"The US government’s prohibition on 18-to-20-year-olds buying handguns violates the Second Amendment

After our last "governor", I am glad to see things turning around in VA, albeit slowly (only control 2/3). Our current "universal background check" coupled with 18-20 YO handgun rights was at odds, now under injunction. Still gotta watch when you cross county lines. I miss preemption...

It appears that the courts are taking baby steps to restore the Militia Clause (of the 2nd Amendment), after its "decoupling" by Justice Scalia in the Heller case. In general this is a good thing.

Even the current definition of the "unorganized militia" in 10 U.S.C. section 246 starts with age 17. And of course, the militia of 1791 was broader than the current definition.

From a policy standpoint, though, it makes sense to restrict sales of certain weapons to those at least age 21. It seems that those under 21 are responsible for a disproportionate share of gun misuse. Heck, maybe even raise the age to 25, since psychologists tell us that the brain doesn't fully mature until that age.

I don't know how you would reconcile these two conflicting ideas.

Maybe we need something like a "learner's permit" for guns, as we do for drivers' licenses. Have a "responsible adult" backstop the minor.

And, sadly, there's a Bill in the Texas House to raise the age for "ARs" from 18 to 21. For Reasons.

Letters and phone calls are already underway on that issue.

If a person can wage war for our country, they deserve a reasonable opportunity for owning firearms.

However, some folks under 21 are probably not ready for gun ownership. Gun ownership becomes higher risk for misuse or abuse with centerfire repeating (revolver or semi-auto) handguns and centerfire magazine fed semi-auto rifles.

Laws requiring a higher level of training and possibly assessment might make sense. Trying to find the "secret sauce" with respect to training and assessment is probably beyond our current government.

"However, some folks under 21 are probably not ready for gun ownership."

I hate this argument.
Some folks under 21 are not ready for a driver license, but they can legally get one.
Where does it stop? Once a person reaches "adult" age, whatever that age may be, that should be the end. Why aren't we requiring gun ownership to cease when a person reaches a certain age? Kind of the same thing isn't it?
The argument of "some people aren't ready for xxxx" just doesn't fly IMO.

AlexanderA said:

From a policy standpoint, though, it makes sense to restrict sales of certain weapons to those at least age 21. It seems that those under 21 are responsible for a disproportionate share of gun misuse. Heck, maybe even raise the age to 25, since psychologists tell us that the brain doesn't fully mature until that age.

Click to expand...

And passing more laws has been so effective in controlling the behavior of criminals who break laws thus far.
Don’t we already have laws saying you can’t shoot people? Why do you think yet another law will make a difference?

AlexanderA said:

From a policy standpoint, though, it makes sense to restrict sales of certain weapons to those at least age 21. It seems that those under 21 are responsible for a disproportionate share of gun misuse. Heck, maybe even raise the age to 25, since psychologists tell us that the brain doesn't fully mature until that age.

Click to expand...

Well then we would need to logically follow that along and also limit operating a motor vehicle, and no military service until 25 as well. Because brain development.

Ignorance is curable at nearly any age. Idiocy, incompetence and flagrant disregard for life and property are individual traits that would still be there at 25.

and if you eliminate gang related activity from whatever stats your getting, the argument falls flat on its face.

I know! Let's mandate responsible parenting!

Or just mandate a 20 year consecutive mandatory sentence with no parole separate from the crime penalty for use or possession of a deadly weapon while committing a felony.

My favorite part was the government arguing that 18-21 year olds could just get their parents to do a straw purchase.

I was at the LGS the other day. A fellow wanted to look at a handgun. The owners son was working the counter. He could not take it out of the display to show the customer. He's not 21. I thought that was stupid. But they don't want to loose their FFL. The young man did not know the guy either. Heck he could have been from the ATF. He told me.

scott511 said:

The argument of "some people aren't ready for xxxx" just doesn't fly

Click to expand...

Exactly. Most 21 year olds are not ready to handle alcohol; ask LE in any college town. Males under 25 account for a disproportionate number of automobile accidents, but we give them a license at 16. The Congress,, having declared that 18 is the age of adulthood, have conferred upon them all the rights and privileges appertaining thereto. A Right is not subject to qualification or it is not a Right. "I support the Second Amendment, but..." has been the justification for every gun control law passed in the last 60 years. There is no "but"; there is only "Yes, I do" or "No, I don't."

AlexanderA said:

It appears that the courts are taking baby steps to restore the Militia Clause (of the 2nd Amendment), after its "decoupling" by Justice Scalia in the Heller case. In general this is a good thing.

Even the current definition of the "unorganized militia" in 10 U.S.C. section 246 starts with age 17. And of course, the militia of 1791 was broader than the current definition.

From a policy standpoint, though, it makes sense to restrict sales of certain weapons to those at least age 21. It seems that those under 21 are responsible for a disproportionate share of gun misuse. Heck, maybe even raise the age to 25, since psychologists tell us that the brain doesn't fully mature until that age.

I don't know how you would reconcile these two conflicting ideas.

Maybe we need something like a "learner's permit" for guns, as we do for drivers' licenses. Have a "responsible adult" backstop the minor.

Click to expand...

Reconciling the chasm is actually an easy thing to do that is among a laundry list of needs that have been removed from the school systems. Kids don’t learn the basics of life anymore. Teach them to do the basics… wash a load of laundry, cook a meal, balance a check book, make a firearm safe, change a flat tire, build a campfire without matches and kerosene, change a diaper, do basic first aid put a chain back on a bike… all of these things are very valuable life lessons that are totally lost on our young folks in favor of a whole bunch of stuff that truthfully makes not a single lick of difference after the grades are turned in for the semester.

