Are Age Restrictions for Buying and Possessing Guns Constitutional?

[Revoltingest]

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).

The law is a blunt instrument. It will take some semi-arbitrary generalization,
& make it strict law. Let's say they pick 18 years of age....as you point out,
this will be unfair to some, & dangerous with others. But it should yield a
better result than the alternatives.

 

[Stevicus]

The law is a blunt instrument. It will take some semi-arbitrary generalization,
& make it strict law. Let's say they pick 18 years of age....as you point out,
this will be unfair to some, & dangerous with others. But it should yield a
better result than the alternatives.

I guess a mandatory "maturity test" is out of the question. But I have a feeling that even most adults would probably flunk such a test.

 

[Revoltingest]

I guess a mandatory "maturity test" is out of the question. But I have a feeling that even most adults would probably flunk such a test.

Aye, no tests for a basic right.
But I see mandatory training as constitutionally permissible.
Certainly, we could make things better than they are.

 

[Curious George]

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

No I called acknowledging no right is unfettered the only consistent and reasonable approach. It would be inconsistent of pur interpretation of other rights if the second amendment was an unfettered right while we assume others are not.

More over it is unreasonable to imagine any right as unfettered.

I see where the miscommunication was. I am a little confused by your issue with limits varying community by community. Do you think this is a problem? Why?

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."

No, I interpret any fundamental right as subject to limitations when those limitations represent a compelling government interest, and the limitation is narrowly tailored to fit that interest and when the government has the jurisdictional authority to act. We can have i discussion about whether such a limitation falls into that category, but this is not a mere because i think its justified rationale.

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

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

Who opposes restrictions on one, but none on the other?
This is a view I don't recall seeing.
Differing levels of regulation on guns of different destructive capability makes sense.

 

[Father Heathen]

Who opposes restrictions on one, but none on the other?
This is a view I don't recall seeing.

Don't pretend that you don't remember people crying over the suggestion that semi-auto rifles (such as the AR15) should be more restricted/regulated, claiming that it would be unconstitutional. Yet these same people seem to have no qualms with not having access to RPGs.

Diff levels of regulation on guns of different destructive capability makes sense.

Exactly.

 

[Revoltingest]

Don't pretend that you don't remember people crying over the suggestion that semi-auto rifles (such as the AR15) should be more restricted/regulated, claiming that it would be unconstitutional. Yet these same people seem to have no qualms with not having access to RPGs.
Exactly.

I don't recall anyone crying over one, & lacking qualms over the other.
One might ask you to not "pretend" to know who did.
But I wouldn't.

 

[Father Heathen]

I don't recall anyone crying over one, & lacking qualms over the other.
One might ask you to not "pretend" to know who did.
But I wouldn't.

So you really don't recall any of the ten thousand threads debating increased restrictions/regulations on "assault rifles" after the Parkland school shooting in Florida earlier this year? A lot of the conservatives here were claiming that it would be unconstitutional.

 

[Revoltingest]

So you really don't recall any of the ten thousand threads debating increased restrictions/regulations on "assault rifles" after the Parkland school shooting in Florida earlier this year? A lot of the conservatives here were claiming that it would be unconstitutional.

I know that we'd risk rule violation, but I don't recall a single individual
holding the positions you claim. Perhaps you could link such a post.
Certainly some will hold one, & different posters will hold the other.
But one cannot conflate these 2 groups in what appears to be a
suggestion of hypocrisy on their part.

 

[Father Heathen]

I know that we'd risk rule violation, but I don't recall a single individual
holding the positions you claim. Perhaps you could link such a post.
Certainly some will hold one, & different posters will hold the other.
But one cannot conflate these 2 groups in what appears to be a
suggestion of hypocrisy on their part.

I really don't feel up to digging through thousands of old threads to copy and paste handpicked posts. If you have a genuine interest, just use the search function.

 

[Revoltingest]

I really don't feel up to digging through thousands of old threads to copy and paste handpicked posts. If you have a genuine interest, just use the search function.

Your claim.
Your job.

 

[Father Heathen]

Your claim.
Your job.

