18 year olds and hand guns.

[Old Fuff]

It may have better overall results. Yet when dealing with issues like firearms, it has its own implications.

I won't argue with your theory or opinion, but what is more important is experience (sometimes called a "track record.")

The fact is that in those states, for example Arizona, the record clearly indicates that when allowed to buy and carry handguns, the age group consisting of between 18 and 21 do not cause any special problems, above or beyond those found in older age groups. If this wasn't true the respective legislatures would have moved the age limit back to 21 - or older. Obviously that hasn't happened.

 

[Old Fuff]

You can always find a few examples - good or bad - to support a point of view. But what matters is the overall picture, not a selected part of it. The real problem is that in most places the 18 to 21 age group hasn't been alowed to even make a database. Too many have decided that they already know how the majority of these young adults will behave, so further argument is unnecessary.

At first this was the case in Arizona, but time presented a surprise. Now I don't think anyone - at least in the rural areas - even thinks about it.

 

[Noah]

I am turning 18 in a few weeks here in Ohio, and I think it's a real shame I am prohibited by State law from possessing a handgun or buying one privately. I honestly think all hand gun purchases should be legal at 21, but from age 18-21 can be bought and carried/possessed with a legal guardian's signature. Long guns bought and possessed at 16 with a legal guardian's signature. Bought w/o guardian at 18.

 

[JPG19]

Noah - Who exactly is the legal guardian of a legal adult? This makes no sense at all. If you're an adult at 18, then legally, you are your own guardian.

 

[tomg303]

I'm almost positive that in the state of Idaho it is legal for an 18yo to purchase a handgun in a private sale but you might have a tough time finding someone who will sell one to you.

 

[tomg303]

Concealed carry is 21 though unless you get special permission.

 

[Sentryau2]

there lays the problem. Laws lump together a group of people who having nothing in common. Jumping to judge someone is never a good idea when you know nothing about that person. Thats why my idea with the whole sheriff ordeal would prevent that (most likely right?), without giving the liberals a heart attack or reason to throw a tantrum. but @ Averageman they are legally an adult (that is why they bring up the whole "im old enough to go to war" conversation), responsible or not and I doubt an irrisponsible 21 year old is any better off with a hand gun then an 18 year old.

 

[Texan Scott]

I was a married father of one and a homeowner at 18. Does that mean I was mature? Is ANYONE at 18? Were we all magically changed in three years?

Well, how about 30? Is that mature enough? Not for some of the guys I know!

How about a simple, objective standard? If you're old enough to have adult responsibilities, or be prosecuted as an adult for adult crimes, you should be old enough for adult rights and privileges.

Will some younguns screw it up? Yeah, some will. But until they do, the get the benefit of the doubt; then, if they need it, they get the BIG BOY paddle.

Welcome to the adult world, young man. Do right. Make the rest of us proud.

 

[JPG19]

there lays the problem. Laws lump together a group of people who having nothing in common. Jumping to judge someone is never a good idea when you know nothing about that person. Thats why my idea with the whole sheriff ordeal would prevent that (most likely right?), without giving the liberals a heart attack or reason to throw a tantrum. but @ Averageman they are legally an adult (that is why they bring up the whole "im old enough to go to war" conversation), responsible or not and I doubt an irrisponsible 21 year old is any better off with a hand gun then an 18 year old.

I can see your line of thinking, but strongly disagree with it. Perhaps I'm less trusting of anyone representing the government, whether they are an unelected police officer or an elected sheriff. Handing someone enough power to regulate and dictate who is protected by the Second Amendment of the Constitution sounds like a really bad idea to me. The thing that seems to be largely ignored in this discussion is the fact that criminals, yes even underage or 18-20 y.o. criminals, will get a handgun or sawed-off long gun regardless of what the law says, should they so desire.

