SCOTUS - Asked to clarify what it means to "bear" arms.

[Shellback]

Hopefully they'll finally clarify the original and full intent of the 2nd Amendment. According to this article (http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2014/02/constitution-check-what-does-it-mean-that-there-is-a-right-to-bear-guns/) there are 2 pending SCOTUS cases that may address the issue.


The Supreme Court in 2008 made it clear that the right to “keep” a gun is a personal right, and that it means one has a right to keep a functioning firearm for self-defense within the home. But it has refused repeatedly since then to take on the question of whether that right exists also outside the home. If there is a separate right to “bear” a gun (and the Court, in fact, did say in 2008 that the two rights were separate), it has not said what that means…

In a case from Texas, the NRA’s lawyers have reduced to elementary constitutional logic the question of what a right to “bear” guns means: “The explicit guarantee of the right to ‘bear’ arms would mean nothing,” the NRA’s filing argued, “if it did not protect the right to ‘bear’ arms outside of the home, where the Amendment already guarantees that they may be ‘kept.’ The most fundamental canons of construction forbid any interpretation that would discard this language as meaningless surplus.”

The NRA petition can be read here (PDF). (http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/13-390-NRA-v-McCraw-Cert-Pet-09-24-13.pdf)

[TheRoland]

It doesn't say in the article, but the two cases are NRA v. McCraw and NRA v. BATFE. Both deal explicitly with 18-21 year-olds.

Neither sounds especially likely to work to me, compared to some of the cases the SCOTUS has already passed on. Not that predicting which cases get cert ever is productive, of course.

Article by the same author, I think, at SCOTUSBlog, here (http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/02/gun-rights-cases-on-the-schedule/)

[GardoneVT]

It doesn't say in the article, but the two cases are NRA v. McCraw and NRA v. BATFE. Both deal explicitly with 18-21 year-olds.

Neither sounds especially likely to work to me, compared to some of the cases the SCOTUS has already passed on. Not that predicting which cases get cert ever is productive, of course.

Article by the same author, I think, at SCOTUSBlog, here (http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/02/gun-rights-cases-on-the-schedule/)

I'm no Constitutional Law scholar, but I'd wager their decision would be in essence " Whatever Each State Legislature Decides."

Good news for some, and bad news for others .The fact that some state Constitutions don't have an enumerated Right to Keep and Bear Arms won't be ignored.

[Shellback]

It doesn't say in the article, but the two cases are NRA v. McCraw and NRA v. BATFE. Both deal explicitly with 18-21 year-olds.

Thanks for the additional info.

[RoyGBiv]

It doesn't say in the article, but the two cases are NRA v. McCraw and NRA v. BATFE. Both deal explicitly with 18-21 year-olds.

Neither sounds especially likely to work to me, compared to some of the cases the SCOTUS has already passed on. Not that predicting which cases get cert ever is productive, of course.

Article by the same author, I think, at SCOTUSBlog, here (http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/02/gun-rights-cases-on-the-schedule/)
I hold out hope that I've missed some nuance that makes this a bigger case than it appears at first blush.
Something tells me I'm missing some bigger meaning, otherwise, why would the NRA be point on both?

[ford.304]

I'm puzzled as well, from a strategic standpoint.

The court has long allowed states a fair amount of leeway in setting the age of majority for all sorts of rights. Lowering the voting age to 18 nationally took an explicit amendment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_v._Mitchell

If the court finds greater protection for the right to bear arms than the right to vote, I'll wear a pink tutu to work.

And the drinking age of 21 was upheld on grounds entirely unrelated to the specific age. The constitution itself sets specific age limits for various offices. I really don't see the court granting cert on any of these. The majority could completely ignore the 2nd amendment aspect and just hold that the states have broad leeway to regulate the age at which different rights come into effect.

[Dagga Boy]

I think my only question would be "is there an age when Constitutional rights do not apply. At what age do you have the right to free speech, to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, etc...? Could a State decide that you do not have the Right to Free Speech until you are 25? I doubt it. So I can see the goal may be to both define "bearing of arms" and put that consistent with most other laws as those rights taking affect at age 18 (adulthood) that seems consistent with all other full rights.

[Don Gwinn]

Could be that's what the NRA likes about it--a win clearly establishes the right, but a loss might only apply to the specific age group 18-21. Less risk for the same reward. Nationally, they're pretty conservative and risk-averse in court, not without reason.

Here in the 7th Circuit, though, the federal courts are betting that there's an individual right to carry a firearm.

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk HD

[GardoneVT]

Could be that's what the NRA likes about it--a win clearly establishes the right, but a loss might only apply to the specific age group 18-21. Less risk for the same reward. Nationally, they're pretty conservative and risk-averse in court, not without reason.

Here in the 7th Circuit, though, the federal courts are betting that there's an individual right to carry a firearm.

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk HD

Unless the SCOTUS says each state can set the age and limitations on the right. In that event, New York State will doubtlessly require one be 45 years old before being eligible for a gun permit.

[joshs]

Unless the SCOTUS says each state can set the age and limitations on the right. In that event, New York State will doubtlessly require one be 45 years old before being eligible for a gun permit.

How would they do that? Either the challenged laws are unconstitutional, or they aren't. Anything else would be an advisory opinion, which the court is prohibited from issuing.

As far as the general merits of the challenges, there are very few historical examples of age based restrictions on the right to bear arms. Heller says that the test for whether something is protected by the Second Amendment requires a historical analysis, so acquisition and carry of handguns by 18-20 year olds should be protected. (Yes I realized that it does not logically follow that just because something was not historically prohibited does not meant that it could not have been prohibited, but we are stuck with this test, at least for now).

[TheRoland]

As an update, the SCOTUS declined to grant cert on any of the three firearm-related cases in Friday's conference.

As I posted above, I didn't really expect them to grant either of these NRA cases, but it just makes it even harder to divine what they're really thinking.

[Duces Tecum]

As an update, the SCOTUS declined to grant cert on any of the three firearm-related cases in Friday's conference.

As I posted above, I didn't really expect them to grant either of these NRA cases, but it just makes it even harder to divine what they're really thinking.

This Court is cautious: one step at a time. Asking if 18 year olds can carry before determining what "bear" means is a bridge too far. Let's wait until Drake is presented for cert, presumably in April. Peruta, I'm hopeful, made cert for Drake considerably more likely.

[cclaxton]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-na-nn-supreme-court-second-amendment-nra-20140224,0,3225948.story
Good story on the SCOTUS decisions on NRA vs. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and NRA vs. McCraw.

NRA v BATF affirms that a FFL may not sell a handgun to a 18-20 yearold per the 1968 Federal law.
I agree with the decision. The vast majority of 18-20 yearolds that I know are not ready emotionally. The only exception I would grant would be to those who serve a combat/LEO role in the military. If this were unconstitutional, then it would also be unconstitutional for States to ban 18-20 yearolds from drinking alcohol because there is a fundamental right to purchase alcohol, per the 21st Amendment. Also, not sure why the NRA is wasting their time on this: States may allow 18-20 yearolds to purchase handguns from private citizens. It is also legal for States to allow the possession of handguns by 18-20 yearolds, and even concealed or open-carry (although few seem to allow it).

In NRA v McGraw it allowed a Texas law to stand that 18-20 year-olds may legally be restricted from carrying a concealed handgun. Texas grants the exception for anyone in the armed forces or who served honorably. Again, I agree since I don't think the vast majority of people that age have the emotional maturity. And, again, it would then be unconstitutional to ban 18-20 yearolds from drinking alcohol if they rules on concealed carry for 18-20.

