Are Age Restrictions for Buying and Possessing Guns Constitutional?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There are areas of the country like Alabama that have exceedingly low gun crime and their children are often shooting before they become teenagers.

Alabama's firearm death rate is twice the US national average.

Firearm death rates in the United States by state - Wikipedia

It ranks #7 for violent crime. This composite ranking - that took into account violent crime, suicide, and other factors - ranks Alabama #2 for overall gun violence:

States with the most (and least) gun violence. See where your state stacks up.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

So the Second Amendment doesn't require a specific minimum level of rights at all? This doesn't seem to make sense.

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.

Again: what limits? How strict would a law have to be before you say that it's unconstitutional?

 

[Mister Emu]

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

The U.S. has plenty of counties that report less than 10 crimes a year per 1000 people. There are likely many communities where anything more than petty crime is exceedingly rare.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/crime-rates-by-county/

 

[Curious George]

So the Second Amendment doesn't require a specific minimum level of rights at all? This doesn't seem to make sense.


Again: what limits? How strict would a law have to be before you say that it's unconstitutional?

Any law that had a compelling government interest and narrowly tailored to fit that interest would pass muster. The same for speech and the same for infringing on freedom of religion. However, the governmental regulation needs to be within the power of the legislature who enacts the law. Please tell me, how a federal prohibition on minors possessing guns affects interstate commerce?

 

[Stevicus]

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

That doesn't prove anything, other than the fact that many politicians, judges, and lawyers are weasels who routinely violate their own stated principles. Get at least 5 people on the Supreme Court to agree, and any number of atrocities can be deemed "constitutional." But either way, even if the Constitution doesn't specifically enumerate a certain right - it does not automatically mean the right does not exist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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?

Rights of children often get vested in their parents. And a parent punishing their child isn't a legal consequence. The First Amendment prohibits laws against free speech; it doesn't say that free speech doesn't have consequences.

What about high school newspapers?

The right to free speech doesn't imply an entitlement to any particular platform. And a newspaper's speech is also the speech of its publisher (the school, in this case).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But either way, even if the Constitution doesn't specifically enumerate a certain right - it does not automatically mean the right does not exist.

Right... the Tenth Amendment acknowledges this. It says that these unenumerated rights and powers go to the individual states or to the people.

... which doesn't help much when the question is one about the constitutionality of a restriction placed on the people by a state: is this a case of a right reserved to the people or a power reserved to the states?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Any law that had a compelling government interest and narrowly tailored to fit that interest would pass muster.

Would it? How do you figure?

The amendment says that the right to bear arms - whatever this entails - "shall not be infringed." It doesn't say "...unless there's a compelling government interest and the infringement is narrowly tailored."

The same for speech and the same for infringing on freedom of religion. However, the governmental regulation needs to be within the power of the legislature who enacts the law. Please tell me, how a federal prohibition on minors possessing guns affects interstate commerce?

Read the OP: we aren't talking about a federal prohibition. This whole conversation has been about a state law.

 

[Curious George]

Would it? How do you figure?

The amendment says that the right to bear arms - whatever this entails - "shall not be infringed." It doesn't say "...unless there's a compelling government interest and the infringement is narrowly tailored."

Because that is the only consistent, reasonable interpretation.

Read the OP: we aren't talking about a federal prohibition. This whole conversation has been about a state law.

I understand that we are discussing both. So humor me. Can you explain how minors possessing handguns affects interstate commerce?

 

[Stevicus]

Rights of children often get vested in their parents. And a parent punishing their child isn't a legal consequence. The First Amendment prohibits laws against free speech; it doesn't say that free speech doesn't have consequences.

When you say it's not a "legal consequence," that sounds like splitting hairs. The legal consequence is that the child has no rights at all, although the state might intervene in cases of neglect and abuse (which could lead to the loss of parenting rights, but does not confer any rights upon the child). Supposedly, that all changes once a child turns 18, as if they're suddenly magically transformed in a single day. But for some things, they still have to wait until age 21.

As noted earlier, this was even true for the right to vote, prior to the enactment of the 26th Amendment. Such age restrictions on certain rights were ostensibly considered normal, natural, and within the framework of the Constitution - regardless of whether the right was explicitly enumerated or not. Other than that, the point was made that these kinds of discrepancies in age restrictions seem rather arbitrary and capricious.

The right to free speech doesn't imply an entitlement to any particular platform. And a newspaper's speech is also the speech of its publisher (the school, in this case).

Ultimately, the publisher would be the school board and the taxpayers within the district.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The U.S. has plenty of counties that report less than 10 crimes a year per 1000 people. There are likely many communities where anything more than petty crime is exceedingly rare.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/crime-rates-by-county/

Like Manhattan, according to that map.

For a very low population region, a single year may not be enough data to form reliable conclusions. Smaller sample sizes inherently create greater variability in the results, plus crimes only happen in whole numbers.

You can see this variability in your own map: in rural areas, you'll have counties with very low and very high crime rates right next to each other, despite the fact that they may have very similar demographics, legal frameworks, etc.

If Niobrara County WY, for instance, (pop. 2,400) had the murder rate of Detroit (43.4 per 100,000 per year, by my quick googling), it would have an average of 1.04 murders per year... but that average wouldn't be manifest as exactly 1 murder every year, it would be 1 murder some years, 2 less often, 3 or 4 rarely, and zero in most... and whenever there is a murder, the people would say "but this never happens here!" because of all those years with zero.