This whole notion of becoming an "adult" at some arbitrary age selected by a pinhead with no discernible skills (hence they entered politics) is just asinine to me. As many here have pointed out, just exactly what age is maturity bestowed upon oneself? Of course, there is no correct answer. Voting rights should be extended to those whom own land/property, are serving/have served in the military, etc. (or some other means). This would prevent the masses of poor from continuously voting themselves benefits and monies that are taken from those whom contribute to society. I know this idea will leave a bad taste in some mouths due to our history of property rights (or lack thereof) but something along these lines makes much more sense to me.

Lastly - does the current set of laws prohibiting the purchase and carry of handguns by those under 21 not say that their lives are less valuable and therefor undeserving of protection/the means to self defense? It sure does to me. Just as the elitists on the left see their lives as more valuable and worthy of armed protection while ours are not, these laws state that a minor's life is undeserving of protection and that only upon turning 21 do they matter enough to be able to defend themselves. It's pretty disgusting, really.

 

[Officers'Wife]

I won't argue with your theory or opinion, but what is more important is experience (sometimes called a "track record.")

The fact is that in those states, for example Arizona, the record clearly indicates that when allowed to buy and carry handguns, the age group consisting of between 18 and 21 do not cause any special problems, above or beyond those found in older age groups. If this wasn't true the respective legislatures would have moved the age limit back to 21 - or older. Obviously that hasn't happened.

Unfortunately in the eyes of many the problem isn't violence but the fact 18 year old have handguns. At Fort Campbell my hubby and a 1st Sergent were talking about troops. The 1st made the comment that his seven "California boys" were running around Kentucky with M-16's yet wouldn't be allowed to buy a sidearm at home.

On the home front, I've seen 17 and 18 year olds that if they were carrying heavy machine guns I would shrug and move on. I can mention a couple of 50 year olds that make me nervous when they pick up a dinner fork.

In the end, equal protection under the law must have a benchmark, in most states that benchmark is 21. Right, wrong or indifferent it's simply a fact of life.

 

[jimmyraythomason]

We have to fight this fight every day, even on gun forums.

That's the truth! I am on many local gun trading forums and very often find them restricting membership to 21 years of age or barring the buying/selling of handguns to anyone between the ages of 18 and 20 . Here in Alabama the legal age to own,buy,sell or even get a CCW is 18. I have challenged the reasoning for this on these forums and have successfully gotten some to change this. Other groups justify it by saying "it's the forum rules". They can set the age at anything they want but I refuse to belong to any group that chooses to impose their own version of gun control on a group of people due to their age.

 

[YZ]

The 18 year olds do a lot more damage by voting than with all their guns combined.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

but from age 18-21 can be bought and carried/possessed with a legal guardian's signature.

So those 18-21 year olds that moved out with no legal guardian any more (Either way, you can't have a legal guardian) don't get the ability to carry or own? Everything should be legal at 18 or 21. Doesn't make sense to break "adulthood" up into two difference ages anyway.

 

[NMPOPS]

Having been once I think most are more mature at 21 than 18. Having said that I don't believe we can split up rights and responsibilities either so I say 21 for adulthood and all that comes with it. Moving the age to 18 was a voting scam, 18 year old still in school and sitting at the bars was a tragedy. I feel the same way about service and draft or registration.
Both ages are arbitrary since some will be mature at 16 or 17 and others maybe never but splitting up between the 2 ages is insulting to all.
Lowering the age of majority also takes parents off the hook 3 years earlier in the legal sense but there are still a fair amount of kids still home living off the teat at 21.
So since I was left to roam at 14 with my little Colt I have no problem with kids and guns at the age that the Parent decides they are ready with the right to do as one pleases coming at 21.

I totally agree. People who use the military as an example of allowing those under 21 full adult privileges forget that the military issues weapons only under stricken supervision and often without ammo. Ammo being issued just before you go into a combat zone. Remember the soldiers killed and wounded at Ft. Hood were without weapons by military rule. Not even allowed to carry personal ones.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

I totally agree. People who use the military as an example of allowing those under 21 full adult privileges forget that the military issues weapons only under stricken supervision and often without ammo. Ammo being issued just before you go into a combat zone. Remember the soldiers killed and wounded at Ft. Hood were without weapons by military rule. Not even allowed to carry personal ones.

