And if it were you, we could also just be as flippant as it was not us.
I’d like to see how much agreement there is on two principles:
-
Underage people should not be able to operate firearms without supervision of an adult. (“Underage” not yet defined in this discussion.)
-
Severe mental illness should disqualify someone from possessing a firearm. (“Severe” not yet defined in this discussion.)
We can debate “underage” and “severe” at some point, but what do we all think of the general principles?
And yes, I understand that 2A makes no such explicit distinctions. Personally, I think “well-regulated” implies them. I also think “well-regulated” can be abused and taken too broadly, so it’s admittedly a slippery slope. For purposes of this discussion, let’s agree that it’s a slippery slope, and we are still free to try to understand the basic principles.
Thoughts?
1 Like
The preamble of a well regulated militia is just giving an example of why it is important for the people’s right to keep and bear arms not to be infringed. It is the people’s right, not the well regulated militias right.
As to your first two points. When I lived in VT no one would look twice if they saw a kid walking down the road with a shotgun or .22 over their shoulder. I think it really depends on the maturity and responsibility of the firearm user much more than the age. But that is not something you could quantify in the law.
I agree that people with a severe mental illness making them a danger to themselves or others should have their rights curtailed. But it is a slippery slope and any system set up to enforce that would need to be clearly defined with a lot of due process built in to ensure that people aren’t unnecessarily disarmed in the name of mental illness by other people who are suffering from hoplophobia.
I would add a third group. Convicted violent criminals and those awaiting trial should not be allowed to posses firearms until they can prove they are no longer a threat. But as with people accused of being mentally ill a system must be in place for them to argue their case in a timely and fair manner.
3 Likes
Agree on both. And in addition to the idea that we might not all agree on what “underage” or “sever mental illness” means, let’s acknowledge the fact that those change over time. Our grandparents or great-grandparents likely grew up during a time when a 16-year-old was expected to take on adult responsibilities. Those who couldn’t do so might have been considered mentally handicapped. These days, there are people who think a 24-year-old is still a child.
I don’t think there’s a perfect number because people mature in different ways, but if the legal standard is 18 for majority, then it should be across the board. Those who can join the military or vote should be afforded the right to bear arms. (Keep in mind that there are a lot of 18-year-olds that the military rejects.) They all go together, in my mind. If a person can’t be trusted to be a part of the armed citizenry of the United States, then how can we trust them to vote?
3 Likes
I’m in — with a couple of clarifications.
First, that “supervision” of a minor need not mean immediate in-person presence at all times when a minor is in possession of a firearm. Rather, it would mean responsibility of a supervising adult for all actions of a minor in possession, and formal transfer/ownership only by and between adults (i.e. the minor being analogous to a holster, gun rack, or safe — it may hold the firearm, but does not own the firearm, and is not ultimately the party responsible to others for misuse).
Second, to agree with @Shamrock that “well-regulated” refers to the militia, not to the people. Let’s don’t go down that road. If the clause means anything, it is to proscribe the creation of a private army or independent paramilitary. I prefer a construction which presumes The Founders did not intend that all disagreements and disputes were free to be resolved by combat, if any one party chose deadly force as a means to prevail. Whether it seemed to them self-evident that:
• the violent and irresponsible might be disbarred from that right, or
• society should only act after the fact when the violent and irresponsible cause harm,
I guess was left as an exercise for future generations to argue.
2 Likes
Ok - good points. So what if for unsupervised, underage (still not entirely defined) people:
- Only kids 10 and over could possess and operate any firearm
- That can only be a long gun, no handguns
- They would need to have completed a hunter safety class
Regarding due process in the case of mental illness, my father with Alzheimer’s gets an opportunity to have his day in court every year to see if he really is in the least-restrictive environment and if he can get certain rights back. Gun possession is one of those rights. Driving is another. So if someone were to lose gun-possession rights, they should have an opportunity, let’s say yearly, to show they are no longer a danger to themselves or others. Figuring out how they would have to prove it is an open question. But we’ve done this before (Alzheimer’s), so I’m confident we could find a way to do it such that it infringes as little as possible.
And yes, agreed on violent felons.
A couple of things on this. Personally, I’m not sure 18 is the best age. We know that the prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain that assess danger and risk, is not fully developed until around 25 years of age. As I explain to my patients, this is one reason the army starts by drafting 18 year olds - they have less fear because their prefrontal cortex has not yet fully developed. “Private, take this gun, go into that building, and kill anything that moves.” “Gosh, ok Sarge!” And off he goes.
Also, people are maturing later these days compared to 40 years ago. With “participation trophies” and not wanting to make our little boopsies feel “sad”, and thus we cater to them, kids are able to be immature later in life. Once they have to get a job and start paying taxes, they have a lot of catch-up work to do. We’ve seen a huge increase in delayed maturity at our clinic. It’s noteworthy. So it’s hard to properly gauge when someone truly is “mature”.
I concede that this is a challenging point. I suspect, however, that most of the folks on this board would agree that there needs to be some restrictions on when and how 2A is implemented. Otherwise, we’d be ok with giving a six-year-old a loaded Glock to take to his school (which happened in the last week or two).
Underage people, those with severe mental health issues, and violent criminals - this sounds like a converging viewpoint.
I’m not too hung up on what the age should be. I just think it should be uniform. Either a person is a legal adult, with all the responsibilities that come with that, or they are not. I get very uncomfortable with this grey area in the middle where someone is an adult with some things, but not all things. They can vote but can’t drink alcohol? That’s weird to me.
2 Likes
Underage, I have no issue with as long as they follow firearm safety rules - the same as I expect of adults.
