Are Age Restrictions for Buying and Possessing Guns Constitutional?

[Sanzbir]

The decision did not revoke all the states' rights to regulate guns.

"The majority decision also reaffirmed that certain firearms restrictions mentioned in District of Columbia v. Heller are assumed permissible and not directly dealt with in this case.[24] Such restrictions include those to "prohibit...the possession of firearms by felons or mentally ill" and "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms".[24]" McDonald v. City of Chicago - Wikipedia McDonald, at ___-___ (slip op., at 39-40)

"Even the NRA concedes that you can’t have mad men running around with weapons of mass destruction. So there are some restrictions that are permissible and it will be the task of the legislature and the courts to ferret all of that out and draw the lines. I am sure, though, that outright bans on handguns like they have in D.C. won't be permitted. That is not a reasonable restriction under anybody’s characterization. It is not a restriction, it’s a prohibition.[66] " McDonald v. City of Chicago - Wikipedia Interview: The Way of the Gun, Leigh Ferrara, MotherJones.com, April 19, 2007

So, the point of referencing McDonald v Chicago was that the case was centered around the idea that State Law can't supersede the Federal (see also Pennsylvania v. Nelson). The States aren't prohibited from all ability to regulate guns because (as the Supreme Court understands it) the Federal government is not either. So because the federal can ban possession of felons a State can as well. But by that notion, if the Federal doesn't limit it based on age, the State cannot either. But all and all, this part of the McDonald v Chicago decision has nothing whatsoever to do with your initial point in response to me.

More to the point, your initial assertion is that states rights and the 10th somehow gives a State power to regulate a right the federal cannot, which the McDonald vs. Chicago ruling shows is not the case, and the exceptions laid out in that ruling do not in fact make any allowances for the States to overrule Federal law on the grounds of the 10th.

If it is as you say, if it is the case that the States can violate the rights of the constitutions because of the Tenth Amendment, I wonder how on earth the Supreme Court was able to rule that a State could not ban gay marriage due to the Federal Constitution... If your argument about the Tenth holds water, just how exactly did that happen?? Shouldn't the Tenth, by the way you describe it, allow a State government to prohibit same-sex marriage even if doing so violates the Constitution??

Ah, but of course, the Tenth doesn't work that way at all. Obergefell v. Hodges clearly shows that the State governments cannot violate a constitutional right, one of many rulings to do so.

 

[Jainarayan]

So, the point of referencing McDonald v Chicago was that the case was centered around the idea that State Law can't supersede the Federal (see also Pennsylvania v. Nelson). The States aren't prohibited from all ability to regulate guns because (as the Supreme Court understands it) the Federal government is not either. So because the federal can ban possession of felons a State can as well. But by that notion, if the Federal doesn't limit it based on age, the State cannot either. But all and all, this part of the McDonald v Chicago decision has nothing whatsoever to do with your initial point in response to me.

More to the point, your initial assertion is that states rights and the 10th somehow gives a State power to regulate a right the federal cannot, which the McDonald vs. Chicago ruling shows is not the case, and the exceptions laid out in that ruling do not in fact make any allowances for the States to overrule Federal law on the grounds of the 10th.

If it is as you say, if it is the case that the States can violate the rights of the constitutions because of the Tenth Amendment, I wonder how on earth the Supreme Court was able to rule that a State could not ban gay marriage due to the Federal Constitution... If your argument about the Tenth holds water, just how exactly did that happen?? Shouldn't the Tenth, by the way you describe it, allow a State government to prohibit same-sex marriage even if doing so violates the Constitution??

Ah, but of course, the Tenth doesn't work that way at all. Obergefell v. Hodges clearly shows that the State governments cannot violate a constitutional right, one of many rulings to do so.

Please go back and read. Read what's there, not what you want to see.

 

[Curious George]

So, the point of referencing McDonald v Chicago was that the case was centered around the idea that State Law can't supersede the Federal (see also Pennsylvania v. Nelson). The States aren't prohibited from all ability to regulate guns because (as the Supreme Court understands it) the Federal government is not either. So because the federal can ban possession of felons a State can as well. But by that notion, if the Federal doesn't limit it based on age, the State cannot either. But all and all, this part of the McDonald v Chicago decision has nothing whatsoever to do with your initial point in response to me.