People also forget that 16 year olds are allowed to operate things that are the cause of more death, injury, and grief now than if 18 year olds were allowed to more easily buy and own handguns.

 

[Midwest]

Arizona,Alaska and Wyoming (for Wyoming residents) have joined the party. 4 down,46 to go.

Almost Montana ..... (the governor vetoed state wide constitutional carry)

According to this if a person is in an unincorporated area in Montana it says here you can carry concealed, but if you go into the cities you need a permit to carry concealed.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...ties-in-Montana-need-a-CCW-to-carry-concealed

But you can get a permit at age 18 in Montana. More information here
http://www.usacarry.com/montana_concealed_carry_permit_information.html

 

[lpsharp88]

There is usually a very big difference between someone who can join the Military and someone at 18 who has joined the Military and is serving.
The whole "I could be drafted so I should be able to ( Fill in Blank )" is a bit old and tiresome and often used by a Legion of 19 year olds sitting in Moms basement in a cloud of pot smoke without a job, High School Diploma or any prospects.
Maturity is not granted by a magic number, it is taught by parents to their children.

I understand that maturity is not some magic age, but if the government deems that 18 is an appropriate age to allow people to enlist and go to war, it only makes sense that they get every other right afforded to anyone 21 or older. It makes no sense to me that someone can be old enough to go to a foreign land, carry a weapon everywhere they go, and make split life and death situations regarding the use of firearms, but that they aren't mature enough to purchase a handgun in the US from a FFL.

 

[YZ]

I understand that maturity is not some magic age, but if the government deems that 18 is an appropriate age to allow people to enlist and go to war, it only makes sense that they get every other right afforded to anyone 21 or older. It makes no sense to me that someone can be old enough to go to a foreign land, carry a weapon everywhere they go, and make split life and death situations regarding the use of firearms, but that they aren't mature enough to purchase a handgun in the US from a FFL.

You just answered your own question. The government wants the armed 18 year olds in the barracks and overseas. It does not want them armed on their own at home. Like it or not, there is a logic to it.
Here is another good one. How can someone who is too young to decide whether to drink or smoke be deemed mature enough to elect our commander in chief. We could go on and on.

 

[Zoogster]

Now I would support 18 being the age, but only because I don't like the government increasing age limits for things.
I think 18 year olds are on average at a risky age. Due to many things including some I mentioned already.
Also due to just gaining many freedoms. Partying and doing all sorts of things they couldn't do around thier parents becoming a priority for many for example.
Just take a look at the priorities of the average college freshman when they are not doing schoolwork.

It is also an age where a much larger percentage of young men are still engaging in macho bravado, high school horseplay, dealing with group peer pressure, etc

Carrying a pistol takes a lot of maturity and impulse control. There is many more that would pull it out of anger at that age than there is who would go retrieve a gun and then still do something wrong after the pause to let thier emotions unwind.
A long gun at home or in a vehicle as a result is much less likely to be used impulsively like a hand gun that someone can legally or illegally slip into a pocket or carry with ease.
While the number that would consciously choose to get a gun and then do something is small, the number that would do something impulsively with one already at thier fingertips is larger.
That they are also frequently choosing to put themselves in environments where problems with others are likely to develop, like wild parties, makes it more likely they will be faced with a situation to make such decisions.


On top of it 18 year olds have just become adults, and gained freedoms that could allow them to get into more trouble. In a society that likes to give minors second chances, someone who just became 18 and has all thier rights and a clean slate if they had earlier trouble has not had much time to screw up or become prohibited. So an 18 year old with a clean record really doesn't mean much.
That is not to say I support prohibited persons, merely that a clean record at 18 means a lot less than a clean record at 21 with at least a few years exposed to the adult world and able to pick up adult charges.
So saying someone with a clean record should be able to... Is missing that point.

 

[Salmoneye]

An 18 year old can enlist, get married, and sign contracts, but they can't buy a beer the night of their honeymoon, or buy a handgun to protect themselves and their Wife...

