CCW at 18?

[aeriedad]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

=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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[JustinJ]

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]

I see no productive purpose in playing such a game. The essence of my position is found in Post #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]

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]

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]

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.