More to the point, your initial assertion is that states rights and the 10th somehow gives a State power to regulate a right the federal cannot, which the McDonald vs. Chicago ruling shows is not the case, and the exceptions laid out in that ruling do not in fact make any allowances for the States to overrule Federal law on the grounds of the 10th.

If it is as you say, if it is the case that the States can violate the rights of the constitutions because of the Tenth Amendment, I wonder how on earth the Supreme Court was able to rule that a State could not ban gay marriage due to the Federal Constitution... If your argument about the Tenth holds water, just how exactly did that happen?? Shouldn't the Tenth, by the way you describe it, allow a State government to prohibit same-sex marriage even if doing so violates the Constitution??

Ah, but of course, the Tenth doesn't work that way at all. Obergefell v. Hodges clearly shows that the State governments cannot violate a constitutional right, one of many rulings to do so.

This isn't quite right. Federal law must be within the scope of the constitution. State law need not. However neither can infringe on a fundamental right, except when there is a compelling reason and the law is narrowly tailored. This means that if there were a compelling reason the state may ne able to limit the fundamental right to bear arms whereas the federal government still might not ne able to do so.

The constitution was not intended this way. Local governments very much had regulations which restricted gun rights. The idea was that people could choose to restrict themselves further.

Although now we have incorporated most of the bill of rights.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Earlier this year, after 19-year-old Nikolas Cruz used his legally purchased semiautomatic weapon to kill 17 people, including 14 students, at his Parkland, FL, school, the state passed a law raising the minimum age to purchase such weapons to 21 years old. In November residents of Washington state will be voting on an initiative for a similar measure.

In your opinion, do such laws violate the Constitution? If you believe they do, what is your opinion based upon?

My non-lawyer, non-American take on it: the Constitution is unclear on the issue.

The Second Amendment doesn't say that the people have an unfettered right to arms; it refers to a right to bear arms that apparently was already established at the time of the Constitution. The Constitution is silent on what those rights actually are, while also saying that they shall not be infringed.

 

[Curious George]

My non-lawyer, non-American take on it: the Constitution is unclear on the issue.

The Second Amendment doesn't say that the people have an unfettered right to arms; it refers to a right to bear arms that apparently was already established at the time of the Constitution. The Constitution is silent on what those rights actually are, while also saying that they shall not be infringed.

No right is unfettered. Though, that doesn't mean that a fundamental right can be dismissed.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No right is unfettered. Though, that doesn't mean that a fundamental right can be dismissed.

But what's the "fundamental right" here?

 

[Father Heathen]

You Yanks are mental with guns.
You should have to be 70 years old to own a gun with a letter from both your parents.

Yes, the U.S. does have a gun problem, but to suggest that disarming responsible and law abiding hunters, farmers, and sportsmen is somehow part of the solution is rather asinine. I lived in rural communities where every household had a gun yet crime, especially gun related crime, was unheard of.
That said, I do believe that all gun ownership and operation should require age limits, licencing, training, and testing, just like driving.
People should have the right to bear arms, but that right doesn't specify what kind nor how many. Could even restrict it to the muskets of that time period and it wouldn't violate that amendment.

 

[Wirey]

It’s obviously against the constitution. The constitution states, and I quote, “Every citizen needs a bazooka and an AK just in case the British come back and take the government over.”

It’s near the back.

 

[Father Heathen]

It’s obviously against the constitution. The constitution states, and I quote, “Every citizen needs a bazooka and an AK just in case the British come back and take the government over.”

It’s near the back.

People claim that restricting certain semi-automatic guns is unconstitutional, but you never hear them complain about the restrictions on fully automatic guns, yet the constitution addresses neither.

 

[Wirey]

People claim that restricting certain semi-automatic guns is unconstitutional, but you never hear them complain about the restrictions on fully automatic guns, yet the constitution addresses neither.

