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

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 was married before I turned 18. It's amazing all the things you're allowed to do at 18. Marry, buy a car, buy a house, have children, join the military.

You can accidentally kill someone with a gun. But do you realize how easy it is to kill a baby? Just lay them down on the wrong side or on a thick blanket, or leave small things around for them to choke on. And having children is almost impossible to regulate.

Life has never been safe, and can't be legislated into safety. People need to get over that.
 
Last edited:
Life has never been safe, and can't be legislated into safety. People need to get over that.

One only has to look at Laws administered by the NHTSA and the resulting reduction in fatalities and injuries, to dispel this myth. 50+ years ago when I was in High School. my state mandated Hunter Safety for anyone buying a hunting license. Hunter fatalities and injuries in the field were reduced dramatically. Heck, I bet the steps in your house are controlled by law for safety reasons as well as the construction of said house. Blanket statements are never the answer when it comes to debate.

As for the restrictions on young adults and the purchase of handguns, it's been around as long as the mandate for Hunter Safety in my state. My opinion is that it has not seriously impeded anyone their right(at least in my state) to own a handgun since ownership age for a handgun is 18, same as for a long gun. At 69 years of age, I am still required to show my ID when buying .22 ammo. Don't make me upset, only slightly offended......;)
 
One only has to look at Laws administered by the NHTSA and the resulting reduction in fatalities and injuries, to dispel this myth. 50+ years ago when I was in High School. my state mandated Hunter Safety for anyone buying a hunting license. Hunter fatalities and injuries in the field were reduced dramatically. Heck, I bet the steps in your house are controlled by law for safety reasons as well as the construction of said house. Blanket statements are never the answer when it comes to debate.

As for the restrictions on young adults and the purchase of handguns, it's been around as long as the mandate for Hunter Safety in my state. My opinion is that it has not seriously impeded anyone their right(at least in my state) to own a handgun since ownership age for a handgun is 18, same as for a long gun. At 69 years of age, I am still required to show my ID when buying .22 ammo. Don't make me upset, only slightly offended......;)

I guess where you lose me with that one is where you're equating a privilege like a hunting license with a civil right like firearms ownership. And you're also equating a prohibition with a training requirement.

Yeah, I suppose a right isn't "seriously impeded" as long as you can still ask your mommy to buy one for you.

Assuming of course, you didn't leave the state your mommy lives in, then it's a felony.

"As for the restrictions on young adults and the purchase of handguns, it's been around as long as the mandate for Hunter Safety in my state."

I dont care how long it's been wrong. Our Republican legislature has made it illegal for anyone under 21 to purchase any gun, even long guns. If it's law long enough, that makes it okay?

Because 21 years old is too young to handle any kind of life or death responsibility. That's why we need mandatory abortions under 21. Because someone who isn't old enough to understand which end of the gun a bullet comes out of sure as hell can't be trusted to raise a child.

Legislate that.
 
Last edited:
A bona fide gift is not a straw purchase.
True, if the end recipient is NOT prohibited from making the purchase themselves. In this case, the end recipient IS prohibited from making the purchase of the handgun themselves because of their age.

straw pur·chase
[straw purchase]
NOUN
US ENGLISH
  1. a criminal act in which something, especially a firearm, is bought by one person on behalf of another who is legally unable to make the purchase themselves.
Per the ATF:
In its 1992 FFL Newsletter, ATF explained that a straw purchase occurs when the actual buyer uses another person (“straw purchaser”) to execute the Form 4473 purporting to show that the straw purchaser is the actual purchaser of the firearm. In some instances, the actual purchaser is within one of the prohibited categories of persons who may not lawfully acquire firearms, such as a felon, or a resident of a State other than that in which the licensee’s business premises is located.

Or in this case, someone under 21 who may not lawfully purchase a handgun.
 
Considering that it's the Democratic party's position that 18 year olds are not mature enough to:
Buy alcohol
Buy handguns or "assault weapons"
Be responsible for their student debt

The obvious solution is to raise the age of majority to 21.
Including voting, which is why the Democrats will never do it.
 