The NRA lawyers should be focusing on other things that will have a bigger impact: 1) Storing your handgun legally in your personal vehicle when parked at work, commerical garages, and anyplace except those the Federal or State Gov't considers high security. 2) National Concealed Carry or Reciprocity; 3) Reducing penalties for violating State Gun laws for technical infractions of gun laws (ones not involving serious felonies). A good example is the Felony for possessing a high cap magazine in some states. That should be a misdemeanor, for instance. 4) Reducing restrictions on interstate travel via public transportation. There are so many areas where the NRA lawyers could be more productive and really help the concealed carry population.
Cody

[JV_]

]The vast majority of 18-20 yearolds that I know are not ready emotionally.

But they're old enough to vote. Isn't that just as serious/important as gun ownership?

[Kyle Reese]

Yet an 18 year old can spill their blood and guts in an Afghan village, all while carrying government issued arms.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

[Suvorov]

I agree with the decision. The vast majority of 18-20 yearolds that I know are not ready emotionally.
Cody[/FONT][/COLOR]

You know. You really are an enigma to me. You are obviously a knowledgable shooter and well respected by the members of this forum yet you sometimes say things that make me wonder what planet you are from.

The first was your statements after Sandy Hook that Dianne Feinstein could be a person that we could reason with and get on "our side". Now this. Ability to vote, operate a motor vehicle, and yes - die in some crap hole on the other side of the planet not withstanding; you do know there are whole swaths of land in this country where those under 21 routinely use and have unfettered access to firearms on a daily basis without shooting up the place or themselves? Occasionally these minors even protect themselves and their families from harm.

You certainly have a different perspective than most shooters I know.

[cclaxton]

But they're old enough to vote. Isn't that just as serious/important as gun ownership?
The consequences of a bad vote are not nearly as serious as the consequences of a bad decision to shoot.
Cody

[cclaxton]

Yet an 18 year old can spill their blood and guts in an Afghan village, all while carrying government issued arms.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk
Fred, in my posting I specifically mentioned that there should be an exception for those who serve in the military. US Congress could probably grant an exception to the 1968 gun law that regulates the FFL's and make an exception for active-duty or veterans. I would support that. And, I bet SCOTUS would as well.
Cody

[cclaxton]

You know. You really are an enigma to me. You are obviously a knowledgable shooter and well respected by the members of this forum yet you sometimes say things that make me wonder what planet you are from.

The first was your statements after Sandy Hook that Dianne Feinstein could be a person that we could reason with and get on "our side". Now this. Ability to vote, operate a motor vehicle, and yes - die in some crap hole on the other side of the planet not withstanding; you do know there are whole swaths of land in this country where those under 21 routinely use and have unfettered access to firearms on a daily basis without shooting up the place or themselves? Occasionally these minors even protect themselves and their families from harm.
I apologize if I don't follow prescribed party-line viewpoints....no wait, sorry, I just remembered it is a highly valued principle of Free Thought and Free Expression here in the United States. No two people are alike, even identical twins. I like the fact that we can have a civil discussion here on this forum. I would also like it if we refrained from personal characterizations and focus on the issues at hand.

I am sure there is a significant percentage of the population between 18-20 that are emotionally mature enough...I will grant you 30%, although I think it is lower than that. Unfortunately laws, especially Federal Laws, are general in their application and thus must be applied to the general population. As I said in my post I support active-duty and veterans exceptions. Congress would have to change the law, and I would support that and I think SCOTUS would agree. Same thing for States. I have raised three kids in the suburbs, much like the majority of the nation and my State. None of my kids showed the maturity to handle a handgun or to drink alcohol. (Although my daughter would have been fine with drinking, not so with my two sons.)

Anyone raising kids is trying to give them the best possible education and keep them safe the longest we can. My life history has taught me that the age restrictions on handguns and alcohol are reasonable and practical and keep our kids safer. That is not a constitutional argument, but a parental one.
Cody

[Tamara]

Indiana residents get their CCWs at 18 and don't seem to have problems. Maybe we're a lot more mature than Virginians.

Here we believe that if someone's old enough to jump out of a flaming C-47 into the flak-torn midnight sky over Normandy with a BAR strapped to 'em, they can probably be trusted to carry a Kel-Tec to the grocery store.

[cclaxton]

Indiana residents get their CCWs at 18 and don't seem to have problems. Maybe we're a lot more mature than Virginians.

Here we believe that if someone's old enough to jump out of a flaming C-47 into the flak-torn midnight sky over Normandy with a BAR strapped to 'em, they can probably be trusted to carry a Kel-Tec to the grocery store.
I think America is great in that different States can have different laws...even different cities can have different laws. I think that is part of what makes us great. All our States and communities don't have to be the same...in fact it would be weird if we were....and incredibly boring.
Indiana has a lot more rural areas and likely a lot more of the 18-20yo have experience with firearms and likely are more mature. Should that set the standard for everyone else?...don't think so.
Cody

[JV_]

The consequences of a bad vote are not nearly as serious as the consequences of a bad decision to shoot.
Cody

It depends; voting means they can end up on jurys too, and that can have some serious consequences.

[JV_]

Never mind, Cody. I don't really want to debate the issue with you, we're polar opposites on all things political and this will be no different.

[cclaxton]

Never mind, Cody. I don't really want to debate the issue with you, we're polar opposites on all things political and this will be no different.
Sometimes agreeing to disagree is the best we can do.
Cody

[5pins]

If this were unconstitutional, then it would also be unconstitutional for States to ban 18-20 yearolds from drinking alcohol because there is a fundamental right to purchase alcohol, per the 21st Amendment.

Incorrect. The 21st amendment doesn’t give anyone the right to drink regardless of age, it simply repealed the 18th amendment. In fact several places in the U.S. have laws banning the sale of alcohol.

[JV_]

In fact several places in the U.S. have laws banning the sale of alcohol.Washington County KY, the home of Jim Beam, is a dry county. You can't buy their (alcohol) products when you take the tours.

[Tamara]

You don't need to understand the law or how rights work to have an opinion on them! That's in the Constitution somewhere!

[MDS]

I am sure there is a significant percentage of the population between 18-20 that are emotionally mature enough...I will grant you 30%, although I think it is lower than that. [...] That is not a constitutional argument, but a parental one.

You seem pretty comfortable turning your personal opinion about what's appropriate, into boundaries for the lives of others. Here's a fact, not opinion, which I'm curious how you would weave into your narrative: a whole lot of innocent people die - every day! - because of stupid dangerous driving by 16-20 year old kids who just aren't ready q. If I'm hearing your argument right, then you would like to significantly increase the minimum driving age. Is that right? If not, can you elaborate?

