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

[tmd16556]

What age qualification other than for the presidency is mentioned in the Constitution at all?

It does set minimums for House (25), Senate (30), and voting (21, but amended to 18).

The military having guns thing is something I was thinking about the other day too, and I don’t think it’s as strong an argument as most think. Yes, privates may be armed with heavy weapons at 18, but they are supervised by older officers. A second lieutenant will usually start at 22. So soldiers may use weapons, but are under deep layers of supervision. Also some kids get missile launchers and others get to push boxes of paper around.

I tend to dislike one-size-fits-all bans, but there are some valid reasons to limit purchases of handguns (and some rifles) to the 18-25 age range. Some can be safe and responsible, some can’t. The hard part is differentiating the two.

I wish more energy went into figuring that out instead of banning random pieces of scary equipment in order to say you did something or blaming mental illness and then failing to invest in health policies that might actually help.

But they never asked me.

 

[Atavar]

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

Hence the no parole clause. There are plenty of non-violent felons to release. Set the pot smokers and tax evaders free, I don’t care.

 

[Shanvanvocht]

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

Actually, the reason the States raised the drinking age was because the Federal Government (at the behest of Sen Frank Lautenburg {D} NJ) forced them to do so by threatening to withhold Highway Trust Funds. The same tactic was used to impose motorcycle helmet laws and the 55mph speed limit. Now, when you and I do that, it's called extortion; when the Government does it, it's "for our own good." Keep in mind the fact that New York had 18 as the drinking age in the '50s (and, perhaps earlier) without real problems.

 

[HighRoadRover]

That's true. I remember the drinking age of 18 in NY, 21 elsewhere. I remember the fairly routine death crashes on US 17 in northern New Jersey, as the kids would drive up to NY on Saturday night and drive back blitzed.

The U.S. has a tortured history with drinking, with the Feds actually outlawing alcohol for twelve years - 1920 to 1932. The idea was well-intentioned. Drunk drivers, drunk at work, drunk in fights, drunk husbands beating wives, drunk people going bankrupt chasing demon alcohol, etc., would all be avoided because of Prohibition. But most people didn't like that law at all and had no problem breaking it. Prohibition didn't stop drinking but made it more socially cool, and running alcohol financed criminal enterprises that still exist today.

There are reasons to limit the use of guns. Sometimes the intentions are good. For example, most cities and towns say you cannot discharge a gun within City Limits (for purposes other than self-defense). I get that, its crowded here in suburbia and bullets that go up have to come down. Many concealed carry laws specify no guns at funerals or political rallies, because that's when people's emotions are high. A lot of state laws on concealed carry said no guns in bars, because alcohol and drink don't mix well, but some areas have backed down a bit and allow guns in places that serve drinks as long as the person with the gun isn't drinking. Cowboys were not allowed to have guns in Dodge City on Saturday night, we learned as kids watching TV, because they get in fights with each other. America got used to living without machine guns in the 1930's, after they were severely restricted because of over-use by gangsters during Prohibition (demon alcohol again). Handguns used to be for sale in hardware stores everywhere but now can only be purchased through FFLs. The no guns on commercial airliners law came into play after some folks used them to hijack airliners, so seem reasonable enough. On and on. Bans on black people owning or carrying handguns were egregious, a classic example of using gun laws to control someone's political enemies. Not letting 18-21 year olds buy handguns is not the worst gun control law I've ever heard - and we've been living with it for 55 years. At least they are allowed to have a shotgun. I don't see the latest court decision as being some sort of breakthrough for the RKBA.

The best anti-gun law I've heard is the ban on felons buying or possessing guns, but I could easily live with that law applying only to those convicted of violent felonies, and even for them I could live with a "earn it back" provision after 15 or 20 years of no further run-ins the law. Every time my mind wanders towards the idea that, "well, there must be some sort of reasonable gun control laws," I find the goal of most gun control laws these days is to annoy and punish law-abiding gun owners, and I find these gun control ideas to be the camel's nose under the tent flap, leading the way to more restrictive gun control provisions. One thing that bothers me today is the idea that restricting ownership of guns by law abiding citizens is the answer for the use of guns by criminals. It makes no sense.

 

[Insignificant bill]

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.

Not to mention it violates the Constitution. Those I support the Second Amendment but, people are also a big part of the problem.

