for the "greater good."

The question is not if there is a higher risk of shootings but a higher risk of unjustified shootings.

Risk is synonymous with inferential statistics at this point, meaning that it hasn't happened. You're bypassing due process to take someone's rights away for "the greater good."

Alabama is one of the few states that allows CCing at 18 years old. If there's so much data to suggest that a legally owned and permitted gun was used by an 18-20 year old, the data should be relatively easy to find?

If you're willing to strip someone's rights away because they're at a "risk", so be it, however, what's saving yours?

aeriedad
March 14, 2012, 09:04 PM
"If one takes the position that concealed carry is a right all adults are entitled to by the second amendment, then logic dictates that they must oppose restricting guns to people with mental disorders."


At this point, we're just going to disagree. Please refer to Post #38 (http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=8031368&postcount=38).

Also, Old krow has it right. You want to limit others' rights, but doing so undermines your own whether you realize it or not.

Tex4426
March 14, 2012, 09:41 PM
in Indiana you can concealed carry at 18..you cant purchase a firearm in your name till 21..in order to carry at 18 you have to have a firearm purchased in a parents name given to you as a gift

NavyLCDR
March 15, 2012, 12:34 PM
in Indiana you cant purchase a firearm in your name till 21..in order to carry at 18 you have to have a firearm purchased in a parents name given to you as a gift

Respectfully, you are mistaken. http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar47/ch2.html

IC 35-47-2-7
Prohibited sales or transfers of ownership
Sec. 7. (a) Except an individual acting within a parent-minor child or guardian-minor protected person relationship or any other individual who is also acting in compliance with IC 35-47-10, a

person may not sell, give, or in any other manner transfer the ownership or possession of a handgun or assault weapon (as defined in IC 35-50-2-11) to any person under eighteen (18) years of age.

Federal law and Indiana state law only prohibit the private sales of handguns to persons under the age of 18. Federal law only prohibts the transfer of a handgun to a person under the age of 21 BY FFLs and is applicable to FFLs only. An 18 year old person in Indiana can purchase a handgun "in their own name" from any other Indiana resident (so long as the other Indiana resident is not an FFL!)

JustinJ
March 15, 2012, 01:43 PM
Quote:
Many laws infringe on individual rights in an attempt to serve the greater good.

Which oddly enough is the mantra of the anti-gun movement. It's for the "greater good."

The greater good arguement is used to advocate a huge number of laws. Drugs, polygamy, prostitution, porn, decency laws, DUI, traffic laws, environmental laws, etc, etc, etc. Its not uniqe to gun control advocates.

Risk is synonymous with inferential statistics at this point, meaning that it hasn't happened."

Not exclusively. One doesnt always need direct statistics to realize an activity has a higher risk level than another. I don't need to see direct statistics of car crash survival rates with and without a seatbelt to realize its riskier to wear one.

Alabama is one of the few states that allows CCing at 18 years old. If there's so much data to suggest that a legally owned and permitted gun was used by an 18-20 year old, the data should be relatively easy to find?

Maybe, maybe not. If one can find the rates of unjustified shootings or brandishings by 18 year olds versus 25 year olds i'd love to see them. However, how long have 18 years old been allowed to carry? How many actually do? Is the number growing? As it becomes more popular will the types of young people carrying, such as people more casual about guns, change and will that affect the occurence of bad outcomes?

If you're willing to strip someone's rights away because they're at a "risk", so be it, however, what's saving yours?

Also, Old krow has it right. You want to limit others' rights, but doing so undermines your own whether you realize it or not.

Again, please don't put words in my mouth. All that i've done is point out valid concerns. In fact i already said this quite clearly in post #42. What i do know is that when guns are misused it provides ammunition to the gun control advocates as they have and will continue to use to try and limit gun rights for everbody. Every time there is a well publicized shooting it is immediately followed by calls for tighter gun control measures.

aeriedad
March 15, 2012, 02:54 PM
Again, please don't put words in my mouth. All that i've done is point out valid concerns.

So tell me plainly: Do your concerns rise to the level wishing to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms for law-abiding, mentally and socially healthy citizens under the age of 21?

Or has this whole discussion been merely hypothetical? If your concerns are valid, surely you can provide a few valid anecdotes of under-21, legally carrying citizens who have abused their trust. If you can't, then don't be surprised if a lot of people ignore the "validity" of your hypothetical concerns.