I know. I fundamentally doubt the authors envisioned the Uzi.

 

[Curious George]

But what's the "fundamental right" here?

In this instance, it is the right to bear arms. And while I understand you may not find it fundamental, that does not mean others do not.

 

[Altfish]

Yes, the U.S. does have a gun problem, but to suggest that disarming responsible and law abiding hunters, farmers, and sportsmen is somehow part of the solution is rather asinine. I lived in rural communities where every household had a gun yet crime, especially gun related crime, was unheard of.
That said, I do believe that all gun ownership and operation should require age limits, licencing, training, and testing, just like driving.
People should have the right to bear arms, but that right doesn't specify what kind nor how many. Could even restrict it to the muskets of that time period and it wouldn't violate that amendment.

I never said anything about disarming "responsible and law abiding hunters, farmers, and sportsmen"

 

[Father Heathen]

I never said anything about disarming "responsible and law abiding hunters, farmers, and sportsmen"

Your post seemed to imply it even if you didn't intend it. I'm just saying that despite our serious cultural issue regarding guns, they do have a legitimate utility.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In this instance, it is the right to bear arms. And while I understand you may not find it fundamental, that does not mean others do not.

I feel like we're talking in circles.

What does "the right to bear arms" that the Constitution entail? You apparently agree that it doesn't mean the right for any person to bear any weapon in any circumstance, so you presumably agree that right is limited in some way... but what are those limits?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, the U.S. does have a gun problem, but to suggest that disarming responsible and law abiding hunters, farmers, and sportsmen is somehow part of the solution is rather asinine.

I didn't see anyone even mention gun control in this thread yet.

I lived in rural communities where every household had a gun yet crime, especially gun related crime, was unheard of.

You know more than one place in the US where gun crime AND crime in general is unheard of?

Where are these places? I'm sure that if you give us, say, the county names, what you're saying will be backed up in the stats.

 

[Mister Emu]

In your opinion, do such laws violate the Constitution? If you believe they do, what is your opinion based upon?

These particular laws individually, no. The constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms, not necessarily which arms at which times. As long as one can obtain without substantial state impediment some common use weapons, fruitful for self-defense, hunting, and/or militia purposes, that right has not be infringed.

I'm not sure that it would violate the Constitution, since it seems that many states restricted the age for purchasing and drinking alcohol to 21 and over.

There is no constitutionally protected right to alcohol.

The Constitution is silent on what those rights actually are

What? It explicitly lists them.

 

[Stevicus]

Well, the big difference would be no constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to alcohol.



So would you say a state government could raise the age required to protest or write an news article to 21??

If the right to vote is the only right in your view that can't be age restricted, can the rest?? No free religion until 35?? No right to a fair trial until 27??

I suppose there are any number of ways one could look at it. Do parents have a right to punish their 10-year-old child for using a "bad word," even though that child still technically has the right to free speech? What about high school newspapers?

 

[Stevicus]

There is no constitutionally protected right to alcohol.

Perhaps not explicitly, but the Constitution does cover commerce, buying and selling, and the right to own property. A Constitutional amendment was required to enact Prohibition, and it took a Constitutional amendment to end it.

 

[Curious George]

I feel like we're talking in circles.

What does "the right to bear arms" that the Constitution entail? You apparently agree that it doesn't mean the right for any person to bear any weapon in any circumstance, so you presumably agree that right is limited in some way... but what are those limits?

Those limits are varied. For instance, if a town did not want guns in certain areas. Think of it akin to free speech. Placing time, place, and manner restrictions is fine if it is reasonable.

I understand that some people want the government to do more. But people should understand there are limits on what the government can do. These limits were put in place for good reason.

 

[Mister Emu]

Perhaps not explicitly

Not at all. I live in a state that still has dry counties where alcohol sales are entirely banned.

A Constitutional amendment was required to enact Prohibition

No, it wasn't. The federal government could move alcohol to a controlled substance if it wished right now. A constitutional amendment was used because it is the highest and most powerful legitimate form of political action in America, and the prohibitionists wanted to make it as difficult as possible to return from their decision.