Missouri seems to be closer than ever to getting concealed carry.
The news sources are reporting the current bill which is going to the governor will require applicants to be at least 23 years of age. I haven't seen it the actual bill which I did look up, but it may not be updated yet. Would anyone have a source of the actual current bill that would have this in it?
This bill is far from ideal as far as many are concerned; there are a lot of restrictions and hoops to jump through for applicants. While it is better than nothing, I'm having trouble understanding how an arbitrary minimum age of 23 was decided.
Being in my 30's this certainly wouldn't affect me, but I find this rather interesting because I and many others have served four years of active duty prior to my 22nd birthday.
This is worse than the old-enough-to-die-for-your-country-not-old-enough-to-drink-a-beer argument concerning "minors" in the military. Many people have college degrees by that time too. There are very young police officers too.
If less than 23 is too "immature", wouldn't it make sense to raise the drinking age, the driving age, the voting age, etc.? Could a court overturn this?
Perhaps this was okay with the legislature since it didn't affect any one of them individually. Isn't this similar to was happen in many states when they started requiring hunting safety for hunting permits? People born before a certain time were "grandfathered" in, interestingly, that magical date was after the birthdate of everyone in the legislature.
What would stop them from putting a maximum age on something like this and justifying is by saying the average 90 year old lacks good coordination, eye sight, memory, etc. and would be "dangerous" with a firearm?
Your thoughts please.
The news sources are reporting the current bill which is going to the governor will require applicants to be at least 23 years of age. I haven't seen it the actual bill which I did look up, but it may not be updated yet. Would anyone have a source of the actual current bill that would have this in it?
This bill is far from ideal as far as many are concerned; there are a lot of restrictions and hoops to jump through for applicants. While it is better than nothing, I'm having trouble understanding how an arbitrary minimum age of 23 was decided.
Being in my 30's this certainly wouldn't affect me, but I find this rather interesting because I and many others have served four years of active duty prior to my 22nd birthday.
This is worse than the old-enough-to-die-for-your-country-not-old-enough-to-drink-a-beer argument concerning "minors" in the military. Many people have college degrees by that time too. There are very young police officers too.
If less than 23 is too "immature", wouldn't it make sense to raise the drinking age, the driving age, the voting age, etc.? Could a court overturn this?
Perhaps this was okay with the legislature since it didn't affect any one of them individually. Isn't this similar to was happen in many states when they started requiring hunting safety for hunting permits? People born before a certain time were "grandfathered" in, interestingly, that magical date was after the birthdate of everyone in the legislature.
What would stop them from putting a maximum age on something like this and justifying is by saying the average 90 year old lacks good coordination, eye sight, memory, etc. and would be "dangerous" with a firearm?
Your thoughts please.