But even if you can, it just proves people sometimes do dumb things. It doesn't necessarily mean people that age cannot be trusted with their rights. I defer to the wisdom of one of our nation's greatest patriots:

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it." ~ Thomas Jefferson

Tex4426
March 15, 2012, 03:21 PM
Sheriff where I live at said that as long as the gun my brother was carrying was registared in a parents name there was no issue...it was bought from an ffl ..as for the rest of what u stated idk about that

NavyLCDR
March 15, 2012, 04:00 PM
=Tex4426Sheriff where I live at said that as long as the gun my brother was carrying was registared in a parents name there was no issue...it was bought from an ffl ..as for the rest of what u stated idk about that

And exactly what agencies do you register handguns with in Indiana? Indiana does not even have gun registration. Wow. That Sheriff has been watching too much CSI on TV.

JustinJ
March 15, 2012, 04:35 PM
So tell me plainly: Do your concerns rise to the level wishing to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms for law-abiding, mentally and socially healthy citizens under the age of 21?

I too defer to Jefferson: "He who knows best knows how little he knows."

Most people i know who quote founders only do so when convenient and pretty much discard all other quotes that are inconvenient to their point of view.

Anyways, if pressed i would agree that sub 18 year olds should be allowed to carry but i won't pretend not to have reservations.

Old krow
March 15, 2012, 06:38 PM
Again, please don't put words in my mouth.

I haven't put words into your mouth.

The greater good arguement is used to advocate a huge number of laws. Drugs, polygamy, prostitution, porn, decency laws, DUI, traffic laws, environmental laws, etc, etc, etc. Its not uniqe to gun control advocates.

Of course it is, however, this is a gun board. The mods would shut this down if we argued polygamy.

Not exclusively. One doesnt always need direct statistics to realize an activity has a higher risk level than another.

You should need very strong evidence to deny a right. Doesn't always work that way, but the 4th and 5th clearly indicate that our rights were not mean to be subject to speculation.

Maybe, maybe not. If one can find the rates of unjustified shootings or brandishings by 18 year olds versus 25 year olds i'd love to see them.

I do not have them, nor do I care look. That's the point of my argument. If you want to take away someone's right that are protected by the Constitution of the United States, there should be due process. The burden of proof would be on whomever wants to deprive those rights in the first place.

All that i've done is point out valid concerns. In fact i already said this quite clearly in post #42.

Of course you have. And I have voiced a valid concern.

Simply "feeling" or "thinking" that someone might commit a crime isn't enough. If that's the case, I feel like you're going to get in a wreck while texting and driving because the percentages are high. Please take your car to the local PD. :)

Tex4426
March 15, 2012, 07:55 PM
im all kinds of confused...one guy says this and then someone else says that..from what i understand if my dad(or someone else) gave my brother a handgun and he has a carry permit then he can carry it...but if my brother gave them money to buy it for him then its illegal


just trying to figure this stupid **** out for my brother...im 22 and can pretty much do anything i want so i dont know much about gun laws involving ppl under 21

Tex4426
March 15, 2012, 07:57 PM
as far as ppl wanting to ban handgun carry permits...show me numbers on ppl killed by ppl owning a permit compared to ppl killed by someone without

aeriedad
March 15, 2012, 08:11 PM
I too defer to Jefferson: "He who knows best knows how little he knows."

Most people i know who quote founders only do so when convenient and pretty much discard all other quotes that are inconvenient to their point of view.

First, you mean like you just did? Second, maybe I'm different than most people you know. Third, which of our founders opposed the 2nd Amendment? Got any quotes to back it up?

Anyways, if pressed i would agree that sub 18 year olds should be allowed to carry but i won't pretend not to have reservations.

Unless I've seriously misunderstood your earlier arguments, I think you mean "sub 21-year olds," not "sub 18-year olds." If I am mistaken, please forgive me. The last thing I want to do is put words in your mouth.

NavyLCDR
March 15, 2012, 10:04 PM
im all kinds of confused...one guy says this and then someone else says that..from what i understand if my dad(or someone else) gave my brother a handgun and he has a carry permit then he can carry it...but if my brother gave them money to buy it for him then its illegal

Yes, that is absolutely correct.


just trying to figure this stupid **** out for my brother...im 22 and can pretty much do anything i want so i dont know much about gun laws involving ppl under 21

The problem is that you are trying to figure it out. You won't be able to, because it makes no sense.

