The Washington Times
A federal appeals court on Tuesday narrowly rejected a request from the National Rifle Association
to rehear a case challenging the constitutionality of federal laws
banning licensed firearms dealers from selling handguns to people
younger than 21.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans rejected the request to hear the case before the full court
on an 8-7 vote, one day after a three-judge panel upheld the laws as
constitutional. All three judges on the panel that ruled Monday voted
against rehearing the case.
The lawsuit, filed by several people from the ages of 18 to 20 at the time and the NRA
against U.S.
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in 2010, argues that the
federal laws constitute “a significant, unequal, and impermissible
burden on the right to keep and bear arms of a class of millions of
law-abiding 18-to-20 year-old adult citizens.”
Later filings argue that the NRA’s
licensed gun dealer members are harmed by the ban as well, since it
prohibits them from making lawful handgun and ammunition sales to 18- to
20-year-olds.
Judge Prado,
though, wrote that people who are at least 18 years old can own “long
guns,” or rifles, can possess and use handguns, and can receive them as
gifts from parents or guardians. He also cited federal statistics
showing comparatively high crime rates among 18- to 20-year-olds,
writing that since the ban was passed in 1968, “its objective has
retained its reasonableness. The threat posed by 18-to-20-year-olds with
easy access to handguns endures.”
"Endures" indeed. I don't see what good prohibiting teenagers from buying guns does if we allow them to own and use them.
What's your opinion? I think the minimum age for owning, using and buying any gun should be 25. Too often, younger people are not yet mature enough to handle the responsibility.
What do you think? Please leave a comment.
If you want to be consistent, you should raise the entire age of majority to 25. No more voting for 18 year olds. No military service until 25. No marriage, no drinking, no renting cars, apartments, houses, etc, or buying them. No getting one's own job or making contracts until 25.
ReplyDeleteIf you push for a total reclassification of 18-25 as children, you'll be being consistent. Everyone will think you're crazy as E.N., and they'll be right, but at least you'll be being consistent.
Otherwise, butt out of the rights of young people. It's bad enough that the court allowed this current state of affairs to stand, but taking away All rights of an even larger class of adults to own guns for their self defense is completely intolerable.
I haven't had time to read the entire decision, but the reporting indicates that the court's decision was that it's legal for the government to disarm certain classes of adults since they did this back during the founding period.
Of course, as we've covered before, those classes were natives and africans who we didn't want getting too uppity.
The court ought to be ashamed of itself for using such laws to excuse its refusal to act here.
I agree. I have soldiers thar are given automatic weapons, explosives, and armored vehicles and are expected to use them properly. And they do. Then after a hard days training, I'm expected to tell them they can't be trusted to have a beer. Someone needs to pick an age and stick to it.
DeleteFew nations which implement restrictive firearm policies (which would pass the Mikeb muster concerning Proper Gun Control) bar the possession and use of arms to such a ludicrous age. The age at which one may apply for a license to acquire and possess firearms in the Majority of continental Europe is 18 years, with numerous exceptions concerning the use and often personal ownership of arms by underage parties for sporting purposes. Britannia merely restricts the use of firearms (including shotguns) and air guns to those over the age of 16. New Zealand allows minors over the age of 16 to apply and receive firearms licenses which allow for the purchase and possession of conventional longarms and appropriate munitions.
DeleteIn stark contrast are a few other nations with less stringent policies (such as those adopted primarily by South American and Sub-Saharan African nationalities) that implement an absurd age requirement as the principal requirement for gun ownership. Brazil and Guatemala for example, make few requirements of prospective gun owners, other than mandating that they have simply managed to survive for 25 years. Rwanda mandates that gun owners be at least 30 years of age.
Age restrictions higher than the conventional age of majority are of little value to public safety, as idiocy transcends chronological age, and it is entirely likely that 20 year old is equally competent to handle a firearm as a 70 year old. Such a prohibition only serves to bar the youth of our nation from legitimate competitive sport and hunting (as well as the obvious defensive advantage presented by the availability of a firearm, particularly in may instances, a handgun), while having no affect on armed criminality.
Concerning U.S. law, the Federal minimum age for the purchase (not possession however) of any modern powder firearm is 18 years, for a long arm and 21 years for handguns, provided that such handguns are sold at a FFL dealer, otherwise the minimum age is only 18. One must be at least 21 to register a NFA item. Similar restrictions apply to all modern powder based ammunition, as such rifle and shotgun shells are restricted to those who are at least 18, while handgun ammunition must be sold to persons over 21.
While I find the public safety merits of such an asinine policy (one which would mandate a legal minimum age of 25 for Everything) described in Tennessean's post, and advocated by our patron troll, it does occur to me that my industry would benefit from the mass-criminalization that would occur if the age of majority and age of consent where raised to 21 or 25. I may also add that some emerging powers are adopting restrictive minimum ages on basic functions of life, exemplified by the adoption of a minimum driving age of 21 by many nations, and India's recent decision to raise the age of consent from 16 to 18. It would be also most convenient for the gun lobby to accept restrictive minimum ages in a compromise that would avoid the implementation of harsh measures such as restrictive licensing or and Assault Weapons ban. Nobody involved in the discussion would be affected anyway, as most youth are gun control advocates (as such a fruitless pursuit requires a naive flock) and nobody who frequents this blog would likely be affected anyway.
Goldilocks, why do you bother?
DeleteGreg--I think this is an attempt to change targets and troll Mike and his side--see Mike's exasperated response to this fella under the church stabbing post.
DeleteAt least we'll see some new arguments.
DeleteSomeone who is old enough to enter into contracts, own property, vote for our leaders, and fight and possibly die for this country is old enough to own a handgun.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, Mikeb, you cut out too much from the source article, since what you have claims that Holder and the ATF are the ones arguing that the law is an unjust burden.
When I was in the USCG our boat crews did a lot of Search and Rescue (SAR) and Law Enforcement (LE). In both cases, the oldest member of a boat crew was usually well under 25. With armed personnel ranging from 18-23 we had no accidental shootings, no accidental discharges and no bad shoot/don't shoot decisions. Our EMTs were chosen from the same group, so in addition to being armed they were required to make immediate decisions that could have tragic consequences if they chose poorly. We had no such poor decisions or tragic outcomes. When I made the transition to the Navy, I found similar situations and results to be the norm. So, my thoughts are that your beliefs on this issue fly in the face of experience.
ReplyDeleteRM, the guys you're talking about all went through military boot camp training. The 18 - 25 year-olds we're talking about are civilians. Different kettle of fish altogether.
DeleteAh, yes, the magic fairy dust of Government Training that transforms someone into a responsible person who can be trusted with a gun...but only in their official capacity.
DeleteWell, based upon your words I guess we could set a different age at which its legal for a military trained person to buy a firearm. Therefore, I suggest that any age requirement be waived for a person who has successfully completed boot camp.
DeleteI think they should not adhere to the appeal because new or usedguns should not be given to people under the age of 21.
ReplyDelete