Are Age Restrictions for Buying and Possessing Guns Constitutional?

[Nous]

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?

 

[Curious George]

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?

Tricky question. Yes because the government would need a reason to so. Then the law ought to be narrowly defined to fit that reason. Is there a reason? Is the law narrowly tailored to fit that reason?

 

[Stevicus]

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?

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. If this is allowed under the Constitution, then I would think that raising the minimum age to purchase weapons would also be allowed.

The thing they can't do is raise the voting age, since that's specifically covered under the 26th Amendment. The main argument supporting the passage of that amendment was that an 18-year-old could be drafted or join the military to fight and die for their country, yet still not allowed any say in how it is governed.

I think the same basic argument could be used in other cases. Why should an otherwise mature, responsible, law-abiding 18-year-old be denied certain rights afforded to those 21 and over, just because of a few bad apples in the 18-20 age group? I think it's somewhat arbitrary anyway, having some things one is allowed to do at 18, who is legally an adult - yet still having to wait until 21 for other things. We need to make up our minds as to when someone is legally an adult - 18 or 21? Pick one and be done with it.

 

[Nous]

Yes because the government would need a reason to so. Then the law ought to be narrowly defined to fit that reason. Is there a reason? Is the law narrowly tailored to fit that reason?

So, in your opinion, what would be a reason that passes strict scrutiny for limiting purchases and possession of firearms to persons at least 21 years old?

What would be a reason that meets strict scrutiny for limiting purchases and possession of firearms to persons who are at least 18 years old?

Tricky question.

This is the second time in 2 days I've been accused of asking a tricky question. Both accusations have been true. I'm afraid I've been exposed. Soon everyone is going to figure out that I'm a Russian troll.

 

[Revoltingest]

I see no constitutional prohibition against reasonable age restrictions.

 

[Mindmaster]

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?

I don't think the laws matter, because criminals by definition break the law.

There are areas of the country like Alabama that have exceedingly low gun crime and their children are often shooting before they become teenagers. They are usually shooting as soon as they have the ability to operate a firearm. Essentially, this shows that it's cultural influences rather than age that is the problem. The highest gun crime rates are nearly always in liberal / Democratic / urban governed areas. We could argue that early exposure to firearms reduces the tendency to even think to use them to harm others based on the data from more rural areas.

It's more likely that the source of the problem is ghetto culture, lack of spirituality and respect for others, and things along those lines. If you take the guns away the same people just switch to stabbing each other -- it's pretty hard to outlaw what is in everyone's kitchen.

I'm fine with 18+ on firearm ownership, but I'd never want a law made as a twitch response to a one-off event that's unlikely to occur again.

 

[Jainarayan]

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” Tenth Amendment. Nothing in the Constitution about age limits for purchasing guns, so the states have the right to set their own terms.

 

[Altfish]

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?

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.

 

[sun rise]

I see no constitutional prohibition against reasonable age restrictions.

You are being entirely too reasonable by agreeing with me.

 

[sun rise]

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.

Well, guns are all about the size of one's manhood in America.

 

[Sunstone]

Well, guns are all about the size of one's manhood in America.

*Hides pea-shooter* That's fascinating. I didn't know that.


Seriously, where I come from -- a very rural small town -- guns were just tools. Everyone had at least a shotgun. There was only one gun related murder in the 125 years my county had been in existence. You grew up being taught not to resort to firearms to settle disputes.

Very different "gun culture" from the big cities.

 

[Revoltingest]

You are being entirely too reasonable by agreeing with me.

I try to keep it to a minimum.

 

[David T]

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?

They should change the constitution to the right to buy and drink beer. And as i am at it lefalize all things that grow as legal. We can pick mushrooms legally that can kill you dead, heaven forbid to pick mushrooms that alter perceptions. Seems like a crazy dictaorship "omg they are seeing things differnently outlaw that."

Guns i have no idea.

 

[Brickjectivity]

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?

You may find this of interest: Is it unconstitutional for sellers to have higher minimum age for gun purchases than the federal government?

My own thoughts are that law is a practice, so even when it comes to the constitution we are trying things out. The goal being a more perfect union, I posit there is an ideal constitution and the working constitution with its written amendments. The states have not made an extreme infringement, so it is like a test. The thing to do is to wait and see if the laws have a positive difference in making the union more perfect. I think that what is missing here is that these laws are open ended and have no expiration. Therefore they are unconstitutional. If they had an expiration date allowing for review of their viability, then I would consider them to be constitutional.

 

[Curious George]

So, in your opinion, what would be a reason that passes strict scrutiny for limiting purchases and possession of firearms to persons at least 21 years old?

IMO, I can think of no circumstance in which possession alone is not overly broad.

What would be a reason that meets strict scrutiny for limiting purchases and possession of firearms to persons who are at least 18 years old?

IMO, I can think of no circumstance in which possession alone is not overly broad. This includes handguns as prohibited by 18 U.S.C. 922 (x)(2).

This is the second time in 2 days I've been accused of asking a tricky question. Both accusations have been true. I'm afraid I've been exposed. Soon everyone is going to figure out that I'm a Russian troll.

It is an NPC for leftish issues and a russian bot for rightish issues (just keeping you up to date).

 

[Sanzbir]

If it's a matter of constitutional rights, do any other rights work that way??

Could the government force everyone to be Catholic until the age of 21?? Deny due process for those under 21??

If it's a right, it's a right. If you want to argue that it's not a right, that's another issue, but if it is a right, why would it alone have age restrictions that we would find unacceptable for any other right to have??

 

[Sanzbir]

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. If this is allowed under the Constitution, then I would think that raising the minimum age to purchase weapons would also be allowed.

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

The thing they can't do is raise the voting age, since that's specifically covered under the 26th Amendment. The main argument supporting the passage of that amendment was that an 18-year-old could be drafted or join the military to fight and die for their country, yet still not allowed any say in how it is governed.

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??

 

[Jainarayan]

If it's a matter of constitutional rights, do any other rights work that way??

Could the government force everyone to be Catholic until the age of 21?? Deny due process for those under 21??

If it's a right, it's a right. If you want to argue that it's not a right, that's another issue, but if it is a right, why would it alone have age restrictions that we would find unacceptable for any other right to have??

The Tenth Amendment... states rights.

 

[Sanzbir]

The Tenth Amendment... states rights.

Yeah, that's not how that works. See McDonald v. City of Chicago, the States are bound by the federal constitution, and the Tenth doesn't overrule the rights therein.

So Missouri can't establish a theocracy, Florida can't find people guilty of state-level crimes without a trial, and Wisconsin cannot censor news negative of its governor.

 

[Jainarayan]

the States are bound by the federal constitution, and the Tenth doesn't overrule the rights therein.

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