Why CCW permits should be allowed at age 18

[mljdeckard]

I was discharged from my first stretch in the army just short of my 21st birthday. (I got a 2-year enlistment.) I had been an assistant armorer in a HQ company of an armor battalion, I had unaccompanied access to hundreds of arms, including, well, everything small enough to be carried off a tank.

I bought a privately owned Taurus T-92 9mm (stay away, don't buy one,) from a friend of mine, and I wanted to take it home with me. To do this, you must have it written into your orders, that you are the owner, and you are allowed to transport it. PROBLEM: since I was not yet 21, I was not allowed to own it. I had to let my friend take it with him, and I made a trip of driving down to L.A. where he lives to take it from him and bring it home. (I should take the time to learn how many CA laws we broke in the process of doing that.)

An adult, in the U.S. Army, with a security clearance, a combat veteran, 18 days shy of his 21st birthday, trusted to secure hundreds of small arms without mishap, is apparently not able to handle the responsibility of taking a cased handgun home in his luggage. I love beurocracy.

 

[Autolycus]

Originally Posted by Wes Janson:

You know, this is an issue that's of great relevence to me, and almost no one else in the shooting community. I turn 19 in just over a month, so it'll be nearly two years until I can apply for my Florida CCP. But for someone in my position, there's a three year span of legal uncertainties, pitfalls, and idiocies. I truly don't understand why the law declares 18 to be the legal age for virtually everything, but in the realm of firearms feels that a person doesn't gain resposibility until 21 (I suppose I can only be glad that I don't like alcohol). Consider the following:

At age 18, I can legally buy a Barrett M82A1 .50 BMG semi-auto sniper rifle at my local gun store, but I can't buy a .22 LR Ruger MkIII plinking pistol. Except that I can buy it from a private seller, just not a dealer. Why? What remote, insane, idiotic legislative purpose does that serve? It means it's entirely legal for a 19-year-old gang membe to buy a Glock from someone in the newspaper, but not from a respectable gun dealer. By law, all that gang member needs is a Florida driver's license as proof of residency. If they tried to buy a handgun from a dealer (were it legal), the background check would clearly show if they had committed any felonies. Why, in the name of Gord, is the law constructed to PREVENT background checks from being done, while arguably INCREASING the likelihood of a convicted felon acquiring through legal means a handgun? Why is it that I can buy any handgun I want, but only if I can find it for sale in the used market? And let's not even get into the screwed-up complexities of "staw purchases" and "gifts".

At age 18, I can legally keep my Kimber loaded, in the glovebox of my car. Yet I can't carry it on my person, even though in all honesty I could probably out-score most law enforcement officers at qualifications with it.* Furthermore, even though I can own the weapon and keep it in my vehicle, loaded, I cannot buy ammunition for it. Legally I can go out and buy crates and crates of .50 BMG, .308 Win, and .223 Rem, but I can't purchase so much as a single .22 CB shell, if "intended for use in a handgun". Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? A while back I was told by the clerk at a local Wal-Mart sporting goods department that she knew of a young Corrections deputy who was only 20 or so, and thus had to have his parents purchase ammunition for him (although who knows if that was true or not). While the law states that it's a felony to sell ammunition to a minor, there's no "intent of purchaser" provision that makes it illegal for a parent to purchase ammunition and then hand it to a minor. Asking why at this point seems redundant.

18, 19, and 20 year-olds are truly screwed over by firearm laws as they now stand. I've met people who have done tours in Iraq, in Fallujah, and yet can't carry a Kel-Tec in their pocket while going to the grocery store. The sad thing of it is, no one really cares about lobbying to change the status of adults stuck in this strange legal grey area. The only good side of the situation is that it's inherently temporary. Unless you happen to be attacked and killed before you turn 21 as a result of being legally unarmed. In which case your condition is most decidedly permament.


*Although to be fair, this is partially a result of the fact that most departments around here don't have particularly stringent qualification requirements, and from what I gather 500-600 rounds per year for practice is a standard maximum allotment for patrol officers.

How can a 19 year old gang member legally buy a Glock from an ad in the newspaper? You can do the same cant you?

And what is a sniper rifle? You called the M82A1 a sniper rifle. Its not good to give anti-gunners any words like sniper rifle.

And boasting about how you can outshoot cops is not a real point at all without the statistics to back it up. The anti's could say that the cops are not being trained well enough instead of agreeing with you.

If your really serious about changing the law YOU should start lobbying to change the law. As you state that many people dont care but if you do you should probably start the lobbying. Try getting some of those returning veterans to agree with you and speak on it.