It is also completely legal for your brother (who is over 18 years old) to take his own money and buy a handgun from any other Indiana resident, no paperwork, no background check required. But, if your brother is under 21 years old it would be illegal for an FFL to sell that gun to him, even though there would be a background check done on your brother prior to the sale.

Prophet
March 16, 2012, 12:02 AM
I'm all for lowering the age to 18. Heck, I'm all for getting rid of the permit requirement altogether. Here in PA, you are permitted to OC at 18 with no permit. You are not permitted to CC or keep the pistol in your car without an LTCF which cannot be acquired until 21. My younger brother just turned 18 a few days ago, and I'll be turning 20 in a little more than a month. We live in a hillbilly village in Southern PA, so we can both OC from our place to our favorite hiking spots, etc. It's a REAL pain not being able to put or keep the pistol in your car or truck for the purpose of OCing elsewhere, especially when you've been familiar with firearms from a very young age. At least we are permitted to keep unloaded shotguns and rifles in our trucks. I keep a double barreled .410 behind the seat and some 3in buckshot shells in the dash and just hope and pray that I'll be able to reach and load it in time if I ever need it.

Vector
March 16, 2012, 03:02 AM
Obviously we have differing opinions as to whether 18 years olds should be able to carry on their person.
I guess the question I would ask of those who think they should, is at what age do you think it is appropriate for people to carry?
If it is ok for an 18 year old, why not a 16 year old since in some states they can be emancipated, marry and do other things typically reserved for those 18 and above.

aeriedad
March 16, 2012, 07:27 AM
If it is ok for an 18 year old, why not a 16 year old since in some states they can be emancipated, marry and do other things typically reserved for those 18 and above.

I see no productive purpose in playing such a game. The essence of my position is found in Post #38 (http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=8031368&postcount=38).

JustinJ
March 16, 2012, 10:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustinJ
I too defer to Jefferson: "He who knows best knows how little he knows."

Most people i know who quote founders only do so when convenient and pretty much discard all other quotes that are inconvenient to their point of view.

First, you mean like you just did? Second, maybe I'm different than most people you know. Third, which of our founders opposed the 2nd Amendment? Got any quotes to back it up?

My quote was tongue in cheek and to point out the irony of quoting a man who also said people who claim to know what is best don't know what they're talking about. I'm not saying the founders opposed the 2nd amendment. I was speaking in general. Fore example, if you want to quote jefferson do you also support no standing army, not allying with any other countries, slavery and find priests hostile to liberty? Jefferson is actually my favorite historical figure but, as with all people of the past, his actions and beliefs must be viewed with the realization that he lived in a very different world. And yes, you may be different than most people i know which is why i did not say "you" discard inconvenient beliefs of our founders. However, i think even Jefferson would agree that most people do:

"The moment a person forms a theory, his imagination sees in every object only the traits which favor that theory."

Unless I've seriously misunderstood your earlier arguments, I think you mean "sub 21-year olds," not "sub 18-year olds." If I am mistaken, please forgive me. The last thing I want to do is put words in your mouth.

Yes, you are correct, i meant to say sub-21.

Quote:
The greater good arguement is used to advocate a huge number of laws. Drugs, polygamy, prostitution, porn, decency laws, DUI, traffic laws, environmental laws, etc, etc, etc. Its not uniqe to gun control advocates.

Of course it is, however, this is a gun board. The mods would shut this down if we argued polygamy.

I'm not trying to argue those issues. I'm simply pointing out that claiming to fight for the greater good does not qualify nor disqualify a position.

You should need very strong evidence to deny a right. Doesn't always work that way, but the 4th and 5th clearly indicate that our rights were not mean to be subject to speculation.

Not always. For example, there is no statistical evidence showing that american citizens would use weapons of mass destruction. Doesn't mean we should wait for the statistics to form to outlaw them. No, i'm not equating 18 year olds with WMD's. But what qualifies as strong evidence? Again, there are mountains of evidence showing that 18s have lower impulse control, more likely to engage in risky activities, commit violence, etc. Its not direct evidence that they are more likely to misuse a concealed weapons but it is very strong indirect evidence.

Neverwinter
March 16, 2012, 10:38 AM
I see no productive purpose in playing such a game. The essence of my position is found in Post #38 (http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=8031368&postcount=38).

And yet your position in post 38 is applicable to age 16 in states where they are assumed to be sufficiently responsible for their actions to enter a marriage contract. The mentioned distinction of the age of voting is arbitrary and emotionally based if other state qualifiers of personal responsibility are not valid.

