WeTheArmed.com

General Topics => Activism and Gun Politics => Topic started by: aikorob on July 13, 2021, 05:29:18 pm

Title: Second Amendment Rights of 18-to-20-Year-Olds
Post by: aikorob on July 13, 2021, 05:29:18 pm
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/breaking-fourth-circuit-rules-federal-law-banning-handgun-sales-to-adults-under-21-unconstitutional/ (https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/breaking-fourth-circuit-rules-federal-law-banning-handgun-sales-to-adults-under-21-unconstitutional/)
https://reason.com/volokh/2021/07/13/4th-cir-panel-affirms-second-amendment-rights-of-18-to-20-year-olds/ (https://reason.com/volokh/2021/07/13/4th-cir-panel-affirms-second-amendment-rights-of-18-to-20-year-olds/)
only a 3 judge panel, so it will be appealed en banc
Can't understand why 18-20 are second class citizens..................you can get married at 18, and that can arguably screw up your life more than guns, alcohol, or smoking
Title: Re: Second Amendment Rights of 18-to-20-Year-Olds
Post by: booksmart on July 14, 2021, 09:18:03 am
Mostly because once you spend a fair amount of time around people in that age bracket you realize their brains still aren't fully gelled yet, and that bad decisions still run rampant.
Title: Re: Second Amendment Rights of 18-to-20-Year-Olds
Post by: sqlbullet on July 14, 2021, 12:43:49 pm
My kids call it being a "provisional adult".  Re-enforced by having a "provisional" CFP.

And while I hear what booksmart is saying, the reason this doesn't hold up, IMHO is that it is not illegal for them to own a handgun, or even buy a handgun. It is illegal for an FFL to sell them a handgun.  In other words, as long as they don't get a background check, it's fine.

I agree they brains aren't baked yet.  I disagree that this should be a requirement to exercise the right to life/defense of life.  But even if that were the goal, the rules should be the opposite what they are now.  They should ONLY be able to buy a handgun from an FFL where they have to comply with all those rigors, including background check.

As it is, this panel got it right.  If you are legally an adult then you should be an adult.  Drink, shoot, screw, smoke.  Just don't be stupid about it.

Since I am on the soap box, I will further say that we turn kids into responsible adults not be shielding them from adult decisions and choices, but by exposing them to those choices and helping them gain experience in a controlled environment.  You gotta mix the fruit into the jello BEFORE it sets, otherwise it sits on top and is hard to manage.
Title: Re: Second Amendment Rights of 18-to-20-Year-Olds
Post by: coelacanth on July 14, 2021, 04:54:58 pm
My kids call it being a "provisional adult".  Re-enforced by having a "provisional" CFP.

And while I hear what booksmart is saying, the reason this doesn't hold up, IMHO is that it is not illegal for them to own a handgun, or even buy a handgun. It is illegal for an FFL to sell them a handgun.  In other words, as long as they don't get a background check, it's fine.

I agree they brains aren't baked yet.  I disagree that this should be a requirement to exercise the right to life/defense of life.  But even if that were the goal, the rules should be the opposite what they are now.  They should ONLY be able to buy a handgun from an FFL where they have to comply with all those rigors, including background check.

As it is, this panel got it right.  If you are legally an adult then you should be an adult.  Drink, shoot, screw, smoke.  Just don't be stupid about it.

Since I am on the soap box, I will further say that we turn kids into responsible adults not be shielding them from adult decisions and choices, but by exposing them to those choices and helping them gain experience in a controlled environment.  You gotta mix the fruit into the jello BEFORE it sets, otherwise it sits on top and is hard to manage.
Agreed.  On all counts. 

Mostly because once you spend a fair amount of time around people in that age bracket you realize their brains still aren't fully gelled yet, and that bad decisions still run rampant.

If that is the critical factor in determining who gets to make that decision a compelling argument can be made that those currently exercising that power have failed their own test of reason. 
Title: Re: Second Amendment Rights of 18-to-20-Year-Olds
Post by: booksmart on July 15, 2021, 09:52:17 am

I agree they brains aren't baked yet.  I disagree that this should be a requirement to exercise the right to life/defense of life.  But even if that were the goal, the rules should be the opposite what they are now.  They should ONLY be able to buy a handgun from an FFL where they have to comply with all those rigors, including background check.


Fair point.  How do you feel about adding parental signoff on the purchase?
Title: Re: Second Amendment Rights of 18-to-20-Year-Olds
Post by: Plebian on July 15, 2021, 11:49:26 am
If 18 is the age at which you are an adult. Then why would you need a parental signature?

They are either adults or they are not. That is the entire point of having an age of majority.