Specific to the firearms portion, kids today are taught to treat a gun as they would a rattlesnake. If you find one, point and scream in fear but keep a solid 8 or 10 ft distance or else it might bite. This way of teaching and thinking demonizes the item (gun) just the same as the rattlesnake which has been demonized pretty thoroughly since the first human stumbled across ol shakytail. It’s fine to do the rattlesnake thing sometimes and preserve evidence or some such, but there are times where it would be more advisable to make the weapon safe and secure. Find a gun at school… do we want 30 3rd graders pointing at it like a rattlesnake until the 1 kid gets brave enough to go play with it, or do we want 5th grader brother Billy to have the class go sit down while he points the gun at the ground and clears the chamber then puts the gun on the teachers desk while Susie goes to get the principal or SRO? Not a perfect scenario, but most aren’t. Or maybe grandpa passed away and we find a gun in his home, very basic info will help keep things safe for the family.

Shanvanvocht said:

The Congress,, having declared that 18 is the age of adulthood, have conferred upon them all the rights and privileges appertaining thereto

Click to expand...

I’m not sure this has actually happened, I know here in AL legal adult is 19, not 18. So I’ve always assumed (I know) it was entirely a state issue. If it is a state issue wouldn’t they as a result be able to distribute rights incrementally As well? As they can define adulthood any way they want. Not that they should.

Also I really don’t see how the legal argument ultimately has anything to do with guns. It seems to me the argument is “_______ is a right, regardless of age” and the blank could be anything that has been declared a constitutional right in it.

I don’t see this hold up to be honest. Maybe I’m wrong. Time will tell I suppose. I’m no lawyer and therefore I’m well aware I really have no idea what I’m talking about legally.

Certainly, a resurrection of the unorganized militia throughout the US could help instill responsible firearms handling and help improve mature behavior in young men from the age of 17 on.

Local community organizations such as churches, DAV or VFW chapters, local municipal governments or elected sheriffs could conduct state approved proper firearms training. Proper military training could also be done (provided state law allows it).

Within ten years, a new generation of citizens would be ready to defend their country and the Constitution.

Note that this does not address the current specific demographic portion of men under 25 that is driving the irresponsible firearms incidents that occur throughout the US on a daily basis. That might require a different action plan.

Anyway, how can anyone consider restricting access to firearms for men under 21 if they recall the millions of young men in the last hundred years who entered the military in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, picked up a rifle and fought. How do you say these men were OK and responsible but current young men are not?

Not only is history against anti-second amendment advocates, but so common sense and rational reasoning.
But then again, that has no bearing on the desire to control every aspect of the lives of ordinary Americans.

jerkface11 said:

My favorite part was the government arguing that 18-21 year olds could just get their parents to do a straw purchase.

Click to expand...

A bona fide gift is not a straw purchase.

As points of reference, I use my own experience in owning guns at a young age:

By age 17, I had 3 bolt guns (milsurps).
I got my first handgun (a 1911) at age 22.
And my first AR-15 at age 23 (in 1968).
And my first machine gun (a Thompson) at age 30.

At each of these stages, the restraining factor was not a formal age requirement, but simply having enough disposable money.

All I can say to young guys today is this: patience is a virtue.

Excellent news - was the ruling instantly stayed, though? Does this apply only to Virginia?
When I turned 18 I referred to myself as "an adult on probation for three years."

I had full access to my own .38 revolver at 14, plus any number of rifles and shotguns. I received a CZ-52 for my 18th B-Day. I filled out my own 4473 for a SKS just after HS graduation and MAK-90 soon after. My number of armed citizen "duty hours" between 14 and 21 was very high. I oppose ANY distinction that young adults are automatically incapable of responsible firearms purchase, ownership, possession, carry and use just because of the actions of various degenerates who happen to be the same age range. The fact that such attitudes are promoted here on THR, especially by significantly older members, is troubling.

AlexanderA said:

A bona fide gift is not a straw purchase.

Click to expand...

Just be sure to check question 8 “Check if any part of this transaction is to facilitate a private party transfer”

CapnMac said:

And, sadly, there's a Bill in the Texas House to raise the age for "ARs" from 18 to 21. For Reasons.

Letters and phone calls are already underway on that issue.

Click to expand...

I already let my Represenative know. It's pandering by politicians. It is unconstitutional.

CoalCrackerAl said:

I was at the LGS the other day. A fellow wanted to look at a handgun. The owners son was working the counter. He could not take it out of the display to show the customer. He's not 21. I thought that was stupid. But they don't want to loose their FFL. The young man did not know the guy either. Heck he could have been from the ATF. He told me.

Click to expand...

Yet you can bartend at 18 but can't drink until 21.no sense.

AlexanderA said:

A bona fide gift is not a straw purchase.

Click to expand...

And that’s not what the atf argued.

AlexanderA said:

It seems that those under 21 are responsible for a disproportionate share of gun misuse.

Click to expand...

Considering that's the age range of the majority of gang bangers, that makes sense. This discounts that persons of any age who jump through legal hoops to obtain firearms are statistically unlikely to commit violent crimes. If we haven't taught our children to be respectful and responsible by the time they turned 18, it's our fault.