[cclaxton]

Incorrect. The 21st amendment doesn’t give anyone the right to drink regardless of age, it simply repealed the 18th amendment. In fact several places in the U.S. have laws banning the sale of alcohol.
I think we have a misunderstanding. I agree the 21st didn't give anyone the right to drink regardless of age...that was one of my points. While some counties, (and in some states many counties), ban the sale, they did not and could not constitutionally ban the mere possession or consumption of alcohol on your own property as long as you are of legal age. And no state has an outright ban on sale or possession, or consumption except as it relates to minors, under 21, public drunkenness, DWI, etc. Those states that do have many counties that ban sales also happen to have the highest incidence of moonshining and some would argue the dry counties are designed to protect moonshiners from paying taxes. But this thread is really not about alcohol...it is just a comparison. Dry or not, the issue is whether 18-20yo are mature enough to be safe with a handgun or alcohol.
Cody

[cclaxton]

You seem pretty comfortable turning your personal opinion about what's appropriate, into boundaries for the lives of others. Here's a fact, not opinion, which I'm curious how you would weave into your narrative: a whole lot of innocent people die - every day! - because of stupid dangerous driving by 16-20 year old kids who just aren't ready q. If I'm hearing your argument right, then you would like to significantly increase the minimum driving age. Is that right? If not, can you elaborate?
I would rather try to stay on topic as it relates to handguns and 18-21yo...not because I want to avoid the subject, but because I know how the moderators think.
So, I will make one statement on this and no more: Fortunately parents can control whether a minor can drive until they are 18 in most cases, and that will vary by the parent...as it should. No change in the law is needed to control the age of driving.

Back on topic: Parents can also make their own decisions on when their children can learn to shoot firearms and possession of the firearms under their authority. 18-20yo are permitted to participate in firearms competitions legally and possess a handgun legally. (There may be some states that restrict the age that minors may participate in shooting sports....I am not an expert on all the states handgun laws).
Cody

[David Armstrong]

You seem pretty comfortable turning your personal opinion about what's appropriate, into boundaries for the lives of others. Here's a fact, not opinion, which I'm curious how you would weave into your narrative: a whole lot of innocent people die - every day! - because of stupid dangerous driving by 16-20 year old kids who just aren't ready q. If I'm hearing your argument right, then you would like to significantly increase the minimum driving age. Is that right? If not, can you elaborate?
It might be worth pointing out that many countries do have a higher minimum driving age. The U.S. is definitely in the minority with our laws allowing drivers to be 14, 15, and 16.

[JAD]

What other countries do is not relevant to the US.

[5pins]

If this were unconstitutional, then it would also be unconstitutional for States to ban 18-20 yearolds from drinking alcohol because there is a fundamental right to purchase alcohol, per the 21st Amendment.


I agree the 21st didn't give anyone the right to drink regardless of age...

they did not and could not constitutionally ban the mere possession or consumption of alcohol on your own property as long as you are of legal age.

Sorry if I’m not tracking you but you seem to be contradicting yourself.

First you say that it’s a fundamental right. Then you say it’s not. But then you conclude that it cannot be banned because of constitutional reasons.

There is no constitutional right to drink and to use it as an argument is a bit of a Red Herring.

A better argument would be “women under 21 should not be allowed to have an abortion because they don’t have the maturity to make such an important decision.”

[Dan_S]

At eighteen, I was working a full-time job, driving a car (that I bought, and paid insurance on, with money I'd made working at my full-time job) had a concealed carry permit, and owned a Colt 6920 that I'd ordered in preperation for my 18th birthday, and picked up on my birthday (mind you, I didn't get my drivers license until the day after my 18th birthday, so, I actually bought my first rifle *before* I had a drivers license, using my state-issued non-driver ID for the 4473.)

Please explain to me how I could do all that, but wasn't "emotionally mature" enough to walk in to the store and buy a handgun?

How can a constitutionally protected right (to keep and bear arms) be infringed based upon the "feeling" of emotional immaturity? You know what? I'm pretty uncomfortable with the concept of most of the old dudes I have seen at gun shows owning guns, due to the emotional immaturity I've seen displayed by a good portion of them, so if we're going to start regulating stuff based on "emotional immaturity" then I guess that cuts out pretty much every person alive.

[TGS]

Cody, first, I want to congratulate you on your logic in this thread so far. What's more amazing is bringing up a contradictory, incorrect comparison as a red herring, other people calling you on it, and then asking them to stop bringing up red herrings (when they're correcting your red herring you created in the first place). Bravo man, even for yourself it's quite the accomplishment you've made in this thread.


Dry or not, the issue is whether 18-20yo are mature enough to be safe with a handgun or alcohol.
Cody

Why wouldn't they be? If they're mature enough to own a rifle or shotgun, why aren't they mature enough to own a handgun? It's an inanimate object. It's a firearm. It does not have special voodoo powers which make people stupid. It has a different manual of arms, that's it.

And, if they're such a danger to public safety, why are there not systematic problems in the states which do allow 18 year olds to own, carry and purchase handguns?

[Tamara]

I think we should do stuff because of my feels.

[BaiHu]

Laws should never be about feelings. We got enough of that already in politics and that's what's really kittening up our laws.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[TheTrevor]

So, to summarize: 18-20 year old adults should not be allowed to purchase handguns directly, though it's ok for "real" adults to buy same and give them to the second-class adults, who BTW are good to go on buying rifles and shotguns. Because get off my lawn, you darn kids!

Awesome.

One of the best things about the Internet is that you encounter personalities that would be implausible in a B-grade novel, yet somehow are actual people.

[TR675]

What other countries do is not relevant to the US.

Well, sure it is. Every country (really, culture) deals differently with what are largely the same cross-cultural problems. Their solutions might be great, middling, or god-awful, but they are always worth paying attention to. There's no guarantee that a solution that works in Japan would be properly implemented, accepted, or work in Missouri, but that's no excuse for not paying attention.


Laws should never be about feelings. We got enough of that already in politics and that's what's really kittening up our laws.

While I agree with this in principle, I disagree in practice. People's feelings are incredibly important when you're talking about the general acceptance of a law or practice, or even a government. It doesn't matter whether Herbert Hoover was doing a great job as President during the first year or so of the Great Depression, people thought he was doing a horrible job and they un-Presidented him PDQ. Roosevelt arguably accomplished not much with his great social programs, but they sure made people feel good. So while I'd love all of our laws to be based on sound research-informed policy, I don't see it happening anytime soon.

[5pins]

I also don’t think this decision is necessarily a victory for the anti-gun side, nor a stinging defeat for pro gunners. SCOTUS passed on the opportunity to hear U.S. v Emerson, where the appeals court found the second amendment was an individual right, only to make a similar ruling a few years later with Heller.

[BaiHu]

While I agree with this in principle, I disagree in practice. People's feelings are incredibly important when you're talking about the general acceptance of a law or practice, or even a government.

Agreed, which is why I said "should". In general, no matter how well researched people may be in a subject, they often make emotional choices. This forum has countless examples of this and I'd say we are still an exceptional group that bucks the trend in general.



Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[David Armstrong]

What other countries do is not relevant to the US.
That is a rather silly statement, IMO, on many fronts.

[David Armstrong]

Laws should never be about feelings. We got enough of that already in politics and that's what's really kittening up our laws.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
Many, if not most laws are about feelings. In fact that is the basis for most laws, as a reaction to our feelings sbout various items and issues. Laws are an expression of our feelings on assorted things and how we as a society believe those feelings should be addressed. Murder is illegal because we feel taking the lilfe of another under certain conditions is wrong. We have laws against burglary and robbery because we feel that taking property frrom another without their permission is wrong, and so on.

[nalesq]

Many, if not most laws are about feelings. In fact that is the basis for most laws, as a reaction to our feelings sbout various items and issues. Laws are an expression of our feelings on assorted things and how we as a society believe those feelings should be addressed. Murder is illegal because we feel taking the lilfe of another under certain conditions is wrong. We have laws against burglary and robbery because we feel that taking property frrom another without their permission is wrong, and so on.