I have NO issue with making the 'age of majority' 21 or any other arbitrary number, but one age for this and another age for that, is hypocritical and sends mixed signals to our youth...

[/rant]

 

[Deep Fried]

In Georgia at least, you cannot even purchase handgun ammo under 21. Stuff like .45 acp or .357 mag is a no-no, even if you own a long gun or what not that is chambered for this round.

 

[Deltaboy1984]

It been a silly set of laws IMO 18 I could vote and die for my country but I had to wait till 21 to drink a beer or buy a handgun.

 

[Midwest]

I think the original intention of the 1968 GCA to set minimum age limits was that so that a positive identification would be needed. I don't believe there was a federal minimum age purchase requirement before the 1968 GCA, except for the NFA.

Before 1968 GCA I'm sure while some states may have had minimum age purchase laws where some ID was needed to prove the person was of age.... federally no positive ID was needed for mail order before 1968 GCA...so I would imagine it would be the same at the point of sale in those days. Why was handguns set for 21 and long guns for 18 in the 1968 GCA? I'm not sure.

However some might remember that in the early to mid 70's there was a movement for some states to lower the drinking age to 18. I don't know if there was ever any legislation to lower the handgun purchase age from 21 to 18. But during the momentum to lower the drinking age, could have been a good time to lower the handgun purchase age.

 

[gamestalker]

In my state it is illegal for an FFL to sell a handgun to anyone under 21 yrs. of age. However, it is legal for an individual 16ys. or older to carry one, providing they have a permission letter from their parent or guardian, I think it must be notarized.

My boys have been carrying since they were 16 yrs., and most of the time we would have to insist on them taking their firearm with them. It never concerned us as parents that our boys were carrying, more so if they weren't. All of them had been receiving training, and practicing since they were old enough to walk and talk. And often times, if they were going some place, it was usually to go shooting or hunting any way.

I'm a strong proponent in this regard, and feel that parents have a responsibility to teach their kids to know what self defense and responsible gun ownership means in every respect. This doesn't mean all 16 yr' olds are able to handle this level of responsibility either, by no means. But if they demonstrate a strong a sincere responsible out look that is consistent with being a responsible law abiding citizen, I think it demonstrates some indication of good parenting skills.

But back in those days it wasn't illegal for your high school age kid to keep his handgun locked in his car on campus either. Heck, our boys would always have a handgun and usually a shotgun in their vehicle, so they could go rabbit hunting or target shooting after school. I remember when my 10 yr. old brought his new and unloaded shotgun to school for show and following Christmas vacation break Them good ol days are gone forever, what a shame.

GS

 

[NavyLCDR]

In Georgia at least, you cannot even purchase handgun ammo under 21. Stuff like .45 acp or .357 mag is a no-no, even if you own a long gun or what not that is chambered for this round.

Incorrect. Please provide your source.

You are misinterpreting Federal law and attempting to apply it specifically to Georgia. Federal law makes it illegal for a licensed dealer to sell ammunition intended to be used in a handgun to a person under 21 years of age. It has nothing to do with the caliber of the ammo and applies to licensed dealers selling ammo only.

Not a licensed dealer = Federal age limit for "ammunition that is suitable for use only in a handgun" is 18. [18 USC 922 (x)(1)]
Licensed dealer = Federal age limit for ""the firearm, or ammunition is other than a shotgun or rifle, or ammunition for a shotgun or rifle" is 21. [18 USC 922 (b)(1)]
Licensed dealer = Federal age limit for "any firearm or ammunition" is 21. [18 USC 922 (b)(1)]

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/licensees-conduct-of-business.html#interchangeable-ammo-sales

Q: May a licensee sell interchangeable ammunition such as .22 cal. rimfire to a person less than 21 years old?

Yes, provided the buyer is 18 years of age or older, and the dealer is satisfied that it is for use in a rifle. If the ammunition is intended for use in a handgun, the 21-year-old minimum age requirement is applicable.