 

[Insignificant bill]

Actually, the reason the States raised the drinking age was because the Federal Government (at the behest of Sen Frank Lautenburg {D} NJ) forced them to do so by threatening to withhold Highway Trust Funds. The same tactic was used to impose motorcycle helmet laws and the 55mph speed limit. Now, when you and I do that, it's called extortion; when the Government does it, it's "for our own good." Keep in mind the fact that New York had 18 as the drinking age in the '50s (and, perhaps earlier) without real problems.

Yep I grew up in Erie PA 30 miles from NY State. We would spend alot of time in NY State.

 

[natman]

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.

Well - in the scenario described the parent is making the purchase at the behest of the child, and they are buying it at an FFL, which makes it a purchase where the person signing the 4473 is making the purchase on behalf of an actual recipient who cannot legally make the purchase themselves, which fits the definition of a straw purchase.

[3] Under the ATF Opinion and the Government's argument, one of the Plaintiffs could supply the entirety of the purchase money to a parent or guardian who could buy the handgun at the FFL's store and walk outside and hand it to the Plaintiff. That is otherwise known as a "straw purchase," and is, but for the ATF Opinion, illegal. 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6) .

The ATF Opinion that patches over the straw purchase problem:

In 1983, the Chief Counsel of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms ("ATF") issued a written opinion clarifying the Government's [*3] interpretation of those federal gun control statutes and regulations as applied to 18-to-20-year-olds. In pertinent part, that opinion states:

Federal firearms licensees are prohibited from selling or delivering handguns to person under the age of 21. However, a minor or juvenile is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, owning, or learning the proper usage of firearms since any firearm that the parents or guardian desire the minor to have can be obtained by the parents or guardian.
"Purchasing, possession of firearms by minors," 23362.0 ATF (Dec. 5, 1983) ("ATF Opinion") at 1-2
Fraser v. BATFE, No. 3:22-cv-410, 2023 BL 159607 (E.D. Va. May 10, 2023), Court Opinion (bloomberglaw.com)

 

[shafter]

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.

Military kids do stupid stuff all the time even when heavily supervised. I've never been a fan of this argument. I'm not in favor of prohibitions either but this isn't the argument to use.

 

[armoredman]

My son had his rifles in his room at a young age, and never did a single thing illegal or stupid with them. Blanket prohibition based on age is therefore globally refuted.

 

[Insignificant bill]

It does set minimums for House (25), Senate (30), and voting (21, but amended to 18).

The military having guns thing is something I was thinking about the other day too, and I don’t think it’s as strong an argument as most think. Yes, privates may be armed with heavy weapons at 18, but they are supervised by older officers. A second lieutenant will usually start at 22. So soldiers may use weapons, but are under deep layers of supervision. Also some kids get missile launchers and others get to push boxes of paper around.

I tend to dislike one-size-fits-all bans, but there are some valid reasons to limit purchases of handguns (and some rifles) to the 18-25 age range. Some can be safe and responsible, some can’t. The hard part is differentiating the two.

I wish more energy went into figuring that out instead of banning random pieces of scary equipment in order to say you did something or blaming mental illness and then failing to invest in health policies that might actually help.

But they never asked me.

Military kids do stupid stuff all the time even when heavily supervised. I've never been a fan of this argument. I'm not in favor of prohibitions either but this isn't the argument to use.

My son had his rifles in his room at a young age, and never did a single thing illegal or stupid with them. Blanket prohibition based on age is therefore globally refuted.

And the 2nd Amendment is the only one that states no infringements shall be made by Government.

 

[.455_Hunter]

I tend to dislike one-size-fits-all bans, but there are some valid reasons to limit purchases of handguns (and some rifles) to the 18-25 age range. Some can be safe and responsible, some can’t. The hard part is differentiating the two.

So, some questions for you...

How old are you currently?

How old were you when you had access to firearms?

How old were you when you purchased your early firearms?

What did you buy and at what age?

If you have kids (teenage or older), what is/was their access to firearms? Have they bought firearms on their own after turning 18?

The fact that categoric restrictions based on age are supported by THR members just boggles my mind. There are never "valid reasons" to restrict constitutional rights for all young adults based solely on the similar age of certain degenerates in our society.