I agree with your post in principle. However it seems that the majority of people do not care about your plight. It is kind of a right of passage. The same arguments can be made about alcohol. Sadly more people your age are probably more concerned about alcohol then

 

[Wes Janson]

How can a 19 year old gang member legally buy a Glock from an ad in the newspaper? You can do the same cant you?

If they had a felony conviction, they legally can't. But there's really not much of any likelihood that a private seller is going to know what their criminal record is or is not. Assuming that I understand the system correctly, then my point is that allowing private sales but yet not FFL sales cannot possibly do anything to reduce the likelihood of a criminal purchasing a handgun, and in fact most likely would increase the odds in comparison to the inverse situation. And for what purpose?

And what is a sniper rifle? You called the M82A1 a sniper rifle. Its not good to give anti-gunners any words like sniper rifle.

Police, military, anti-gunners, etc are each going to call them whatever is most politically convenient. "Sniper" "Counter-sniper" "Designated marksmen" "Sharpshooter" "Precision shooter" all mean the same darn thing to the media: someone with a scoped rifle who presumably knows how to use it at distance. I could call it a "precision rifle" or a "big-bore rifle" or "accurate-long-distance-projectile-launcher" for all the difference it ultimately makes. I use the term "sniper" because it's the simplest and most easily understood by most people, even if perhaps not the most accurate or PC. The important thing to keep in mind is that playing semantics is never going to fool the antis into giving up their fight or re-directing their attention.

And boasting about how you can outshoot cops is not a real point at all without the statistics to back it up. The anti's could say that the cops are not being trained well enough instead of agreeing with you.

Fair enough, but the point I'm making is that the system has zero provisions in place for determining competency and basing decisions accordingly. Under 21 or over, in the state of Florida the ability to safely/competently/maturely utilize a firearm is essentially irrelevent to the process of granting concealed carry permits. By law in this state (as I understand it-if I'm wrong, please enlighten me), all a person has to do in order to show competency is sit through a class taught by a certified instructor and then fire a single round through a weapon to "qualify". I have first-hand witnessed CCP applicants miss a torso-sized target at a distance of less than a meter, with a S&W .38. While a certain part of me feels that concealed carry should be a fundamental right, another part of me considers the fact that without ANY reasonable standards in place to guarantee applicants have been through even a modicum of training and familiarity with firearms the situation is ludicrous. In the state's eyes, while mljdeckard may possess more knowledge and comptency with firearms than the entire Florida State Senate combined, he would be at age 20 accorded less rights in regards to firearms than any random idiot* one year older who has never before handled a firearm in their life. The exact wording of note is as follows:

*Who's never been committed for drug abuse, or convicted of a felony, etc etc.

A photocopy of a certificate of completion of any of the courses or classes; or an affidavit from the instructor, school, club, organization, or group that conducted or taught said course or class attesting to the completion of the course or class by the applicant; or a copy of any document which shows completion of the course or class or evidences participation in firearms competition shall constitute evidence of qualification under this paragraph; any person who conducts a course pursuant to subparagraph 2., subparagraph 3., or subparagraph 7., or who, as an instructor, attests to the completion of such courses, must maintain records certifying that he or she observed the student safely handle and discharge the firearm;

Full text at http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0790/SEC06.HTM&Title=->2005->Ch0790->Section%2006#0790.06
Translation to simple English: Qualification means having fired a single round through a firearm. Pay the fee, sit through a short lecture, fire one round, recieve certificate, and you've demonstrated "competency" with a firearm.

In short, once again Florida legislators are complete and total idiots. Someday they'll actually pass a reasonable and effective law that does something beneficial, but whether or not it will be before the heat death of the universe is something I'm not willing to bet on.

 

[redneckdan]

I too am infavor of lowering the age limit to 18. I turned 21 in may of this year and applied for my CPL as a birthday present to myself. At 18 you can carry 249 SAW over in the sand box but can't carry a 1911 on the street over here.

 

[Ric]

Regardless of the age issue. I can't carry at work (Locomotive Engineer) so I usually have this with me.

Nobody has ever said anything about it and with a little training it is very effective at arms length. I may have a boss question me about pepper spray.

So as an "under 18/21" type of protection I would first go with pepper spray (or some original mace or CS if you can get it) first. But if you want a close up or arms length defense a Travel Wrench works well.

 

[Lou629]

I'm just getting fed up with all of these laws and technicalities and it seems the right to defend oneslef is easy by instinct and difficult by law. So far my feet have served me well as I've had to run many times.