This is essentially positivist jurisprudence, which though indeed is probably how most people and lawmakers (especially progressives) look at law today, is not how most of the Framers thought, nor even how at least a few of the Supremes think. Justice Thomas, for example, is almost a classic natural law guy.

[David Armstrong]

This is essentially positivist jurisprudence, which though indeed is probably how most people and lawmakers (especially progressives) look at law today, is not how most of the Framers thought, nor even how at least a few of the Supremes think. Justice Thomas, for example, is almost a classic natural law guy.
The basic problem with that is "natural law" is based on what we feel. The Framers decided what should be in the Constitition based on what their feelings, the decision to include or exclude rights for the Bill of Rights was based on feelings, etc.

[nalesq]

The basic problem with that is "natural law" is based on what we feel. The Framers decided what should be in the Constitition based on what their feelings, the decision to include or exclude rights for the Bill of Rights was based on feelings, etc.

That is a rather dismissive and harshly critical view of rationalism in the Enlightenment, but rather than let this thread drift off into a spectacularly nerdy argument over epistemology, I think the more interesting and relevant to this thread question is how jurisprudence might guide one's reasoning and holdings regarding the right to bear arms. For example, I would argue that a judge who leans more towards natural rather than positive law would be more likely to rule in favor of the individual right to bear arms.

[David Armstrong]

That is a rather dismissive and harshly critical view of rationalism in the Enlightenment, but rather than let this thread drift off into a spectacularly nerdy argument over epistemology, I think the more interesting and relevant to this thread question is how jurisprudence might guide one's reasoning and holdings regarding the right to bear arms. For example, I would argue that a judge who leans more towards natural rather than positive law would be more likely to rule in favor of the individual right to bear arms.
Wouldn't that be based on how the judge feels?;)

[ToddG]

Bravo man, even for yourself it's quite the accomplishment you've made in this thread.

Discuss the issue, not one another.

[MDS]

Wouldn't that be based on how the judge feels?;)

The distinction is rational vs irrational. A judge or legislator or executive that imposes their irrational feelings on us - whether that irrational feeling is that guns are bad, gays shouldn't marry, or evolution is satanist doctrine - deserves neither our respect nor our votes. Now, being as how I left my rainbows and unicorns in my other pants today, I'll admit that "deserve's got nothin' to do with it." It's just one more superfluous argument we can use to try and bring folks to our way of thinking. And lo, that's exactly the use to which it's being put here.

Just because the the laws of nature don't guarantee the kind of freedom this country is supposed to stand for, doesn't mean it's useless to argue for it, to work and strive and fight for it.

[Palmguy]

I apologize if I don't follow prescribed party-line viewpoints....no wait, sorry, I just remembered it is a highly valued principle of Free Thought and Free Expression here in the United States. No two people are alike, even identical twins. I like the fact that we can have a civil discussion here on this forum. I would also like it if we refrained from personal characterizations and focus on the issues at hand.

I am sure there is a significant percentage of the population between 18-20 that are emotionally mature enough...I will grant you 30%, although I think it is lower than that. Unfortunately laws, especially Federal Laws, are general in their application and thus must be applied to the general population. As I said in my post I support active-duty and veterans exceptions. Congress would have to change the law, and I would support that and I think SCOTUS would agree. Same thing for States. I have raised three kids in the suburbs, much like the majority of the nation and my State. None of my kids showed the maturity to handle a handgun or to drink alcohol. (Although my daughter would have been fine with drinking, not so with my two sons.)

Anyone raising kids is trying to give them the best possible education and keep them safe the longest we can. My life history has taught me that the age restrictions on handguns and alcohol are reasonable and practical and keep our kids safer. That is not a constitutional argument, but a parental one.
Cody




I think America is great in that different States can have different laws...even different cities can have different laws. I think that is part of what makes us great. All our States and communities don't have to be the same...in fact it would be weird if we were....and incredibly boring.
Indiana has a lot more rural areas and likely a lot more of the 18-20yo have experience with firearms and likely are more mature. Should that set the standard for everyone else?...don't think so.
Cody

If it's so great that all of our states and communities don't have to be the same, and if they were it would be weird and boring, then why do we need a Federal law restricting handgun purchasing to those 21 or older that (as you point out) by necessity must apply generally to the entire population?

Why not require federally an age of majority of 18 as the baseline and if the enlightened progressive enclaves desire to strengthen that to 21, they can?

Why, if so many 18-20 year olds are not emotionally mature enough to handle firearms, can they purchase long guns anywhere or handguns from a private party but not an FFL? What's the difference? Why are handguns more dangerous, especially considering this particular issue is not linked to actually carrying the firearm, just owning it?

[David Armstrong]

The distinction is rational vs irrational. A judge or legislator or executive that imposes their irrational feelings on us - whether that irrational feeling is that guns are bad, gays shouldn't marry, or evolution is satanist doctrine - deserves neither our respect nor our votes. Now, being as how I left my rainbows and unicorns in my other pants today, I'll admit that "deserve's got nothin' to do with it." It's just one more superfluous argument we can use to try and bring folks to our way of thinking. And lo, that's exactly the use to which it's being put here.

Just because the the laws of nature don't guarantee the kind of freedom this country is supposed to stand for, doesn't mean it's useless to argue for it, to work and strive and fight for it.
Again, that seems to go back to the concept that what we feel are "the laws of nature" are based very directly on what we happen to feel the laws of nature should be. One judge might feel his rational feeling is what another judge would consider to be irrational. Your gay marriage concept is a pretty good example. Not too long ago most would have argued that gay marrige was against natural law and totally irrational, nowadays a majority seem to feel it is supported by natural law. All based on how one feels.

[JAD]

That is a rather silly statement, IMO, on many fronts.

Okeydoke, I'll defend it.

The United States of America is completely unique. It is unequaled in freedom on every axis, and without peer in national character. We expect more out of our people, and less out of our government, than any nation of men on the face of the earth. It is not reasonable to hold the ethics and mores of other countries up as a yardstick to our own; ours are, by default, better. If we don't and they do, one shouldn't; if we do and they don't, they would if they only could.

[MDS]

Again, that seems to go back to the concept that what we feel are "the laws of nature" are based very directly on what we happen to feel the laws of nature should be. One judge might feel his rational feeling is what another judge would consider to be irrational. Your gay marriage concept is a pretty good example. Not too long ago most would have argued that gay marrige was against natural law and totally irrational, nowadays a majority seem to feel it is supported by natural law. All based on how one feels.

I apologize. Yet again, I fail to express my point in terms that allow understanding. I'll try once more:

A rational feeling fits within an overarching framework of what is good or desirable, a framework that follows the rules of rational logic in a self-consistent way. An irrational feeling either exists outside any such framework, or creates or exposes a logical fallacy or inconsistency in the framework. By these definitions, if you're saying that the feeling most people had about gay marriage "not too long ago" was rational, then I don't think we'll get much of anywhere with this conversation. Otherwise, and correct me if I'm wrong, I think we have to agree that some feelings are rational while some are not; that a foundation of rational feelings make for a more clear and stable system of government; and that people are going to vote for what they feel regardless of rationality.

[TR675]

The United States of America is completely unique. It is unequaled in freedom on every axis, and without peer in national character. We expect more out of our people, and less out of our government, than any nation of men on the face of the earth. It is not reasonable to hold the ethics and mores of other countries up as a yardstick to our own; ours are, by default, better. If we don't and they do, one shouldn't; if we do and they don't, they would if they only could.

