With the latest mass shooting, of an elementary school no less, having a barely 18 year old perpetrator who purchased his AR-15 style semiautomatic rifle legally, there is now a renewed push from "progressives" to raise the age for purchasing at least some types of long guns from 18 to 21. But there is really nothing progressive about doing so at all.
As long as the age of majority is 18, there is really no legitimate reason to selectively infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of 18-20 year olds. Period. It is both over-inclusive (most 18-20 year olds are not criminals, let alone murderers) and under-inclusive (the lion's share of mass shootings are committed by people over 21). If anything, gender is a far bigger predictor of mass shootings than age, with men committing 96-99% of them, yet no one is calling for disarming all men. And recently, a California law setting an age limit of 21 for semiautomatic rifles was struck down as unconstitutional. But now Congress is trying to pass a federal law raising the age for at least some types of long guns to 21 (it is already 21 to purchase handguns under federal law).
It is indeed very important to keep guns from falling into the wrong hands, no argument there. But there are far better (albeit imperfect) ways to do this:
- Require a license or permit to purchase handguns and some or all types of rifles going forward, regardless of age
- Require a psych evaluation before purchasing guns going forward, regardless of age
- Universal background checks
- Safe storage laws
- Red flag laws (truly a no-brainer)
- Waiting periods to buy guns
- "Treat bullets like Sudafed"
- Tax bullets (like Chris Rock recommended)
- Ban high-capacity magazines
- Reinstate the assault weapons ban that prevailed from 1994-2004
It appears that "progressive" ideology has become a synonym for taking people's rights away. Raising the minimum age to buy guns from 18 to 21 is not a real solution. There are better solutions in reducing mass casualty events from mass shooters. Society working together to report people who intend to cause harm is a solution. Infringing on the rights of young adults who are 18-20 years old is undemocratic since it would be guilty of association to a mass shooter, which is wrong. Young adults who are 18-20 years old deserve due process and their rights under the second amendment.
ReplyDeleteAmen to that!
ReplyDeleteIf you're old enough to vote (a constitutional right) and can join the army (or for males be forcibly drafted) where they will hand you more powerful weapons, you're old enough to buy a rifle as a civilian. Although not the only causation, mental health should be part of the national conversation. I do agree with red-flag laws (though I have some concerns about misuse) and extreme-risk protection orders. Universal background checks are a no brainer too.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. Legislators from the federal and state levels simply like to take people's rights away.
DeleteAmen
DeleteThough I don't agree with the age increase, there was a proposal mentioned this week that I found worth discussing. If people between the ages of 18 and 21 want to purchase firearms, the juvenile records should be part of the background check which may cause a waiting period. When you turn 18, your juvenile record is typically sealed, and for many purposes, I would agree with that but not all. If you were a violent felon at 16 or 17, certain proclivities may still be present at 18 or 19 despite hoping the juvenile justice system is able to rehabilitate such persons. If you're under 21, I could agree with a 7-day waiting period or a juvenile background check, maybe even both, but the background check would have more teeth to it. I think this proposal would meet in the middle. It would not ban legal adults under 21 from purchasing firearms but it does vet younger gun owners more properly. Thoughts? Opinions?
DeleteI also thought of a license requirement for those under 21 who want to purchase semi-automatic weapons (shall issue license). You would pass a background check (including looking at juvenile records), you would attend a gun safety course, complete training, and would have a session on gun violence awareness. If the requirements are completed, they'll get the license. I would prefer the first idea more. I also think everyone could still benefit from these things regardless of age.
DeleteI agree that juvenile records should be included in gun background checks for young adults, though the look back period should not be more than a few years. As for licensing requirements for semi-automatic weapons, I would be fine with that for all ages.
DeleteGood compromise and I hope it's something that our senators could pass. Any licensing provisions would never happen federally, but of course, states can pass such things. I don't think the licensing process for the rifles should be as strict as the process used in some states (like New York) to get a permit. Although semi-autos can do their damage, handguns are used in the overall majority of gun crimes.
DeleteSome historical information: The old Voting Age of 21 was a purely practical provision to do with Compulsory Military Service for young men aged 18-20. Men obviously couldn't vote while in the military and women couldn't vote until the 1930s.
ReplyDeleteAnd speaking of the military, I believe the drinking age, and obviously also the gun age, should be 18 for the military. The US Federal Government does not have the authority to dictate age limits for the states, but it does control the military.
ReplyDeleteStates have drawn exceptions before, though sometimes the federal government uses the allure of federal highway funds or money for other purposes to get states to fall in line.
DeleteIn Texas and California, you must be 21 to buy tobacco, but active-duty military received exemptions (that exemption was voided via the passage of the Federal Tobacco 21 Act). In most states, rifles and shotguns are 18 years old, but to conceal carry a handgun you typically must be 21 years old as well. Texas, Tennesee, and other states drop that down to 18 if you are active-duty military or were honorably discharged. For a long time after the drinking age was raised to 21, military bases in the US allowed service members to buy beer on base at 18. The federal government should not dictate what age limits the state sets, but they always use loopholes and money to defy that. Selective federalism.
No real dog in the fight as a Canadian, but it's not so much about age. Canada has some of the strictest gun laws, and people under the age of 21 are allowed to use guns. You get a minor's licence for a firearm as young as 12 and can purchase ammunition. You can't buy your own guns until you're 18. The minor's licence for 12-17 year olds allows them to borrow the gun of an adult under their supervision for the purposes of hunting or target shooting. The main difference between our two countries is that once recognizes firearms as a privilege and one as an inherent right. One sees it fit to have all prospective gun owners licensed, undergo multiple background checks, take a safety class, and get character references. There is also a mandatory waiting period of 28 days for those who never held a gun licence (like a minor's PAL) before. An 18-year-old citizen who can meet all the requirements for gun ownership up here is one that can be trusted given how rigorous it is, and even more so for handguns.
DeleteAn 18-year-old who can buy a gun the same day they become an adult without the same rigorous process is one that raises eyebrows. Instead, the band-aid solution is to raise it to 21, when other things like universal background checks, extreme risk protection orders, and licensing for all firearm categories give the laws more teeth. Mental health resources would also be a big plus. Violent and mentally ill 18-year-olds won't be different from another violent and mentally ill 21-year-old.