Under 21 Handgun Ownership

[NavyLCDR]

Very good. I was not aware of that provision.

Actually, I would classify that as very bad.

It is a stupid law that serves no useful purpose. (the must be 21 to purchase a handgun/ammunition for a handgun from a licensed dealer).

 

[Field Tester]

My bad, I can see why you took it that way. It actually was for a carbine, but I see what you're saying. The way I worded it could be construed that I was using it for something other than.

At Wal-Mart it is marked under their scan code as "handgun" ammo. Since I was using it for a carbine I told them that's what it was for. I had the same issue with .22lr even though it's labeled LR on the packaging, they still scanned it as handgun ammo.

 

[Midwest]

Wrong. See my post with the quote of the law above your post. It is illegal for the FFL to sell ammunition intended to be used in a handgun to a person <21 years of age. If the person lies in order to deceive the FFL into selling them the ammunition, then the buyer violates 18 USC 922 (a)(6).

It IS, however, perfectly legal for the person 18 to 20 years of age to purchase ammunition from anyone without an FFL - and no FFL is required to be a dealer in ammunition only.

The 1968 Gun Control Act required an FFL in order to sell ammo, FOPA 86 repealed that portion of the 68 GCA. (I wish FOPA 86 also repealed the entire 1968 GCA as well).

So a store that doesn't have an FFL should be able to sell handgun ammo to those under 21.

 

[Baron_Null]

Under 21 and carrying a handgun should also be allowed after that person was/is in the armed forces or a LEO, so basically some as young as 18.
As Chaddy said, if you can be trusted to have the lives of others in your hands on duty then off duty should be no different. Just cutting the age down to 18 for everybody
could create some issues with many young adults that are in no way ready for that kind of responsibility. 18 year olds these days are not the same 18 year olds from 50 years ago.

The natural right to defend oneself should not exist with the provision that one must agree with and participate in state sanctioned violence. Why should I be forced to be an active participant in wars I do not agree with or enforce laws that I believe are immoral, just to be able to effectively protect myself?

The fact of the matter is that the argument that certain people aren't ready for responsibility and therefore should have their natural rights restricted isn't far off from the arguments than gun control advocates use. There will always be people not ready for the responsibility of firearms ownership, regardless of age. However, the acceptance of that fact is a large part of believing in liberty and natural rights.