These are fine patriotic sentiments, but draw an objection of "conclusory." In other words, you're stating conclusions without facts or argument to back them up.

In particular, I do not believe that we expect less out of our government than other countries. Compared to who? Europe, where they provide social services (like we do) but skimp on defense (like we don't)? China or Russia, where they expect the government to cheat them or make life hard? The Congo, where government doesn't exist? Do we really expect more out of our citizens than other countries? We've got a lot of people permanently unemployed, and more all the time, and our only real civic duties these days are voting (which most of us don't do) and jury duty (which most of us get out of doing).

Are we really without peer in national character? Tell that to the French; they have a pretty high opinion of themselves, not completely unwarranted. France is a pretty nice place, and the French have brave soldiers and march to the beat of their own drum in world affairs. And I wouldn't say that Stripmall Ville, USA is a nicer place to live than Nice. I would say that they're different, but to call one "better"...that just depends on where you're coming from and what you value.

The world's a big place and it takes all types. I like America and I'm glad I'm from here, but I'm not going to call out someone from Japan for feeling differently.

[JAD]

These are fine patriotic sentiments, but draw an objection of "conclusory." In other words, you're stating conclusions without facts or argument to back them up.

In particular, I do not believe that we expect less out of our government than other countries. Do we really expect more out of our citizens than other countries? Are we really without peer in national character?
-- I would rather argue with the other person who objected to my comment, but OK.

Yes, we expect less out of our government, in the sense of /wanting/ our government to do less, than any of the 42 countries with which I have a personal acquaintance. People elsewhere have the same expectations as to the common defense, they just have no idea what that would cost if the US wasn't mostly managing it for them. But beyond that -- beyond the stuff we specifically enumerate -- people in other countries fundamentally expect their government to take care of them (they are, in China and Russia, and everywhere, since it's fundamentally beyond the capacity of any government, disappointed), and Americans -- right-thinking Americans, the people who built the country and keep it running -- just want it to stay out of their way.

That belief system, which really is very unique to the US, is conversely why we expect more from our people than other countries. Our people fail us, and because we're a godly nation we pick them up and carry them, but we still recognize it as failure, as an anomaly, as something that needs to be corrected. We're losing it, just as we've been steadily losing our independence from the state since the '30s, but we still have it to a vastly greater degree than our lessors.

And yes, in character, we're completely without peer. We do for the rest of the world, where no one else does. We are the most chartiable (https://www.cafonline.org/PDF/WorldGivingIndex2013_1374AWEB.pdf), interventionist (no ref, gut feel), again godly (refering to the other two characteristics) nation on earth. We're losing it -- the whole world is losing it -- but we are light years ahead of everywhere else.

[Tamara]

I'm still waiting to hear why 18-20 y.o. Hoosiers aren't stacking bodies like cordwood with their lifetime LTCH's. (Which, I might add, required no mandatory legal training or marksmanship test to obtain, just a clean background and a check that didn't bounce.)

Is it something in the water here? Are the youth of Virginia and Louisiana really such late bloomers compared to our native Indiana sons and daughters?

[Tamara]

Indiana has a lot more rural areas and likely a lot more of the 18-20yo have experience with firearms and likely are more mature.

Would you like to fact check that statement before I rebut? The population densities for each state are available on Wikipedia.

Nah... Here, let me Google That For You (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population_density).

Now, you were saying something about States' Rights. I know that the Democratic Party was historically big on the idea that different states had the right to deny various civil rights to certain segments of their populace, but I thought they'd kinda left that baggage in the past?

[TR675]

-- I would rather argue with the other person who objected to my comment,...

Ok, you guys can have at it. :confused:

[Tamara]

Europe, where they provide social services (like we do) but skimp on defense (like we don't)?

Yeah, what do you want to bet there're some very worried high level talks going on inside various EU defense ministries right now?

They've got a resurgent bear to the east and to the west the country they counted on to cover their bets is playing Jimmy Carter II: Electric Boogaloo.

[JAD]

Ok, you guys can have at it. :confused:

Sorry, too subtle -- I meant that of the people who responded to my little bit of jingoism, your response was the most coherent and thus the least fun to respond to.

[Shellback]

Never mind.

[JAD]

Jimmy Carter II: Electric Boogaloo.
That's the funniest thing I've read this lunar year.

[TR675]

Sorry, too subtle -- I meant that of the people who responded to my little bit of jingoism, your response was the most coherent and thus the least fun to respond to.

Heh. Thanks.


...Jimmy Carter II: Electric Boogaloo.

Seconded. Very nice.

[cclaxton]

Okeydoke, I'll defend it.

The United States of America is completely unique. It is unequaled in freedom on every axis, and without peer in national character. We expect more out of our people, and less out of our government, than any nation of men on the face of the earth. It is not reasonable to hold the ethics and mores of other countries up as a yardstick to our own; ours are, by default, better. If we don't and they do, one shouldn't; if we do and they don't, they would if they only could.
Well said!!! 100% agree.

[cclaxton]

I apologize. Yet again, I fail to express my point in terms that allow understanding. I'll try once more:

A rational feeling fits within an overarching framework of what is good or desirable, a framework that follows the rules of rational logic in a self-consistent way. An irrational feeling either exists outside any such framework, or creates or exposes a logical fallacy or inconsistency in the framework. By these definitions, if you're saying that the feeling most people had about gay marriage "not too long ago" was rational, then I don't think we'll get much of anywhere with this conversation. Otherwise, and correct me if I'm wrong, I think we have to agree that some feelings are rational while some are not; that a foundation of rational feelings make for a more clear and stable system of government; and that people are going to vote for what they feel regardless of rationality.
We are integrated beings. Feelings, rational thought, biology and spiritual awareness are working together as a unit. A feeling has to be balanced against the others. Gov't is, and should be, a reflection of that combination. Constitutional gov't in the US will be a representation of the constituents of which control it. And that should be subject to change as people and society changes. Imagine for a moment that we lived in the 1940's...if you were 18-20 you were still a minor and few Americans thought it should be lowered. Nobody was arguing 18-29yo should be allowed to carry a sidearm. Imagine you go back to the 1880's where no one thought women should vote, etc. "Rational thought" changes over time based on the level of experience, personal knowledge, personal awareness and sociological evolution. Parents had vast powers over their kids, not like today. So, the "framework" that you talk about is changing through history so the only real comparison is how the "framework" the Founders put in place can be made relevant today in the context of our time.
Cody

[MDS]

Feelings, rational thought, biology and spiritual awareness [...] Gov't is, and should be, a reflection of that combination.

Government very often isn't a reflection of the feelings of the people governed. I hope that statement can go unexpounded.

And while government most certainly can be such a reflection, a people can only be free when their government reflects their desire to, uh, be free. And I don't mean free as in beer, or freedom from responsibility - whether we like it or not there are certain realities that respond not at all to what we feel or desire. Freedom can only properly mean: freedom to make choices, and to abide by the outcome of those choices, and allowing others to do the same.

When government restricts Peter's choices, without overwhelming evidence that those choices will restrict Paul, that's not freedom. Now maybe some folks don't want freedom - for me, for themselves, whatever - and in a sense that's ok. Just don't pour kittens down my back and tell me it's raining.

[Tamara]

I keep asking these questions and they keep not getting answered, cclaxton:


What other rights is it legitimate for states to deprive adults of under your States' Rights interpretation of the Bill of Rights?
Why are 18-year-old adults in your state less worthy of being entrusted with their full panoply of rights as citizens under the BoR than 18-year-old adults in my state?

