Second Amendment NRA Asks Supreme Court To Strike Down Gun Limits For Minors

Discussion in 'Bill of Rights' started by tulianr, Aug 13, 2013.

  1. tulianr

    tulianr Don Quixote de la Monkey

    Where does everyone stand on this one?

    I personally feel that it is a small part of a much larger question - "When is someone totally responsible for their actions?" I'd like to see a much more clear legal definition of the age of emancipation. Is it 18, or 21?

    If is 18, then I think that anyone 18 or over should be granted the FULL rights accorded to adult citizens; along with the assumption of full responsibility for ones actions. If it is 21, so be it; but make it consistent. You shouldn't have an individual in the military who is too young to drink. That's absurd. Military service, voting, purchasing and carrying a handgun, should all go together. Either you are a child, or you are an adult; with all of the good, as well as the bad, that goes with those labels.

    I think that one reason many of our young adults continue to act like children, is because we treat them like children. We speak of a twenty year old as a "college kid." That's horse hockey. If we want them to act as adults, we have to give them adult privileges, as well as adult penalties for stepping across the boundaries of acceptable behavior.
    Posted: 08/01/2013 9:38 pm
    In a Monday court filing, the National Rifle Association asked the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down a 1968 law that prevents licensed gun dealers from selling handguns to people between the ages of 18 and 21.

    The NRA, along with two nineteen-year-olds, aims to overturn the federal law that restricts the sale of handguns and ammo to anyone under 21 years of age. While individuals between the ages of 18 and 21 cannot obtain a handgun from a licensed dealer per the law, they can still obtain a gun through other channels. The law also does not prevent individuals between 18 and 21 from obtaining shotguns and rifles.

    "Because everyone who sells firearms on anything even approaching a regular basis must be federally licensed, this restriction precludes law abiding adults under the age of 21 from purchasing handguns from the most common (and most logical) sources," the filing reads.

    In 2012, the first challenge to this federal gun law was rejected in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The court held that the age restriction was "consistent with a longstanding tradition of targeting select groups’ ability to access and to use arms for the sake of public safety.”

    NRA Asks Supreme Court To Strike Down Gun Limits For Minors
    Mountainman and kellory like this.
  2. Minuteman

    Minuteman Chaplain Moderator Founding Member

    If you're old enough to go to war you're old enough to enjoy all the rights and privileges of an adult.
  3. AmericanRedoubt1776

    AmericanRedoubt1776 American Redoubt: Idaho-Montana-Wyoming Site Supporter+

  4. AmericanRedoubt1776

    AmericanRedoubt1776 American Redoubt: Idaho-Montana-Wyoming Site Supporter+

  5. kellory

    kellory An unemployed Jester, is nobody's fool. Banned

    In my family, Tradition Rules. At 12, you carry a wooden rifle, and you must treat it as real. You walk the fields with family, cross fences, creeks, and climb into buddy-stands treating your "gun" as real.
    At 13, you get the .22/.410 savage over and under, and it is your gun until you outgrow it, or another hunter comes of age.
    Currently that gun is in the hands of my cousin, for it's second year, and his brother (not yet big enough) is waiting in the wings for his turn. :cool:
    Savage has just started making these guns again in this size. I intend to pick up 1 or 2 when I can.:cool:
    CaboWabo5150 and Minuteman like this.
  6. fedorthedog

    fedorthedog Monkey+++

    its about time this issue was raised. drinking age will be next, i have sent a number of people under 21 to prison, if you have to pay the price at that age you should have the rights.
    kellory, tulianr and Silversnake like this.
  7. Silversnake

    Silversnake Silverback

    If you want this changed, recognize first, that someone has to make money on it. I don't believe the .gov changes anything on the basis of what is morally right. It only changes things to make money for or to protect TPTB. Retailers would make more money on it. Lawyers may be for or against it. No more underage drinking cases for 18-20 year olds, but probably more DUI, drunk and disorderly, rape accusations, and maybe torts for people getting hurt doing stupid stuff.
    Mountainman likes this.
  8. Yard Dart

    Yard Dart Vigilant Monkey Moderator

    If you are old enough to serve this country and pay the ultimate sacrifice, then you should be able to purchase any firearm and enjoy a beer without any infringement by others- anywhere & anytime!!
  9. Sapper John

    Sapper John Analog Monkey in a Digital World

    I was a United States Marine at the tender age of 17.I feel it should be 18!
    tulianr likes this.
  10. BTPost

    BTPost Stumpy Old Fart,Deadman Walking, Snow Monkey Moderator

    My Personal View is that it should be age 18, for ALL Weapons.... With that said, The argument, that not being able to purchase a "HandGun" somehow is a Constitutional Infringement, due to lack of Self-Defense, will never hold water in SCOTUS. If you "READ" Heller, that decision talks about "Reasonable Limits" on the 2nd Amendment, just like we have some "Reasonable Limits" on the 1st Amendment. One can argue that a person is NOT defenseless, just because he can NOT purchase a HandGun, as he may purchase a ShotGun, or Rifle, any day of the week. Many States have Statutes, that limit Concealed Carry, to Citizens over the age of 21. In the Illinois Case in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, had the State Stature recently passed, NOT been signed, and the previous Unconstitutional Statute, stay been lifted, ANYONE could have been walking around with an AR, AK, or Shotgun, slung over their back. That is NOT "Defenseless". Also, an 18 Year Old can certainly, under Federal Law, Make a Private Purchase, in a Face to Face transaction, from anyone who is a Resident of the same State. That is NOT "Defenseless". Now if Obummer, and his Lapdog Holder, along with Babs Feinswine, NY Chuckie, and a few others, had their way, it would surely be a whole lot worse, and Criminal to do so. This approach is a REAL HAIL MARY, and not likely to even be considered, let alone, actually get adjudicated. ..... Do NOT Hold your Breath.....
  11. ghrit

    ghrit Bad company Administrator Founding Member

    The problem is multifaceted. There are (few, but) 12 year olds that would be perfectly safe with carry. And, there are 30 year olds (many) that aren't safe walking. To solve the problem, a prescriptive age limit is applied. To do otherwise would require judgement by the "authority" that allows/permits the carry. We cannot have judgement enter into the system, can we? Someone would have to apply reason.

    Now, if it were up to me, once completing a tour of duty in any branch of the service, carry would be automatically permitted. Other than that, carry eligibility would be withheld until the qualifying age for the Oval Office, and for the same reasons that age is established.
    BTPost likes this.
  12. Mindgrinder

    Mindgrinder Karma Pirate Ninja|RIP 12-25-2017

    I'm gonna have to go with 16 to drink, drive and be armed.
    Maybe more kids would move out before they're 30 if we treated them like adults earlier in life. Granted I'm not completely opposed to 18.
  13. tulianr

    tulianr Don Quixote de la Monkey

    Me too. It was probably a good thing too; being a half-grown kid made it a little easier to swallow my otherwise excessive pride, and actually complete basic. A few years later, and I'm not sure things would have gone as well. As it was, that seventeen-year-old kid standing on those yellow footprints never considered saying anything but "Yes Sir!"
    Sapper John and Yard Dart like this.
survivalmonkey SSL seal warrant canary