The real test: grab several years of data like what's represented in that map. The truly "safe" counties will have consistently low crime rates over long periods of time. The ones that only show up as low for a single year because of their low population will have rates that bounce up and down wildly.

 

[Stevicus]

Right... the Tenth Amendment acknowledges this. It says that these unenumerated rights and powers go to the individual states or to the people.

... which doesn't help much when the question is one about the constitutionality of a restriction placed on the people by a state: is this a case of a right reserved to the people or a power reserved to the states?

My own opinion is "Power to the people." I don't think the government or the courts or the politicians really warmed up to that idea, though.

It's not even really a liberal or conservative thing, since both apparently flip-flop on this principle whenever the mood strikes them. It just depends on the issue and which area of life either side believes it's okay for government to intervene and restrict individual rights. For liberals, it might be gun control and cigarettes, whereas for conservatives, it might be nude magazines or nasty song lyrics. There's no real consistent set of principles they go by.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because that is the only consistent, reasonable interpretation.

But your interpretation is neither.

I understand that we are discussing both. So humor me. Can you explain how minors possessing handguns affects interstate commerce?

Nope.

I'm not going off into the weeds with you on this.

 

[Curious George]

But your interpretation is neither.

Really, so you believe no speech can be limited by the government?

Nope.

I'm not going off into the weeds with you on this.

That is ashame. I disagree with your characterization that discussing this is off in the weeds.

 

[Revoltingest]

Could even restrict it to the muskets of that time period and it wouldn't violate that amendment.

By this philosophy, could freedom of the press be limited
to words printed on paper using presses of the day?
Instead, I favor looking at the function, ie, the relative
capability of arms & communication at the time.
But back to the OP, regulation of age wouldn't mean
unreasonable restriction of the right to bear arms.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Really, so you believe no speech can be limited by the government?

Your skills of inference are almost as good as your judgement of what is "consistent and reasonable."

That is ashame. I disagree with your characterization that discussing this is off in the weeds.

I'm sure you do.

 

[Curious George]

Your skills of inference are almost as good as your judgement of what is "consistent and reasonable."

Please spell out exactly what you think is mistaken, lest we assume you lack an actual argument.

I'm sure you do.

Lol, I'm sure your sure I do. But, understanding governmental control differs between state and federal is essential for a discussion on the topic. The limits of federal power and the limits of state power are related.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Please spell out exactly what you think is mistaken, lest we assume you lack an actual argument.

You called an approach where the limit varies from community to community "consistent."

You interpreted a law that says a right "shall not be infringed" to mean that any infringement you deem justified is allowed... and you called this "reasonable."

Lol, I'm sure your sure I do. But, understanding governmental control differs between state and federal is essential for a discussion on the topic. The limits of federal power and the limits of state power are related.

We'll see just how essential it is, since I'm not going to engage with you on it.

 

[Nous]

I want to first note how impressed I am by many of the comments here. Most everyone has hit upon relevant and important points, and discussed them intelligently. The thread is also instructive to me by demonstrating that it fosters better discussion if I could just keep my trap shut. But I can't. It's a mental disorder. I get nervous when I'm not making arguments, or gathering ammunition to make arguments.

Anyway, applicable case law for determining the constitutionality of these laws imposing age restrictions on purchasing and possessing guns is virtually nonexistent, but that which exists is decisive. That's why the NRA's petition challenging the Florida law does not cite a single case (I don't recall another petition in federal court that was void of citation of any case law), and puts forth a freakish Equal Protection rationale about 18-20 year-old women being less likely than males to use semiautomatic guns to commit murders. See:

NRA v Bondi - Complaint

But in 2012, the NRA challenged the constitutionality of the federal law that prohibits firearms dealers from selling handguns to persons younger than 21. The District court granted summary judgment to the government, and the Fifth Circuit panel affirmed. The en banc court declined to review, and the Supreme Court denied cert.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-5th-circuit/1614698.html

The Circuit court opinion teaches that prohibiting sales of guns to those younger than 21 is one of the "long-standing, presumptively lawful measures" that Heller explicitly leaves intact. At common law, persons younger than 21 years old were minors, often referred to as "infants," and were universally prohibited from purchasing firearms. Allowing those younger than 21 to buy guns is a fairly recent invention. The Circuit panel meticulously justified the 2-step process of determining constitutionality, as set out in Heller and which courts have generally employed thence, explaining that, since the law only prohibits sales, it only needs to survive intermediate scrutiny, which it achieves. The opinion further explains that if the law struck at "the core right" identified by Heller, by prohibiting possession generally, it would need to pass strict scrutiny.

The Florida law referenced in the OP only prohibits sales, thus only requiring intermediate scrutiny, which it easily aces. The Washington state initiative, if it becomes law, would prohibit possession in public, but allows for exercise of Heller's "core right, " i.e., for self-defense in the home. Thus, if strict scrutiny were the appropriate hurdle, the law would seem to clear it. Heller is sometimes more reasonable than I give it credit for. No one can deny that behind Scalia's iridescent sentences, there was a brilliant mind.

 

[Stevicus]

But back to the OP, regulation of age wouldn't mean
unreasonable restriction of the right to bear arms.

I guess it's more a matter of what age one is considered "mature." There might be some 15-year-olds who are more mature and responsible than those who are in their 40s or 50s (or even older).