Considering that it's the Democratic party's position that 18 year olds are not mature enough to:
Buy alcohol
Buy handguns or "assault weapons"
Be responsible for their student debt

The obvious solution is to raise the age of majority to 21.
Including voting, which is why the Democrats will never do it.

Yep, some who advocate for those things also have advocated to lower the voting age to 16
 
True, 18 - 20 in the military can go to war with guns. They have been trained in the use and discipline.

On the other hand, non military youngsters don't have that training and discipline, and the preponderance of mass actions are caused by shooters on that age group.
 
One only has to look at Laws administered by the NHTSA and the resulting reduction in fatalities and injuries, to dispel this myth. 50+ years ago when I was in High School. my state mandated Hunter Safety for anyone buying a hunting license. Hunter fatalities and injuries in the field were reduced dramatically. Heck, I bet the steps in your house are controlled by law for safety reasons as well as the construction of said house. Blanket statements are never the answer when it comes to debate.

As for the restrictions on young adults and the purchase of handguns, it's been around as long as the mandate for Hunter Safety in my state. My opinion is that it has not seriously impeded anyone their right(at least in my state) to own a handgun since ownership age for a handgun is 18, same as for a long gun. At 69 years of age, I am still required to show my ID when buying .22 ammo. Don't make me upset, only slightly offended......;)

What part of the United States Constitution enumerates your God given right for the stair rise of your pleasing or to hunt game? What license or training course is necessary to obtain any other God given rights enumerated in the United States Constitution after the age of majority?
 
True, 18 - 20 in the military can go to war with guns. They have been trained in the use and discipline.

On the other hand, non military youngsters don't have that training and discipline, and the preponderance of mass actions are caused by shooters on that age group.

I fail to see the relevance of the number of youths perpetrating mass shootings as a means to endorse selectively infringement upon rights. You can use selective statistics as a justification for any sort of immoral infringement upon rights. This is exactly the purpose of our system of government, to disallow the mob majority from inflicting their will on the minority. The 25-29 year old age block is actually the statistically most homicidal. Should we should restrict that age group from owning guns? Whites commit more mass shootings than other races, what should we do there? Stats show that more blacks have committed homicides than other races, how about there? Also men are ~4 times as likely to murder, what should we do there? Any selective application of rights is immoral and using race, age (once reached age of majority), gender, religion, etc are all bad reasons to restrict restrict human rights.
 
It’s the logical next step. Either you are an adult citizen with all rights and responsibilities, or you are not.

Another argument is, as one enters into adulthood progressively, they should also gain rights progressively. Now, do I think the US government is anywhere near competent enough to do that, not hardly.

While I personally like the idea, I don’t the reality would ever be reasonably possible.
 
I was pretty sure that the US government does not prohibit 18-20 year olds from buying handguns. Where is that prohibition? I understood that it prohibited FFL's from selling handguns to 18-20 year olds. What is the real issue at stake here? Overturning a federal prohibition on buying, or re-regulating FFL's?
 
Another argument is, as one enters into adulthood progressively, they should also gain rights progressively. Now, do I think the US government is anywhere near competent enough to do that, not hardly.

While I personally like the idea, I don’t the reality would ever be reasonably possible.

It’s an interesting option, but I can’t imagine determining the order or progression would be easy to find agreement on.
 
It’s the logical next step. Either you are an adult citizen with all rights and responsibilities, or you are not.
It's not illogical to have a phased system where certain rights and responsibilities kick in as you reach certain ages. It's not like a lightbulb goes off on your birthday, and suddenly you are an adult.

You are looking for consistency when life isn't consistent.
 
It's not illogical to have a phased system where certain rights and responsibilities kick in as you reach certain ages. It's not like a lightbulb goes off on your birthday, and suddenly you are an adult.

You are looking for consistency when life isn't consistent.

Again, how do you rank rights in importance to be achieved gradually? Who determines it? Since when do given rights have a hierarchy?

Do you push military service to the end since it’s the most demanding and dangerous adult option?

If you don’t, then how can you say that any 18 year old serving in the armed forces is not eligible for any other rights given to an American adult when they are risking their lives?
 