I had access to whatever firearms were needed starting at roughly age 13 in 1989. Funny- I never felt empowered to commit a violent crime just because of such access. As mentioned before, I was provided my own .38 revolver at age 14, gifted a semi-auto pistol on my 18th B-day, and bought my first centerfire semi-auto rifle around HS graduation in 1994. No guns in the college dorms, but in my Junior/Senior apartment, my roommate and I both had "sufficient" arms and ammo on hand. We also had a school sponsored shooting club that organized range and competition trips- open to all students with legal firearms. Oh the horror! I bought my own revolver on my 21st B-day, and by age 25, courtesy of being a bachelor Army Officer, had procured a substantial handgun and milsurp collection. For reference, I joined the THR at age 29 after the old Shooters.com forum went kaput.

I would deny no sane, moral and responsible young adult the same rights today! Anything else is just bigoted rhetoric.

 

[Hooda Thunkit]

What age qualification other than for the presidency is mentioned in the Constitution at all?

30 for Senate. Remember, Mr. Joseph Biden was elected to the US senate when he was 29. He could not be seated. He was Senator-Elect until his 30th B-day.

Actually, the reason the States raised the drinking age was because the Federal Government (at the behest of Sen Frank Lautenburg {D} NJ) forced them to do so by threatening to withhold Highway Trust Funds. The same tactic was used to impose motorcycle helmet laws and the 55mph speed limit.

And seat belt laws. Don't forget seat belt laws.

It would have been so easy to enact seat belt (and helmet) usage without laws. The Insurance Companies would simply not pay off if seat belts were not in use.
In the case of helmets for motorcycles - again; any head injury would not be paid for without helmet usage.

 

[Jim Watson]

I think the insurance companies tried that at one time but could not make it stick even in states like mine with Contributory Negligence laws.

I'll fix the age.

 

[AlexanderA]

What we're seeing here is "collective responsibility" or "collective punishment." This works well for instilling discipline in the army, for example. If a certain member of a group (in this case 18-20 year olds) commits an infraction, the whole group is punished. The idea, then, is that the group will exert peer pressure to keep the members in line.

In theory, this principle could be applied to gun owners in general. It's true that we haven't been very good at policing ourselves, and weeding out those that shouldn't have guns. But the group (in this case, gun owners in general) isn't cohesive enough to apply that kind of peer pressure. (Actually, the 18-20 group isn't cohesive either. You would have to isolate them, the way a platoon in basic training is isolated.)

 

[Hooda Thunkit]

What we're seeing here is "collective responsibility" or "collective punishment." This works well for instilling discipline in the army, for example. If a certain member of a group (in this case 18-20 year olds) commits an infraction, the whole group is punished. The idea, then, is that the group will exert peer pressure to keep the members in line.

Basic Training, Ft Leonard Wood Mo.
All 150 trainees out at 2AM, in our skivvies and shower shoes, turning over gravel in the parking lot. Don't want them rocks to be moon-burned.

'Cause some idiot got drunk. And stupid.

 

[wayneinFL]

What we're seeing here is "collective responsibility" or "collective punishment." This works well for instilling discipline in the army, for example. If a certain member of a group (in this case 18-20 year olds) commits an infraction, the whole group is punished. The idea, then, is that the group will exert peer pressure to keep the members in line.

The whole group isn't being punished. Their rights are eliminated.

I get that this issue doesn't resonate with most of you. Let's ban anyone over 65 from having a driver's license. Maybe you're okay, you have good eyesight, no dementia, and no accidents in the last 20 years. But because some people in your age group have a problem, none of you can drive.

No training requirement, no background check, no way around it. Hit your 65th birthday, you lose your license.

Some of you are going to say, it's not the same- and 18 year old can have a gun of his parents buy him one. Okay. If you have children in your state, you're allowed to use their car- that's your reasonable compromise.

 

[.455_Hunter]

The whole group isn't being punished. Their rights are eliminated.

I get that this issue doesn't resonate with most of you. Let's ban anyone over 65 from having a driver's license. Maybe you're okay, you have good eyesight, no dementia, and no accidents in the last 20 years. But because some people in your age group have a problem, none of you can drive.

No training requirement, no background check, no way around it. Hit your 65th birthday, you oose your license.

Some of you are going to day, it's not the same- and 18 year old can have a gun of his parents buy him one. Okay. If you have children in your state, you're allowed to use their car- that's your reasonable compromise.

Amazing the push back you get when you try restricting the rights and/or actions of old white guys.

 

[Hooda Thunkit]

Amazing the push back you get when you try restricting the rights and/or actions of old white guys.

This doesn't have anything to do with race.