[MDS]

I keep asking these questions and they keep not getting answered, cclaxton:

Not cclaxton but I'll try to appease:


1. What other rights is it legitimate for states to deprive adults of under your States' Rights interpretation of the Bill of Rights?

All of them. In any state where >50% of the people feel like 18-year-old kids can't be trusted to responsibly habeus a corpus, for example, folks shouldn't question the Feeling of the People to get thugs off the street. If rational underpinnings are important to you, we can pull things out of the air (e.g., young people are good looking so no jury would convict so goodbye 5th) to Evolve Our Framework.


2. Why are 18-year-old adults in your state less worthy of being entrusted with their full panoply of rights as citizens under the BoR than 18-year-old adults in my state?


Because I've met some young people that don't deserve it. Criminals, slackers, and persons with pants below the waist (!!) are getting away with all manner of unsafe behavior in your state. Here are The People's Feelings about what the 18-20 crowd should be allowed to do:

guns: no, too many accidents

driving: yes (feeling conflicted on this one, but I'm tired of driving to the mall)

beer: no! Kids are too easily seduced by feel-good chemistry.

voting: yes! Kids are ripe to learn the values of feel-good policy.

privacy: no

contraception: yes and at no cost

dangerous work like construction: not responsible enough

make fast food for public consumption: yes and force McEvilCorp to double minimum wage

I can tell you're inspired. Reply with your mailing address, I'll send you T-shirts and pocket signs to get you started with the grass-roots campaign. ;) :p :D

[Corlissimo]

Sorry for the "drive-by" but every time I see this thread title I'm reminded of this clip, so I'll just drop this here...


http://youtu.be/gHJWofb5M_k


EOM

[David Armstrong]

Okeydoke, I'll defend it.

The United States of America is completely unique. It is unequaled in freedom on every axis, and without peer in national character. We expect more out of our people, and less out of our government, than any nation of men on the face of the earth. It is not reasonable to hold the ethics and mores of other countries up as a yardstick to our own; ours are, by default, better. If we don't and they do, one shouldn't; if we do and they don't, they would if they only could.
I appreciate the patriotism and would suggest that all those concepts have been/are shared by denzens of other countries over the years, with equal levels of accuracy or inaccuracy. The idea that all our ethics and mores are better by default is not only rather simplistic, IMO, it is certainly questionable and yes, even rather silly. I know many Russians, for example, that will argue Mother Russia expects for more out of their people than the U.S., for example. Many citizens of other countries consider our ethics regrding things like healthcare and and care for the elderly not better, but abysmally worse than their own and it is quite reasonable to suggest there is a betterway. Unequalled freedom in every axis?? Others might argue that we are one of the most restrictive and controlling nations on earth on many fronts. Try starting up a taxi business in NYC versus starting one up in Nairobi for one example.

[David Armstrong]

I apologize. Yet again, I fail to express my point in terms that allow understanding. I'll try once more:

A rational feeling fits within an overarching framework of what is good or desirable, a framework that follows the rules of rational logic in a self-consistent way. An irrational feeling either exists outside any such framework, or creates or exposes a logical fallacy or inconsistency in the framework. By these definitions, if you're saying that the feeling most people had about gay marriage "not too long ago" was rational, then I don't think we'll get much of anywhere with this conversation. Otherwise, and correct me if I'm wrong, I think we have to agree that some feelings are rational while some are not; that a foundation of rational feelings make for a more clear and stable system of government; and that people are going to vote for what they feel regardless of rationality.
I think you are making your point clearly, I just fail to agree with the concept. Homosexual behavior and/or gay marriage is either rational or irrational depending on your point of view, and to argue that point of view exists someplace outside of personal feelings is just not accurate. Yes, I'm sure you and I would agree some feelings are rational while some are not, just as we would agree on what is good and desiraable. However equally informed people with different views about those feelings could come to completely opposite conclusions. Feelings serve as the basis for what we think is right or wrong, thus what should be law and what should not.

[MDS]

Homosexual behavior and/or gay marriage is either rational or irrational depending on your point of view

Maybe, but that's not what I'm trying to point out. Instead of following this debate in circles, I'll bow out.

[David Armstrong]

Maybe, but that's not what I'm trying to point out. Instead of following this debate in circles, I'll bow out.
If that is the way you feel I'd consider that a rational response!:D

[Tamara]

Still waiting on the reason why 18-y.o. Louisianans can't be trusted with the same firearms privileges as 18-y.o. Hoosiers, David.

[cclaxton]

I keep asking these questions and they keep not getting answered, cclaxton:


What other rights is it legitimate for states to deprive adults of under your States' Rights interpretation of the Bill of Rights?
Why are 18-year-old adults in your state less worthy of being entrusted with their full panoply of rights as citizens under the BoR than 18-year-old adults in my state?


Tamara,
Your questions are not really on the topic at hand. Your questions, in the context of 18-20yo being able to bear arms, is more like this:
1. Is it legitimate for a State to regulate whether an 18-20 yearold can carry concealed? The Supreme Court has let stand the Texas law that says they can, so that is the law of the land. Let's see what the SCOTUS said in Heller:
"(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose"
As it stands right now it is legal to possess a handgun between 18-20 yearold in Texas and in Virginia...don't know about other states. But concealing it and carrying it in public is under the powers of the States to regulate, as SCOTUS has said in Heller.
2. There are a lot of things that adults under 21 are not allowed to do, including carrying a handgun concealed: You can't gamble, you can't get a CDL, you can't adopt a child, you can't be a foster parent, you can't get a license to pilot a commercial aircraft, you can't sponsor an immigrant, etc. etc. But to the point: I don't have enough experience to compare Indiana to Virginia. I can only comment on Virginia as I have a lot of experience here. Ideally the State law would give the decision to the counties. For rural counties it is likely that they would opt to allow concealed carry for 18-20yo. For urban or suburban counties they would elect to prohibit it, and I think that would be fine. And, as I have said before those who are veterans or who are serving in the military should be able to carry. And, I would support a law that allowed 18-21yo to get their permit with a sufficient training class to truly learn safe handling and management of a handgun. I think a 3 day class would about do it, combining lectures on the legal liabilities, and practicing gun handling, storage, and management, and learning the places you can't take handguns and how to manage those situations. But, in general, as I said before the kids I know in this area are not emotionally mature enough. Maybe they are in Indiana, maybe they aren't and your State elects to live with the risk. The States don't have to all be the same, and that is a part of the beauty of the Constitution.
Cody

[ToddG]

Your questions are not really on the topic at hand. Your questions, in the context of 18-20yo being able to bear arms, is more like this:

I think Tam's questions were the ones she asked. She doesn't need others to rephrase her questions for her.

[joshs]

Ideally the State law would give the decision to the counties. For rural counties it is likely that they would opt to allow concealed carry for 18-20yo. For urban or suburban counties they would elect to prohibit it, and I think that would be fine.

Cody, do you realize that this is what we have been fighting in most states for the last several decades? Many states were an impossible to figure out patchwork of gun laws, but express preemption laws have been passed in the last 30 years that made for uniform gun laws throughout nearly every state.

I think the issue of when the right to bear arms attaches is a pretty difficult question to answer. Most individual rights apply to all citizens no matter their age, with the exception being the right to vote. I don't consider the ability to serve on a jury as a right, it is a duty. Minors (depending on how they are charged) still have a right to a jury, they just cannot serve on one.

