CCW at 18?

[JustinJ]

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]

Your brain does not physically mature until around 25 on average.

Absolutely not.

 

[Vector]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

It's a step in the right direction. Next is to do away with the permit altogether!

I agree

 

[NavyLCDR]

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]

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]

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]

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. 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]

^ 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.