I was pretty sure that the US government does not prohibit 18-20 year olds from buying handguns. Where is that prohibition? I understood that it prohibited FFL's from selling handguns to 18-20 year olds. What is the real issue at stake here? Overturning a federal prohibition on buying, or re-regulating FFL's?

I checked and the ruling has to do with the federal ban on federally licensed sellers, not buyers. So, the title of this thread is flawed and in serious error.
 
AlexanderA said:
A bona fide gift is not a straw purchase.
True, if the end recipient is NOT prohibited from making the purchase themselves. In this case, the end recipient IS prohibited from making the purchase of the handgun themselves because of their age.
I would quibble with this on two grounds:
First, in a gift situation, the donor is the "actual purchaser" and the "end recipient." The purchase transaction is separated from the later gift transaction. Unlike in a straw purchase situation, the donor is not acting at the behest of the donee.
Secondly, an 18-year-old is only prohibited from buying a handgun from an FFL dealer. He is not prohibited from buying (or receiving a gift) from an unlicensed individual (in the same state) or from possession of a handgun in general.
 
What part of the United States Constitution enumerates your God given right for the stair rise of your pleasing or to hunt game? What license or training course is necessary to obtain any other God given rights enumerated in the United States Constitution after the age of majority?
The Constitution doesn't use the term "God-given" rights. (It was, after all, drafted by lawyers.) That's left to the Declaration of Independence, which is non-binding (no legal force and effect). And we should avoid that term anyway. If a right is God-given, that means we can relax and let God take care of it. No, every single human right had to be wrested by force from rulers reluctant to give it up. The same rulers who claimed a "divine right" to rule.
 
Funny, at the same time, Progressives are arguing that people under 25 shouldn't be held responsible for crimes they commit because the brain isn't fully formed and aware of right and wrong before that age.

In colonial times, 18 years olds had guns on the farm and frontier - maybe 16 year olds and 14 year olds too. The law required membership in the militia by men with ages starting at something like 16-18, and the judge in this case has generalized this to say 18. But while younger males were generally not required join the militia, in many cases they were allowed (and no one checked ages carefully in those days, when the record medium was the family bible and not a birth certificate). Some members of the militia - drummer boys, standard bearers, runners, ammo bearers -- could be quite young, so was the judge's settling on the age of 18 flawed?

Do you think the SCOTUS decision is a little too literal? We have many laws that set ages for certain rights and privileges - marriage, voting, driving and drinking being a few examples - that we did not have in colonial times. No one has argued, well, there is no age set in the Constitution for the following things and there were no laws against these things in colonial times, so 10 year olds should be allowed to get a sex change operation or have an abortion without parental consent or drive a car or get married if they want to.

I suspect 18 year olds in colonial times were more mature than 18 year olds today. Half the U.S. population under age 30 lives in their parents' homes today. I am pretty sure maturity and responsibility have taken a real hit, compared to the early days of the Republic.

But is there a right age for these things? Most states dropped the drinking age to 18 back in the 1970s and 1980s using the same argument as some are using about guns today -- if you can be drafted at age 18, you should be able to drink a beer at 18 (although you can join up at 17). But almost every state has raised the drinking age to 21 because, quite frankly, 18-21 year old kids don't do well drinking in bars and driving home (and auto accident statistics proved that). Some very responsible 18 year olds who would never get drunk or drink and drive lost the "right" to drink (until they turn 21) because of that reversion. On the other hand, the voting age of 18 is pretty universal now, although it was 21 when I first voted -- although the consensus seems to be, at least for now, that 16 might be too young to vote. If San Francisco lowers the age to 16, will someone argue that 14 is better? Or 12? Etc.

And if we consider the law in general, we set ages that make a huge difference in the application of juvenile law and adult law, in order to protect young people based on the presumption they are not fully responsible for their actions. And we generally do not allow young people -- below 18? -- to sign contracts and take on financial obligations, to protect them from predators and from making bad decisions. These sorts of restrictions were in place in early days and seem to be holding up today.
 
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.

Ironically, those are the people liberals want to release from prison.
 
Back
Top