There is not a lot of historical evidence for age-based restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms before the 20th century. The panel decision in NRA v. BATFE has to be wrong in its conclusion that minors simply possess no right to arms. Minors must have to have some right to arms. Otherwise, a state could create an outright ban on possession of a firearm by a minor even while under the direct supervision of a parent. I would think that this type of categorical ban would obviously be in conflict with the right enumerated in the Second Amendment. While the decision only has precedential value in the 5th Circuit, where I think it highly unlikely that such a ban would be passed. If other circuits were to adopt this reasoning, I could see some states attempting such a ban, you know, for the children.

[Tamara]

Tamara,
Your questions are not really on the topic at hand. Your questions, in the context of 18-20yo being able to bear arms, is more like this:
1. Is it legitimate for a State to regulate whether an 18-20 yearold can carry concealed? The Supreme Court has let stand the Texas law that says they can, so that is the law of the land. Let's see what the SCOTUS said in...

...Dred Scott v. Sanford.

Oh, I'm sorry. Did I break your concentration?

The Supremes have been wrong in the past, are wrong now, and will be wrong in the future. All your talk about beer drinking and whatnot is a smoke screen, as drinking beer is not an enumerated, incorporated right.

[joshs]

The Supreme Court has let stand the Texas law that says they can, so that is the law of the land.

This is not how denials of certiorari work. The Supreme Court can refuse to take a case for any number of reasons, and are not a comment on how the court would rule on the merits or an indication that the Court agrees with the ruling below. They are certainly not "the law of the land." In this case, it is the law of the 5th Circuit, and nothing more.

[TR675]

Otherwise, a state could create an outright ban on possession of a firearm by a minor even while under the direct supervision of a parent.

Massachusetts (https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140/Section130)and Connecticut (http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/pub/chap943.htm#Sec53-202.htm)have made it illegal to for anyone, including parents, to provide machine guns to minors for any reason.

Granted that applies to machine guns only. And granted that this criminalizes the "transfer" by another person instead of possession by a minor - although I'd be surprised if they didn't also criminalize that - but even assuming they didn't there isn't much difference between banning "transfers" to a group and banning possession by that group. I would suggest that sliding on this particular slipperly slope has commenced.

[ssb]

Tamara,
Your questions are not really on the topic at hand. Your questions, in the context of 18-20yo being able to bear arms, is more like this:
1. Is it legitimate for a State to regulate whether an 18-20 yearold can carry concealed? The Supreme Court has let stand the Texas law that says they can, so that is the law of the land. Let's see what the SCOTUS said in Heller:
(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose"

While Heller was the right outcome (finding an individual RKBA), that one particular line is a bit of a sticking point. For starters, it has no historical/precedent justification that Scalia could point to (he did so pretty much everywhere else in the opinion). In other words, it really looks like Scalia made that up.

And no, as has been pointed out, that's not what denying cert means. Denying cert means that the justices, for whatever reason, chose not to hear the case.


2. There are a lot of things that adults under 21 are not allowed to do, including carrying a handgun concealed: You can't gamble, you can't get a CDL, you can't adopt a child, you can't be a foster parent, you can't get a license to pilot a commercial aircraft, you can't sponsor an immigrant, etc. etc. But to the point: I don't have enough experience to compare Indiana to Virginia. I can only comment on Virginia as I have a lot of experience here. Ideally the State law would give the decision to the counties. For rural counties it is likely that they would opt to allow concealed carry for 18-20yo. For urban or suburban counties they would elect to prohibit it, and I think that would be fine.

Why the presumption that urban/suburban half-adults are unable to conceal a firearm responsibly? Isn't it supposed to work the other way around, that the State ought to find some sort of cause specific to the individual being denied before denying said half-adults?


And, as I have said before those who are veterans or who are serving in the military should be able to carry. And, I would support a law that allowed 18-21yo to get their permit with a sufficient training class to truly learn safe handling and management of a handgun. I think a 3 day class would about do it, combining lectures on the legal liabilities, and practicing gun handling, storage, and management, and learning the places you can't take handguns and how to manage those situations.

Would you extend this extra-special class to full adults, or just those in the half-adult category? I was taught safe practices with a firearm at a very early age. Those lessons stuck with me far better than the ones given in my CCW class.


But, in general, as I said before the kids I know in this area are not emotionally mature enough. Maybe they are in Indiana, maybe they aren't and your State elects to live with the risk. The States don't have to all be the same, and that is a part of the beauty of the Constitution.
Cody

I could generalize a bunch about all sorts of categories of the population. For example, I could say that women are statistically more likely than men to be involved in an automobile accident, and thus, given the inherent danger of the activity, they ought to undergo extra-special training prior to obtaining a driver's license. Somehow I don't think that I'd get too many people saying that's OK, and that's probably because we don't deny the various rights, privileges, and immunities we have based purely upon generalizations.

[ToddG]

For example, I could say that women are statistically more likely than men to be involved in an automobile accident, and thus, given the inherent danger of the activity, they ought to undergo extra-special training prior to obtaining a driver's license.

Whoa slow down. Could we vote on that? And by "vote" I mean just the men, as God and the Constitution intended.

:cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool:

[Josh Runkle]

Massachusetts (https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140/Section130)and Connecticut (http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/pub/chap943.htm#Sec53-202.htm)have made it illegal to for anyone, including parents, to provide machine guns to minors for any reason.

Granted that applies to machine guns only. And granted that this criminalizes the "transfer" by another person instead of possession by a minor - although I'd be surprised if they didn't also criminalize that - but even assuming they didn't there isn't much difference between banning "transfers" to a group and banning possession by that group. I would suggest that sliding on this particular slipperly slope has commenced.

A transfer is not letting your kid shoot your machinegun at the range while under your supervision. Many ranges rent machineguns, and would be violating federal law and be guilty of tax evasion if allowing such activity were a transfer.

Leaving your machinegun unlocked and at home under the supervision of your minor (or, really anyone else who is not the owner...meaning LLC's, trusts, etc may have more than one officer...more than one owner) has in the past been regarded as a transfer. The National Firearms Act of 1934 already prohibits transfer to anyone under 21...meaning, an 18 year old cannot buy a machinegun. The law already prohibits transfer without tax being paid (except in some circumstances like inheritance or to a .gov, etc.)

My point: providing a machinegun for your buddy to take home for a few days is already illegal. Letting him shoot it at the range under your direct supervision is fine. If the law prohibits transfer to a minor, then it doesn't do anything different than federal law already does, aside from perhaps a stricter penalty.

*unlike half the people in this thread, I am not an attorney. You should consult an attorney for legal advice.

[Dan_S]

. The National Firearms Act of 1934 already prohibits transfer to anyone under 21...meaning, an 18 year old cannot buy a machinegun.




That is simply untrue. Anyone over 18 can purchase, own, and transport any Title II weapons. It's the same deal as a handgun though - they just aren't allowed to buy from a dealer.


Also, cclaxton: in the states where I am aware of the laws on the subject, one does NOT have to be over 21 to get a CDL. DOT regulation prohibits a CDL holder under 21 from driving inter-state on their CDL, but within the state of issuance, anyone 18 or over is good to go.

[Josh Runkle]

That is simply untrue. Anyone over 18 can purchase, own, and transport any Title II weapons. It's the same deal as a handgun though - they just aren't allowed to buy from a dealer.