Sent from Tapatalk

hardluk1
March 16, 2012, 01:44 PM
For the guys here that are older then say 45 and have your own 18+ year olds, do you feel the 18 years old today tend to be less responsible or hold up to it as well as 20 years ago or 35 years ago. My view is many running around at 18+ years of age tend to not have a great work ethic and are not nearly as responsible as in a generation or two before. That is my problem with giveing all 18 year olds free run at a CC . Let them finish school first with a clean record with the law and court system. Look at it like driveing a car. Don't finish school and no drivers liecence till 21 years of age. Atleast it was here.

I am 56 and look at kids today and compare them to just a generation ago also my generation and I see a big difference in how the many deal with day to day life. So in my view if a 18year old joins the militart and does not get bounce from the military way of life before the inlistment time is up or completes high school first and has zero problems with the law and court system then an 18 year old out of high scholl has the right to apply to carry. Should be no different for anyone. No bums, no drop outs, no records. none. if there are juvunile issues then wait till 21 years old. You just have to carry your own weight and grow up. Stay working or going to collage, tax fileing and become a usefull member of society and all is fine. Carry away.. Tough veiw?? yes Got to hold some controls or keep it to 21 years of age.

NavyLCDR
March 16, 2012, 02:02 PM
My simple question is this: in states that allow 18 year old persons to carry handguns, either with or without a license, just where is the blood running in the streets? There must be, right?

If it is such a problem, then where are the shootings that prove it is a problem?

aeriedad
March 16, 2012, 02:46 PM
And yet your position in post 38 is applicable to age 16 in states where they are assumed to be sufficiently responsible for their actions to enter a marriage contract. The mentioned distinction of the age of voting is arbitrary and emotionally based if other state qualifiers of personal responsibility are not valid.

In what states does one need special permission from the government in order to vote at age 18? Obtaining a marriage license or gaining independence at age 16 is normally granted on a case by case basis, but any 18-year old may register to vote, providing they have not done anything to have their civil rights restricted (in which case they couldn't possess firearms anyway, no matter what their age).

The topic of marriage is not addressed in the Bill of Rights because it is correctly viewed as a matter for the states to decide. The right to keep and bear arms made it into the Bill of Rights precisely because it is a right of all citizens. If a state wants to allow any 16-year old to marry, no questions asked, what does that have to do with the Bill of Rights?

Also, under most circumstances, offenses committed by juveniles (i.e., under 18) are not part of their permanent record. Normally, except for capital offenses, juveniles are charged, tried and sentenced as juveniles. But it's the exceptions that prove the rule: At 18, citizens are responsible for their actions. If they are accountable as adults, their rights as adults should not be denied.

Finally, to your point. If a state were to decide that full rights of citizenship could begin at 16, there may not be anything in federal law to stop them. I don't know one way or the other because I'm not a lawyer and have no interest in the research necessary to figure it out right now. However, I would tend toward restricting 2nd Amendment rights to citizens aged 18 and above. It's instructive that the Militia Act of 1792 called for participation beginning at age 18.

I hope it is now plain why I did not want to play this game. The Militia Act of 1792 restricted membership to white males aged 18 to 45, but I do not support denying the right to keep and bear arms to women, other races or those older than 45. If I don't point that out clearly, someone will accuse me of bigotry. The Act is just a guide to when citizens should be ready defend themselves and their communities. Similarly, the right to vote at one time belonged only to male property owners. That does not mean I would deny the right to keep and bear arms to anyone not a male property owner. (Again, I must be clear lest someone accuse me falsely.) I use the voting age as a guide because voting is the most fundamental rite of citizenship, and because 18 is the most accepted age for holding adults accountable for their actions.

aeriedad
March 16, 2012, 03:03 PM
For the guys here that are older then say 45 and have your own 18+ year olds, do you feel the 18 years old today tend to be less responsible or hold up to it as well as 20 years ago or 35 years ago. My view is many running around at 18+ years of age tend to not have a great work ethic and are not nearly as responsible as in a generation or two before. That is my problem with giveing all 18 year olds free run at a CC . Let them finish school first with a clean record with the law and court system. Look at it like driveing a car. Don't finish school and no drivers liecence till 21 years of age. At least it was here.