 

[.455_Hunter]

This doesn't have anything to do with race.

Correct- It shouldn't. I am referencing the apparent majority membership of internet shooting forums. Any restrictions that become directed back in their direction get suddenly met with significant stammering resistance.

 

[CapnMac]

The legal definitions of "majority" at the time of the Founders is a bit of a mess.
A self-supporting person was just that. Children could be "pushed out of the nest" for any number of reasons, like losing parents to disease, accident, various other calamities. Over age 13 or 14, orphaned children would not be put in orphanages, but in workhouses, unless taken in by neighbors.

For those born to "landed" families, typically they could not inherit until age 25; this was a typical age maturity as beneficiary for Trusts, as well.
Matriculation from a college was not much used as a definition, either, as enrolling at 13 to 15 was not uncommon, and degrees might be conferred in as little as two years. Completing an Apprenticeship, though, was often used as a sign of majority--but, that was based on trade or craft skill, not age per se.

As a general rule, in the 1790s, you reached majority when you owned land.

In our modern times, politically, it's 'easy' is disenfranchise the 18-21 age cohort as they have the least political "pull." And, it avoids things like creating a "gap" that might occur if, say, something was not prohibited to 15-20, but was from 20-30 (or any other such similar numeric span).

The real issue though ought be easily tested by simple comparison to any other Amendment. Is there (or should there be) a minimum age to practice one's religion? To engage in political speech? Or any other part of the 1st Amendment. Perhaps the 4th Amendment has age restrictions? The 5th, 6th, or 7th?

 

[AlexanderA]

The difference between the 18-20 age group and those over, say, 65, is that we oldsters (at least most of us, anyway) are aware of our limitations. For example, I restrict my driving at night because oncoming headlights tend to blind me. No need (yet) to take away my driving license. So we self-monitor. This is a trait where youngsters are notoriously lacking.

The other thing is that youngsters are much more susceptible to peer pressure. This is why, for example, teenage girls are driven to suicide because of online bullying. An old person would just laugh at this. We've seen our share of real problems, and this online stuff just pales in comparison.

Given that peer pressure is such a powerful force at these younger ages, it's surprising to me that we haven't harnessed it to try to head off gun incidents. Why don't we have gun clubs in schools, headed by some of the most popular kids in class, to try to channel a natural interest in guns into healthy directions rather than into destructive fantasies? Instead of bullying the loners, weirdos, and outliers, how about reaching out to them? That's the key to this whole issue: peer intervention.

 

[scott511]

So your argument is that the older and wiser should have more rights?
I have known some in the 18-20 range that were much more responsible than those that were much older.
So what about the ones "over 65" that DON'T restrict their driving at night like you do?
It's the same thing.
Plain and simple, we are talking about age discrimination here. That works for older as well as younger people alike.
If we're going to restrict a right for all 18-20's based on how some might act, then we should be doing that at some age later in life as well.

 

[AlexanderA]

So your argument is that the older and wiser should have more rights?

"Age discrimination" is built right into the U.S. constitution. Age 35 to be President, 30 to be a Senator, 25 for Congress. So the Founders obviously had in mind a sliding scale relating age to rights and responsibilities.

It's true that some people under 21 have more wisdom and maturity than some people over 65. But, practically speaking, we can't make rules based on the outliers. We have to deal with the averages.

 

[jmorris]

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.

Because the .gov has picked what to teach those kids and “lock downs” are covered just not firearms saftey.

You, as a parent, have to teach those things (and lots of other stuff, including breaking down things they do teach to disprove the logic) to them yourself these days.

I’ve shot with children that had better discipline than many adults because I got to them before TV taught them.

You can’t allow a Country to eliminate things that are misused some of the time, especially when they have taken the role to educate your children and choose to leave the subject out.

IF they think what they teach teenagers in the military makes them safe to have and use a machinegun and without that they are a danger to themselves and others. That information should be taught to all children, not just the ones you expect to die for you.

 

[ColoradoMinuteMan]

There is no age restriction as it relates to rights. Being a senator or the President isn’t a right.

"Age discrimination" is built right into the U.S. constitution. Age 35 to be President, 30 to be a Senator, 25 for Congress. So the Founders obviously had in mind a sliding scale relating age to rights and responsibilities.

It's true that some people under 21 have more wisdom and maturity than some people over 65. But, practically speaking, we can't make rules based on the outliers. We have to deal with the averages.