Severe mental illness, you did not define, so that is moot argument, until you define the term. However, like anyone else, it goes back to being able to follow firearm safety rules. We would like for everyone to follow our generally accepted morality and laws, such as not killing anyone, but we know that will never happen.
I know you are pro-gun control and are trying your best to get others here to agree with, at minimum, the concept of it. We have laws, morality and ethics to control our behaviors. We do not need further government intrusion into our lives. Freedom and safety are arch enemies.
Nope. I’m out if that’s the list.
I don’t care if they are 4 years old; or two. I don’t care what they’re shooting. I don’t care if they are attended or unattended.
While they are minors (whatever age that might be), their actions are the responsibility of some adult. That adult is responsible for what they have and what they do. The choice — and the guilt or innocence — is that of the responsible adult, not the child. I think same with respect to training — “parental” responsibility until majority, then individual responsibility.
The inducement to training I want to see is one promoting shooter and public safety in the whole: the adult/parent might be absolved from some responsibility for misadventure if able to demonstrate that the youngster was suitably trained; that the adult was suitably trained; and that safe responsible practices were followed by and in the presence of the responsible adult. There is no accounting for an outlaw kid, and while the parental responsibility will always be present — perhaps they don’t own the whole load if a diligent effort somehow fails. It is still the adult’s choice how to proceed, but we will drop 'em both in the acid bath if there is no good faith showing to promote painting between the lines.
With great freedom comes great responsibility.
1 Like
Actually, I think I kind of am just fine with that. Certainly fraught with potential/uncertainty in the abstract, but my concern would be what does the six-year-old do with the gun — same as my concern would be for an 18 year old or a 48 year old in the same setting.
In the current climate — where using the pointing finger to point might put your 6yo in cuffs — we would certainly seem a bit ahead of ourselves to expect that rationality any time soon.
1 Like
Hmmm…my concern would be, does a 6 year old kid even have the rational ability to 1) Understand what is truly ok and not ok and 2) Regulate emotions sufficiently. At 6, they are still developing those skills. I do not think they have any business toting a Glock or any other real gun around.
3 Likes
My 7 year old has not yet demonstrated the maturity level necessary to use a firearm unsupervised. But I have run into people from 20 to 60+ years old who would be considered mentally competent who I would trust less with a firearm than my son. Coming up with a precise age cut off would be arbitrary at best and quite likely useless. I would rather see more emphasis on getting as many people as possible solidly trained than on making new restrictions that almost always seem to fail at filtering out the bad apples.
2 Likes
Yeah, there will never be a perfect filter. Still, we already apply age standards to fly an airplane or drive a car, and to drink, and to join the military. Not everyone who passes a driver’s test will be a safe driver. (Just look at the idiots all around you on the freeway today.)
I’d suggest age IS at least a partial filter, along with proficiency training. It’s not perfect, but better than nothing at all.
3 Likes
I just don’t see the benefit in passing a law telling a parent they can’t let their well trained and responsible kid go out in the backyard and shoot their rifle or pistol. It’s OK for the improperly trained 11 year old to do that but not the well trained 9 year old? . Though I’m sure these laws already exist in some of the anti gun States.
There are already laws against child endangerment so letting your untrained child use dangerous tools unsupervised is not only bad parenting but could put you in jail. There are also laws against guns in schools so we don’t have to worry about law abiding 6 year olds packing in class. Another law isn’t gonna make that 6 year old (or their parents) stop and think twice.
Kids are kids and we can’t keep them on a leash 24/7. All we can do is teach them the best we can and do our best to keep them out of trouble until they are mature enough to make their own choices. There are unfortunately a lot of irresponsible parents out there who don’t make the necessary efforts to keep their kids safe. But more laws aren’t going to change that. More training might. I would start with properly designed and implemented firearms safety training in schools. That might actually save some lives.
2 Likes
While I don’t like second-class-citizen type laws (i.e. 18-year-olds can join the infantry but can’t buy a beer), I do think there’s a grey area for minors. A typical 5-year-old isn’t responsible for much; if she does something illegal, her parents are likely to be held accountable. A 15-year-old is a different story. But every child is different, every family is different, and the story is always clouded by the scenario. In general, I think I agree with you. I’m not sure it’s wise to define what children can and can’t do at each different age.
1 Like
Gotta start somewhere. It’s not meant to prevent 100% of unwanted owners, it’s meant to prevent only some. In that sense, it does accomplish some good. Though it may forever be a struggle of trying to balance it without jeopardizing the rights of the safer or safe owner.
Hearing a lot of votes for training, as well as better training than what we currently have as minimal standards.
May you all “have the senators and congresspersons ears”.
Should there be an age restriction? Some would say no, others will say yes. I’ve lived with and participated in hunting squirrels when 8 or so. All those families needed the extra meat to survive and the kids were responsible users of those guns.
On the flip side others will say yes because they see the violence 10-12 yo kids do in the inner city neighborhood. Some kids will claim turf and will guard it like a lion over a freshly killed water buffalo. There are places that if you don’t belong to a gang and you wear their colors, they kill you.
The unique thing about the US has been traditionally we never tried to legislate morality. We regulate actions. I don’t think we should stray from that very far if at all. This opens the door to how young should we say he was old enough to know better and apply the proper sentence prescribed by the law.
2 Likes
Yeah the latest nut bag was also far to the left of center.
Good luck finding this kind of reporting on the mainstream media though. They are bigger enablers than most, feeding the masses with misinformation or no information, other than propaganda. Joseph Goebbels would be humbled by their veracity.
2 Likes