If not making bad decisions was set as the bar to adulthood. Then I only know about 5 adults, and there would be a ton of elderly children.
Title: Re: Second Amendment Rights of 18-to-20-Year-Olds
Post by: booksmart on July 15, 2021, 01:40:09 pm
If 18 is the age at which you are an adult. Then why would you need a parental signature?

Asked and answered, your Honor...

Quote
Then I only know about 5 adults, and there would be a ton of elderly children.

Sounds maybe a little low, but not as low as one might hope... *sigh*
Title: Re: Second Amendment Rights of 18-to-20-Year-Olds
Post by: Plebian on July 15, 2021, 02:49:43 pm
If we are looking to reduce the effect of bad decisions by limiting people past the age of majority. I would much rather strip them of the right to vote and drive. They can do much more damage by voting and driving than using handguns IMO. 
Title: Re: Second Amendment Rights of 18-to-20-Year-Olds
Post by: RetroGrouch on July 15, 2021, 03:41:54 pm
If we are looking to reduce the effect of bad decisions by limiting people past the age of majority. I would much rather strip them of the right to vote and drive. They can do much more damage by voting and driving than using handguns IMO.

Or having sex.
Title: Re: Second Amendment Rights of 18-to-20-Year-Olds
Post by: Mikee5star on July 15, 2021, 11:55:24 pm
I was recently told that you can't buy matches or lighters in Kalif**** until you are 21.

18 has always struck me as arbitrary.  Was it set there as that is the age when most people leave mandatory full time education.  If we changed the majority age to 21, do we extend mandatory education to age 21?
Title: Re: Second Amendment Rights of 18-to-20-Year-Olds
Post by: coelacanth on July 17, 2021, 12:54:42 pm
What would you cite as evidence we are actually educating young people?   :hmm
Title: Re: Second Amendment Rights of 18-to-20-Year-Olds
Post by: Mikee5star on July 17, 2021, 09:43:02 pm
I said mandatory education, not effective education.
Title: Re: Second Amendment Rights of 18-to-20-Year-Olds
Post by: Kaso on July 18, 2021, 02:46:20 pm
18 has always struck me as arbitrary.  Was it set there as that is the age when most people leave mandatory full time education.  If we changed the majority age to 21, do we extend mandatory education to age 21?
21 was the age of majority for most of our country's history.  It was the age of voting, and holding most offices.  I can not speak to whether it was the age of signing contracts or owning property, but I imagine it was.

18 was the arbitrary age that we decided someone could serve in the military, and that has been the rule (with exceptions) going back to at least the civil war.  How it was decided upon, that is what I would like to know. The 26th amendment was a direct result of this arbitrary age of enlistment.
Title: Re: Second Amendment Rights of 18-to-20-Year-Olds
Post by: sqlbullet on July 19, 2021, 12:11:29 pm
First, let's clear up some terms.  We have here a mixed discussion about the "age of majority" and the "age of license".

The age of majority is the age at which a person acquires legal control over their person, actions and decisions.  This would include things like entering into contracts, criminal and civil liability, voting, enlisting or being conscripted into military service, etc.

The age of license is the age at which a license to engage in an activity is conveyed.  In some cases this is a physical license such as drivers license or associated learners permit.  In other cases this is not a physical license, such as the drinking age of 21 in US states.

The question at hand is whether the purchase of a handgun is a right that comes with legal control over your person, actions and decisions at the age of majority, of is a licensed activity that is granted at a different age.

Since rights are not licensed, then this is a violation of constitutional rights of 18 year olds.  They are born with a right to own arms, but until the age of majority that right is held by proxy by their parent or legal guardian.  Once the age of majority is reached the parent/guardian looses their proxy and the individual directly acquires the right.

An argument can and no doubt will be made, that since an 18 year old can own a gun, and buy a gun, and the actual restriction is not on the citizen but a restriction on the FFL holder, there is not an infringement of rights.  Being a federal gun dealer is a matter of license and is well established.  A regulation they must abide is that they cannot sell a handgun to a person under 21.

Title: Re: Second Amendment Rights of 18-to-20-Year-Olds
Post by: coelacanth on July 19, 2021, 02:12:09 pm
Good points - well articulated. 

The same crowd that would make the argument that the restriction is on the FFL holder, and therefore on the license, would also argue that private transactions should be banned or regulated under the same standard as FFL transactions.  They would also argue that private transfers of any sort - even from generation to generation for heirloom pieces should be banned or strictly regulated to conform to that same standard.  If there is no legal way for the eighteen year old to exercise the right(s) guaranteed in the Constitution because of statutorily mandated delays the right is denied and thus unconstitutional. 

It may be argued, and probably will, that this is a straw man argument but such laws and regulations already exist and more are in the planning stages.  People elected or appointed to high office(s) are very unhappy when their perceived legal authority is challenged - or negated - or ignored.  They typically redouble their efforts to extend that authority by any means at hand - legal or illegal.