I'm almost 43, have three sons (20, 18, and 15), two daughters (18 and 13). The three oldest are in college, all five have squeaky-clean records with the law. I have given all five instruction in basic weapons safety and marksmanship, and occasionally discuss personal safety, awareness, etc. I would support any one of them obtaining a CWP at 18 if SC so permitted them. I would simply hold more discussions with them about what it means to be an armed citizen. They are by no means perfect, but they are basically responsible and can take on the added responsibility of carrying concealed. They know they are accountable for their actions and will get no sympathy from me for taking that accountability lightly.

hardluk1
March 16, 2012, 05:32 PM
I don't say all should not. Your 18 and 20 year olds may do just fine and younger children should learn firearms basic handeling at a far younger age , but do you understand what i am say'n about so many kids with no direction in life no support at all and just seem to bum around and end up in a trouble life. They do not need a firearm period and a handgun , no, not till they grew up some and straightin out there lives. Fo r them ,turn 21then maybe.

JustinJ
March 16, 2012, 05:53 PM
Aren't criminal records sealed or expunged when one turns 18? If so how do states that allow 18 year olds to carry ensure there is no history of crime that would prevent 21 and plus from carry? With a 21 year old minimum there is at leats a three year period for the person to show they are not a criminal.

jimmyraythomason
March 16, 2012, 05:57 PM
at leats a three year period for the person to show they are not a criminal.
You mean they are guilty until proven innocent?

Old krow
March 16, 2012, 06:53 PM
Not always. For example, there is no statistical evidence showing that american citizens would use weapons of mass destruction.

That's a bit of a stretch don't you think? Aside from it being a hyperbola, the Constitution appoints Congress to be in charge of the Navy. If there would have been an Air Force then it would have assigned that to Congress as well. While some might actually disagree, WMDs fall outside of the scope of the 2nd.

I heard as funny story once, and it definitely applies here.

There was a lady that wanted to go for a boat ride with her husband. He had just gotten in from fishing and took a nap. She decided to go on her own. She took the boat out, anchored it, and laid down on the bow. A game warden approached her and asked her for her license. Since she didn't fish, she had never bought a license. The game warden told her that he would have to give her a ticket. She asked why and the game warden told her that it because she had all of the equipment necessary to fish, even though she had never fished. She replied fine, but, I'm filing sexual harassment charges when I return to shore. The game warden asked her why, he hadn't done anything. She replied, but you have all of the equipment.

That is my problem with giveing all 18 year olds free run at a CC . Let them finish school first with a clean record with the law and court system. Look at it like driveing a car. Don't finish school and no drivers liecence till 21 years of age. Atleast it was here.

Better idea, let's just require all citizens to undergo a class for conceal carry. The feds can administer it and decide if we're capable of handling a gun in a responsible manner. If not, we can all go grow up a little and come later. It clearly isn't enough for it to be decided at state level. Or, for the greater good, let's just raise the age to 25 since the human brain doesn't mature until then anyway. Better yet, since the risk of shooting will ALWAYS be higher if you own a gun, get rid of them altogether. There's more than enough evidence to support the notion that gun ownership increases the risk of shootings. That's really the only fair way to decide who gets to keep their rights as who does not.

aeriedad
March 17, 2012, 12:00 AM
Aren't criminal records sealed or expunged when one turns 18? If so how do states that allow 18 year olds to carry ensure there is no history of crime that would prevent 21 and plus from carry? With a 21 year old minimum there is at leats a three year period for the person to show they are not a criminal.

I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not looking it up, but I believe felonies by juveniles can still keep them from legally possessing firearms as adults. I'm even more sure this is the case when juveniles are tried as adults. Also, when a record is expunged, there may be a separate decision regarding the restoration of civil rights.

There are many more than three years' history of 18-year olds legally carrying in a number of states, such as AL and SD at the seriff's discretion, and in TX and GA for active duty. GA is also considering concealed carry for 18-year olds not on active duty. Undoubtedly there are others. This doesn't have to continue as a hypothetical discussion if you would just cite a few cases where 18-year olds have failed to carry responsibly when legally permitted to do so. And if you are able to do that, you still won't have a convincing argument until you also show that legally-carrying 18-year olds commit weapons violations at a significantly higher rate than older concealed carriers. In the meantime, this discussion remains highly hypothetical, and has therefore nearly exhausted my interest.