Pdowg-
You say you've had to run many times? No offense, but if you're constantly finding yourself in those positions in the first place it sounds as if you need to adjust your habits in terms of who/where/when you hang out with, so that you don't keep putting yourself in those situations.
One of the reasons for the 21 rule is it is a proven fact that the average teenager can often show poor judgement and quite often doesn't always stop to think things all the way through. No offense intended, but it appears that you may not be either.
Keep in mind that having a gun with you is not the answer to every situation out there, but the more you 'push' things, by hanging out with the wrong element or at the worst places and times, the more likely it'll be that eventually you'd have to use a gun. Knowingly putting yourself into these situations, or not trying to avoid them at the very least would seem to indicate poor judgement on your part, as viewed by some of us 'elders'.

 

[Wes Janson]

One of the reasons for the 21 rule is it is a proven fact that the average teenager can often show poor judgement and quite often doesn't always stop to think things all the way through.

These words sound familiar. It is only too easy to take the basic precept and go to this theoretical statement:

One of the reasons for the National Handgun Ban of 2009 is it is a proven fact that the citizen can often show poor judgement and quite often doesn't always stop to think things all the way through.

Keep in mind that having a gun with you is not the answer to every situation out there, but the more you 'push' things, by hanging out with the wrong element or at the worst places and times, the more likely it'll be that eventually you'd have to use a gun.

This, too, can apply to any age group you want. It's always been the quick and easy response to say that you don't really need a weapon, because you should just avoid the situation in the first place. As rational firearm owners, you and I both know that it's an argument that only works up until the time comes when a firearm is the only thing that can save you, and you're unarmed.

The anti-gun viewpoint is dominated by the inverse of priorities: namely that people should only be given(by the government) what they can demonstrably prove to need. That spirit would seem to be the very antithesis of the ideals this country was founded on. To quote Thomas Jefferson:

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. - Thomas Jefferson to Archibald Stuart, 1791

 

[zahc]

I knew some (older, unaffected of course) people would show up to say to suck it up because you are too young to need to defend yourself. It happens every time.

Thankfully, I am now over 21, but all I can tell you is I have felt your pain.

 

[Lou629]

Quote:
One of the reasons for the 21 rule is it is a proven fact that the average teenager can often show poor judgement and quite often doesn't always stop to think things all the way through.

These words sound familiar. It is only too easy to take the basic precept and go to this theoretical statement:

Quote:
One of the reasons for the National Handgun Ban of 2009 is it is a proven fact that the citizen can often show poor judgement and quite often doesn't always stop to think things all the way through.

Wes-
the difference between the two statements is obvious, one is a proven fact, like it or not, and one is nothing but a theory of yours. In a lot of states a 16-year-old can get a drivers license too, but does that automatically bestow good judgement on them? Their accident & fatality rates tell you the answer. Beyond the sheer inexperience, it ain't because the cars were all defective, it's mostly because the judgement was.

you are too young to need to defend yourself

Zahc,
I never said that. What i said was that a lot of teens are still too immature to exercise good judgement all the time, especially those that knowingly place themselves into, or won't try to avoid, a situation in the first place if at all possible. Something you too will have to learn as you grow up. A fair number of early twenty-somethings still manifest thinking and acting like teens themselves.

I'm not saying that you're doing this, but while you may be old enough to own a gun my friend, if you're one of those that's still hanging out with the wrong people or going to the wrong places, because you know all you have to do to settle any trouble is to pull your gun out so everyone will know how much of a man you are, not to be 'dissed or trifled with, then you're just looking for trouble, sonny, and that is not a sign of maturity or good judgement in the opinion of grown-ups, capisch? You may be one of the most mature & responsible twenty-somethings out there, but a lot of your peer-group, along with most teenagers, are anything but.

Edit-typo.

 

[1911_CQB]

When I joined I was 18, and I got deployed, issued weapons, and all that jazz. Got back, and I was basically told, I am not responsible enough to carry, or even buy a weapon. Well that was a long time ago, and now that I can, it isnt an issue. It just saddens me, i go downrange with some guys, who are going to watch my ass, and they get back and they arent allowed to watch there own ass. It sickens me how screwed up this place is sometimes.

 

[Autolycus]

Just wanted to add that I think it should be lowered to 18 along with the legal drinking age. I would also increase the driving age and the age you can drop out of high school legally to 18. I would also make it illegal to try anyone under the age of 18 as an adult. Either you are and adult or you are not.

I just like to play devils advocate.