Then I concede out of laziness.

 

[Nous]

So you really don't recall any of the ten thousand threads debating increased restrictions/regulations on "assault rifles" after the Parkland school shooting in Florida earlier this year? A lot of the conservatives here were claiming that it would be unconstitutional.

I don't know exactly how many millions of RF members have claimed that it is unconstitutional to ban semiautomatic weapons, but I am aware of at least one. It seems to me decisive enough to note the fact that to date 10 Circuit courts have said that such bans are constitutional, and no Circuit court has held otherwise.

Unfortunately, Kavanaugh is one on the big Court who has attempted to argue that such bans are unconstitutional. His rationale is blatantly fallacious, premised on erroneous ideas of the alleged popularity of such weapons and an unjustifiable construal of Heller's "core right". And, believe or not, sometimes non-fallacious reasoning wins out on the Court.

 

[james dixon]

It's not the type of weapon that is the issue, it's where and when you have them.

I want---

[1] background checks (prevents criminals from buying)

[2] seven (7) day waiting period before the gun store can give you the weapon. (giving the person time to cool off if the purchase is based on anger)

[3] provide a valid home address

[4] illegal to carry a firearm in public places

Any objections-?

 

[esmith]

It's not the type of weapon that is the issue, it's where and when you have them.

I want---

[1] background checks (prevents criminals from buying)

[2] seven (7) day waiting period before the gun store can give you the weapon. (giving the person time to cool off if the purchase is based on anger)

[3] provide a valid home address

[4] illegal to carry a firearm in public places

Any objections-?

Yep!!!!!!

 

[Nous]

It's not the type of weapon that is the issue, it's where and when you have them.

Even the "recreational" use of weapons such a nuclear bombs is too unsafe to allow the public to possess. The same is true for a lot of other weapons. Don't you agree?

 

[esmith]

Even the "recreational" use of weapons such a nuclear bombs is too unsafe to allow the public to possess. The same is true for a lot of other weapons. Don't you agree?

Going considerably far afield aren't we?
Wouldn't behoove you and everyone else to keep the discussion to what the OP had in mind and that is legal firearms

 

[james dixon]

Are Age Restrictions for Buying and Possessing Guns Constitutional?

This is exactly what this debate is, what constitutes a:

[1] a “legal” right to possess a firearm

[2] a right to carry a firearm in public places

[3] should there be age restriction to buying a gun?

These three (3) rights are not one and the same

Our founding fathers did not envision giving a person the right to go into a mall and randomly shoot 12 bystanders

The answer to the question is; yes it is
-

 

[esmith]

Are Age Restrictions for Buying and Possessing Guns Constitutional?

This is exactly what this debate is, what constitutes a:

[1] a “legal” right to possess a firearm

Age: must be 18 or older to purchase or own a handgun. no age restriction to purchase a long gun.
Not allowed to own or purchase a firearm

• Persons under indictment for, or convicted of, any felony crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
• Fugitives from justice
• Persons who are unlawful users of, or addicted to, any controlled substance
• Persons who have been declared by a court as mental defectives or have been committed to a mental institution
• Illegal aliens or aliens who were admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa
• Persons who have been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces
• Persons who have renounced their United States citizenship
• Persons subject to certain types of restraining orders
• Persons who have been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence

[[2] a right to carry a firearm in public places

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Constitution's Second Amendment grants people the right to openly carry a gun in public for self-defense.
Appeals court rules Constitution protects right to openly carry gun in public

[3] should there be age restriction to buying a gun?

There is: must be 18 or older to purchase or own a handgun, no age restriction on purchasing a long gun

Our founding fathers did not envision giving a person the right to go into a mall and randomly shoot 12 bystanders

Our founding fathers did not envision a lot of things. For one they did not envision cars.
So your argument is invalid.

 

[Nous]

Going considerably far afield aren't we?
Wouldn't behoove you and everyone else to keep the discussion to what the OP had in mind and that is legal firearms

I was just commenting on @james dixon 's comment. He doesn't seem to have minded.