Neverwinter
March 17, 2012, 04:23 AM
I have given all five instruction in basic weapons safety and marksmanship, and occasionally discuss personal safety, awareness, etc. I would support any one of them obtaining a CWP at 18 if SC so permitted them. I would simply hold more discussions with them about what it means to be an armed citizen. They are by no means perfect, but they are basically responsible and can take on the added responsibility of carrying concealed. Why should they have to wait until 18 if they are already responsible enough before then? If we can try them for crimes as adults and allow them to marry before 18, it seems contradictory not to allow similar exemptions for CCW.

Sent from Tapatalk

Ankeny
March 17, 2012, 03:08 PM
My simple question is this: in states that allow 18 year old persons to carry handguns, either with or without a license, just where is the blood running in the streets? There must be, right? Wyoming went from shall issue to no permit required for concealed carry. So far, no running gun battles in the streets. There have been some discussions on lowering the age to 18, but I doubt it will fly. Personally, I wouldn't be worried about 18 yo carry.

NavyLCDR
March 17, 2012, 03:24 PM
Wyoming went from shall issue to no permit required. So far, no running gun battles in the streets. There have been some discussions on lowering the age to 18, but I doubt it will fly. Personally, I wouldn't be worried about 18 yo carry.

The age limit for open carry in Wyoming is already 18, and that is only be Federal law, not Wyoming law.

Ankeny
March 17, 2012, 04:08 PM
The age limit for open carry in Wyoming is already 18, and that is only be Federal law, not Wyoming law. I was addressing concealed carry because I thought that was the canon fodder for discussion. I'll go edit my previous post for clarification. FWIW, I don't recall of even one shooting incident involving a person 18-21 who was carrying open.

Vector
March 20, 2012, 01:11 AM
Wyoming went from shall issue to no permit required for concealed carry. So far, no running gun battles in the streets. There have been some discussions on lowering the age to 18, but I doubt it will fly. Personally, I wouldn't be worried about 18 yo carry.

Just as different kids mature differently, so does where you live have relevance. I suspect kids generally in Wyoming are more use to guns compared with kids in big cities. I know many a senior in HS that has never seen a real gun in person, much less shot one. Yet they play all these videos where yo u shoot first and ask questions later. Heck some video games reward you for killing.
So while these are generalizations I can tell you that many kids who are 16-18 with their hormones raging would not have the maturity to CC wisely.

Davek1977
March 20, 2012, 04:05 AM
while these are generalizations I can tell you that many kids who are 16-18 with their hormones raging would not have the maturity to CC wisely. Raging hormones aside, I know plenty of 50 yr old men I would deem too immature to carry responsibly. Age is a factor, but is far from the only one in determining responsibility. I'd trust my 13 yr old nephew to carry responsibly, but not my 60 yr old uncle. In terms of age, they are miles apart. Maturity-wise, they are too.....with the 13 yr old having a significant lead over the 60 yr old. While age-based permits are here to stay, you cannot judge maturity based on age. Because the system is less than perfect, I favor issuing permits to 18 yr olds, but also support revoking that permit for even the slightest of infractions until they turn 21 (minor in consumption, etc).

Vector
March 20, 2012, 11:05 AM
Raging hormones aside, I know plenty of 50 yr old men I would deem too immature to carry responsibly. Age is a factor, but is far from the only one in determining responsibility. I'd trust my 13 yr old nephew to carry responsibly, but not my 60 yr old uncle. In terms of age, they are miles apart. Maturity-wise, they are too.....with the 13 yr old having a significant lead over the 60 yr old. While age-based permits are here to stay, you cannot judge maturity based on age. Because the system is less than perfect, I favor issuing permits to 18 yr olds, but also support revoking that permit for even the slightest of infractions until they turn 21 (minor in consumption, etc).

Look I fully understand what you and others are saying regarding some 21+ year olds not being as trustworthy with CC as your 13 year old. Although 13 years olds might be better than teenagers going through puberty for that matter, if you know what I mean.

My point is that as adults many of us recognize that teenagers make dumb decisions and act before they think, if they think at all. That is why you might allow your kid to drive a car, but will not give him the keys to the Corvette until he is 21+. It is not that he cannot drive, but he might make poor decisions with dire consequences.
That is why I have played devils advocate and posed the question what makes 18 the magical number, instead of say, 16?
Heck all one needs to consider is the high % of 18 years olds that voted for Obama. If that does not show irresponsibility, I don't know what does. :D

As was discussed, insurance companies use actuarials that give 25 years olds huge discounts compared with 16-24 because of statistical analysis showing more responsible driving(i.e. less speeding, accidents, etc). Now that of course it not fair to some 18 year old drivers that obey the law and drive better than some 60 year olds. Still the %'s show that too many teens will get into accidents when compared with young adults who have time to become seasoned.