Also, cclaxton: in the states where I am aware of the laws on the subject, one does NOT have to be over 21 to get a CDL. DOT regulation prohibits a CDL holder under 21 from driving inter-state on their CDL, but within the state of issuance, anyone 18 or over is good to go.

You may be correct, but can you provide a link to some info from BATFE?

I guess I was thrown off by the forms asking if you were a drug user, ever been arrested or under 21. (On page 2 of each document)

http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-5320-1.pdf

http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-5320-4.pdf

[TR675]

A transfer is not letting your kid shoot your machinegun at the range while under your supervision. Many ranges rent machineguns, and would be violating federal law and be guilty of tax evasion if allowing such activity were a transfer.

Connecticut law expressly states "[anyone who] transfers, sells or gives a machine gun to a person under sixteen years of age, including the temporary transfer of a machine gun to such person for use in target shooting or on a firing or shooting range or for any other purpose" is guilty of a felony.

Massachusetts law states "whoever sells or furnishes any alien or any person under eighteen years of age a rifle, shotgun, machine gun or ammunition" is guilty of a felony. It carves out an exception for parents and guardians to allow minors the "supervised use" of "rifles, shotguns and ammunition." Children over 15 years must also have a valid firearm identification card. Instructors may also provide their minor students with rifles and shotguns, if they have parental permission. There is no exception for machine guns. Providing your child with a machine gun is still a felony under Massachusetts law.

"Transfer" is a legal term of art and is going to be defined differently depending on what law you're reading. I put the term in quotes because I didn't want to be bothered to look up and type out the actual definitions that apply here. I should have been more thorough. Under Connecticut law, however, I did use the term correctly.

I do have a bit of legal experience and, while I'm not always right, I do try to read the statutes before opining on them ;).

[Josh Runkle]

Good info! :)

[TR675]

You may recall the tragic death of an 8 year old Connecticut boy at a Massachusetts gun range in 2009. He was given a full-auto Micro-Uzi; the recoil flipped the gun up and he was shot in the head and killed.

I'm not sure of the relationship to the Massachusetts law to this incident or even whether it had been passed at the time, but apparently Connecticut did not have its current law then, and this incident was the catalyst to getting it passed.

Now, JoshS's question of when the 2nd amendment attaches to a minor is an interesting and kind of esoteric one. I think that the 2nd Amendment, like all "rights", is something that everyone is born with subject to reasonable restrictions under the appropriate level of judicial scrutiny. I'm having a hard time thinking about a court that would not consider prohibiting parents from giving eight year old minors Micro-Uzi's a "reasonable restriction" under whichever level of scrutiny they apply, and having seen some videos of morons letting their small kids shoot machine guns I am probably in favor of such a restriction myself.

[joshs]

I'm having a hard time thinking about a court that would not consider prohibiting parents from giving eight year old minors Micro-Uzi's a "reasonable restriction" under whichever level of scrutiny they apply, and having seen some videos of morons letting their small kids shoot machine guns I am probably in favor of such a restriction myself.

I think pretty much any court would answer that by saying that it is not a protected "arm," so it doesn't even burden the right. Heller's "common use" test pretty much sealed machine guns fate as a protected arm, and any new technology will also fail the test as long as it is regulated before it becomes common.

[TR675]

I think you're probably right. Need to re-read Heller.

[Tamara]

I think pretty much any court would answer that by saying that it is not a protected "arm," so it doesn't even burden the right. Heller's "common use" test pretty much sealed machine guns fate as a protected arm, and any new technology will also fail the test as long as it is regulated before it becomes common.

Which is kind of ironic when you compare that to Miller...

[joshs]

Which is kind of ironic when you compare that to Miller...

Yes, they're right because they're last, not last because they're right.

[rsa-otc]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Heller use Miller as the basis for "Common Use"?

[David Armstrong]

Still waiting on the reason why 18-y.o. Louisianans can't be trusted with the same firearms privileges as 18-y.o. Hoosiers, David.
Sorry, got the wrong guy for that. Living down here I'm not sure 18 year old Louisianians can be trusted with anything and I know little or nothing about 18 year old Hoosiers. I do take the position that restricting pretty much anything based on age is always going to be a purely arbitrary decision and thus trying to argue or justify a position either for or against is rather silly.

[Dagga Boy]

Back to my original question.........at what age should the rights granted by the Constitution apply, and who should make the decision about that. Personally, I would go for 40 and a property owner, but that's just me.....;). The reality is that 18 is considered the age at which the right to vote, and outside of juvenile restrictions, so it makes sense that all your rights should kick in at 18. Now, if the wanted to raise the voting age and everything else to correspond with when your 2nd amendment rights can be exercised, that is another story. I would bet if the 2nd amendment folks wanted to have the voting age raised to 21, that would be twisted into a racism issue.

[Duces Tecum]

Personally, I would go for 40 and a property owner . . .

Me too. And next year, 41. <Grin>

[Drang]

What other rights is it legitimate for states to deprive adults of under your States' Rights interpretation of the Bill of Rights?


...
All of them. In any state where >50% of the people...
Started to respond to this, then deleted my answer because I didn't like the way it sounded, then I read some other posts in the thread and changed my mind again...
"50%+1" can't be the right answer. The classic rebuttal to it is, then any time 50%+1 of the voters decide to they can enslave or dine on the other 50%-1.
Politics may be the art of the possible, but some kitten is just plain wrong.

I might expand on Tamara's questions by pointing out that one can legally enter a bar whilst packing if one does so one the southern side of the Columbia River (in Orygun) but not on the north side (Washington). Yet, the Oregonian does not seem to be full of stories of Oreganoes shooting the Beaver State up.

[Tamara]

I might expand on Tamara's questions by pointing out that one can legally enter a bar whilst packing if one does so one the southern side of the Columbia River (in Orygun) but not on the north side (Washington). Yet, the Oregonian does not seem to be full of stories of Oreganoes shooting the Beaver State up.

Truly, when you think about it, it's just another version of the old "There'll be blood in the streets!" hand-wringing in the press every time a new state adopted CCW. Most recently with Illinois, as though there were something in the water on the far bank of the Wabash that would turn placid Midwesterners into gun slinging psychotics over the good parking spots at the mall.

Here, there is no problem with 18-to-20 year-olds exercising their 2A rights with an LTCH, but some in this thread aver that there will be zomg Blood In The Streets! if they do so in the Shenandoah valley.

I think I've heard this song before...

(I've seen our side do it with training requirements, too.)

[RoyGBiv]

Drake v. Jerejian being considered for certiorari today.

Is This the Supreme Court's Next Big Gun Case? (http://reason.com/archives/2014/04/18/is-this-the-supreme-courts-next-big-gun)


Today the justices are meeting in private conference to consider the latest batch of petitions seeking review. Among that batch is a Second Amendment case that is eminently worthy of the Court’s attention. In fact, it presents the next logical step in the development of a coherent Second Amendment jurisprudence. If the Supreme Court was truly serious in Heller and McDonald about securing the right to keep and bear arms against overreaching government action, this case offers the chance to prove it.

The case is Drake v. Jerejian, a challenge to New Jersey’s Handgun Permit Law. According to the state, anyone wishing to carry a handgun in public for self-defense purposes must first demonstrate a “justifiable need," which the law defines as showing evidence of "specific threats or previous attacks which demonstrate a special danger to the applicant's life that cannot be avoided by means other than by issuance of a permit to carry a handgun."