Lastly, I am not advocating 18 year olds not be able to shoot or own a gun, I am just saying CC has some added responsibility that many kids with raging hormones are not ready for.

Eric M
March 20, 2012, 02:01 PM
Well all I can say to that is criminals don't tend to care about your age and people can be hurt or killed all the same. I'd like the option to protect myself and my family.

aeriedad
March 20, 2012, 09:27 PM
My point is that as adults many of us recognize that teenagers make dumb decisions and act before they think, if they think at all. That is why you might allow your kid to drive a car, but will not give him the keys to the Corvette until he is 21+. It is not that he cannot drive, but he might make poor decisions with dire consequences....

As was discussed, insurance companies use actuarials that give 25 years olds huge discounts compared with 16-24 because of statistical analysis showing more responsible driving(i.e. less speeding, accidents, etc). Now that of course it not fair to some 18 year old drivers that obey the law and drive better than some 60 year olds. Still the %'s show that too many teens will get into accidents when compared with young adults who have time to become seasoned.

Lastly, I am not advocating 18 year olds not be able to shoot or own a gun, I am just saying CC has some added responsibility that many kids with raging hormones are not ready for.

Citizens that vote should be able to keep and bear arms. Nobody has a constitutional right to drive a car. Citizens that, by virtue of their age alone, will be charged as adults for any offense--whether felony or misdemeanor--should be able to keep and bear arms.

You can make the argument that under some circumstances a juvenile may be charged as an adult, and that the age of 18 for 2nd Amendment rights is therefore arbitrary, but I contend that those are special cases. The voting age is not arbitrary; voting is the most fundamental rite of citizenship.

You can make the argument that some states allow its citizens to get married at age 16, but those are special cases. The Constitution is silent on the matter of marriage because that is rightly the realm of states. If you think it's not a special case, consider what might happen if a state decided that no citizen may get married until the age of 21 or 25 or 30 or any other age. Many will argue that because citizens are accountable as adults at age 18, they cannot arbitrarily be denied a marriage license.

The 2nd Amendment is a right of all citizens in all states, and it is not a special case. Although some citizens at the age of 18 may mishandle their 2nd Amendment rights, they will be held accountable as adults. If a 16-year old carries illegally, and commits no more serious offense, he or she will likely be charged as a juvenile and not as an adult. His or her record will likely be expunged under most circumstances. If an 18-year old carries illegally, and commits no other offense, he or she will certainly be charged as an adult. The age of 18 is not arbitrary, but fairly well established in western legal traditions.

Lastly, when we say "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," we are not talking about a big furry mammal that leaves its share of excrement in the woods. We are talking about owning and carrying firearms. It's a right of citizens, and the traditional, lawful age of citizenship is 18.

shootniron
March 20, 2012, 10:02 PM
Georgia is changing its law for minimum age for a CCW from 21 to 18.

Legislation has been introduced to change the law...it ain't a done deal and probably will not be. Reading on Guns.com, the report said that the bill had been passed by the Senate and will move forward to the House for consideration. In other words, there are still hurdles that this has to clear before coming to a vote for passage.

Vector
March 20, 2012, 10:50 PM
Something I just heard on the radio which I have not confirmed yet, is that the SCOTUS is supposedly going to determine if teenagers who commit murder, can be put away for life. The argument will be based on scientific studies showing brain development is not finished until the mid 20's.

aeriedad
March 21, 2012, 11:00 AM
Something I just heard on the radio which I have not confirmed yet, is that the SCOTUS is supposedly going to determine if teenagers who commit murder, can be put away for life. The argument will be based on scientific studies showing brain development is not finished until the mid 20's.

Can you please explain how this story is relevant to the discussion here? Does the SCOTUS case consider ALL teenagers, or just those under 18?

If your point is that scientific studies of brain development should have some bearing on who may or may not exercise the right to keep and bear arms, I am unable to follow your logic. Thanks.

AABEN
March 22, 2012, 07:08 PM
Well looks like this has been a longe deal! And all kind of feed back!

3KillerBs
March 23, 2012, 02:22 PM
Well, you can die for your country at 18 and people seem to be fine with that...just saying.
That was my first thought too.

IMO, we should, as a society, pick one age to separate childhood irresponsibility from adult responsibility and hold it as a hard, bright line.

All the rights of adulthood should be granted on the same day, not dribbled out over the years from 16 to 25.

Vector
March 24, 2012, 12:17 AM
Can you please explain how this story is relevant to the discussion here? Does the SCOTUS case consider ALL teenagers, or just those under 18?

If your point is that scientific studies of brain development should have some bearing on who may or may not exercise the right to keep and bear arms, I am unable to follow your logic. Thanks.

The connection is that if genuine scientific studies show a lack of brain development to make rational decisions well enough to allow "kids" to not serve life sentences that commit murder, then that backs up what I and others are trying to point out.
Allowing an 18 year old to carry might very well lead to more shootings/death because an immature kid had a gun, shot first, and asked questions later.

That would also be bad for all shooters because it would give the liberal media more ammunition to demand stricter gun laws for everyone.
With another four years of Obama, rest assured every type of tragedy will be exploited. That combined wiuth more anti-2nd Amendment SCOTUS judges, and our rights will be gone faster than you think.

shootniron
March 24, 2012, 05:23 PM
The bill was amended to read that only military members 18-20yrs old can apply for the Georgia Weapons License and it appears that this will pass as it moves to the floor for a vote. Without being amended, it would have died in committee.

Mr. D
March 24, 2012, 06:32 PM
Well, that's at least a step (a mightily tiny step) in the right direction.

aeriedad
March 24, 2012, 08:04 PM
Something I just heard on the radio which I have not confirmed yet, is that the SCOTUS is supposedly going to determine if teenagers who commit murder, can be put away for life. The argument will be based on scientific studies showing brain development is not finished until the mid 20's.

Can you please explain how this story is relevant to the discussion here? Does the SCOTUS case consider ALL teenagers, or just those under 18?

If your point is that scientific studies of brain development should have some bearing on who may or may not exercise the right to keep and bear arms, I am unable to follow your logic. Thanks.

The connection is that if genuine scientific studies show a lack of brain development to make rational decisions well enough to allow "kids" to not serve life sentences that commit murder, then that backs up what I and others are trying to point out.

I asked a couple days ago wether the case before SCOTUS considers ALL teens, or just those under 18. I will now be more specific, and explain why it's an important question.

If SCOTUS is considering whether life sentences should be prohibited for 16- and 17-year olds, but not for 18-year olds, then you still need to explain why the case is relevant to this discussion. The question is whether 18-year olds can CCW, and my position is that it should be based on when the law holds them accountable as adults.

If the SCOTUS case (which you still haven't identified) is considering whether to prohibit life sentences for defendants aged 18-20, you might have a point. But if this is the case, leave aside the issue of CCW for a moment. How do you feel about 18-year old murderers who would otherwise be eligible for life sentences receiving lesser sentences because of a scientific study about brain development? I could support such a policy for younger teens, but our society has for centuries held 18-year olds accountable as adults. I think 18-year old violent felons should be eligible for any sentence available to 30-year old violent felons.

I would argue that limiting life sentences based on studies of brain development illustrates why many are reluctant to permit 18-year olds to CCW. It all comes down to personal responsibility and accountability. When we coddle kids from cradle to jail cell, they learn that society will excuse them for their bad behavior if there is a sad story to blame. Teens should understand that by age 18 society expects them to act like adults. However, when they aren't ready, it might be as much society's fault as it is the fault of teen brain development.

Anyway, getting a little off topic...

Please answer the question so we know whether the SCOTUS case you reference is relevant: "Does the case before SCOTUS consider ALL teens, or just those under 18?"

If it's just those under 18...so what? If it's limited to defendants under 18, the case tends to support my position more than yours. If the case you're referring to is this one...
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/03/should-teen-murderers-receive-life-without-parole/254667/
...then you are really making my point. Younger teens are legally different than those 18 and older. In the case I've referenced here, SCOTUS is not being asked to prohibit life sentences for 18-year olds.

If the case you reference includes defendants 18 and above, do you really want such special consideration for adult violent felons, based on a brain development study? I don't.

Besides, studies have found that most studies find the results sought by the studiers.

Allowing an 18 year old to carry might very well lead to more shootings/death because an immature kid had a gun, shot first, and asked questions later.

I'm not comfortable with the wiggle words "might very well lead..." in this case. Where's the blood in the streets in those states already allowing 18-year olds to carry concealed? That question should be answered before posing the hypothetical "might very well lead..." as a reason to limit the 2nd Amendment.

If you enjoyed reading about "CCW at 18?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!