Yep.with human beings I don’t think there ever is. There are always risks and tradeoffs and we always have to choose.
3 Likes
I think the question of when does “adulthood” kick in is open for debate, and affects several things. I really don’t see why the age of voting should be different than the age of enlisting which is different than the age to drink which (depending on the state) is different than the age of purchasing a firearm.
Either you are “adult” enough to make life-changing decisions or you aren’t. Being “adult” enough over here but not over there just doesn’t make sense to me.
Some places have different ages to purchase a handgun vs rifle, those should be the same. And I think if you can purchase a firearm you should be allowed to carry it.
5 Likes
A little background on this Idaho law…as we are Idaho gun owners, Idaho Second Amendment Alliance, and Gun Owners of America, and of course Idaho supporting residents, were extremely instrumental in getting the law changed to 18 year old concealed carry. The bill was passed in both the senate and house. Must be an Idaho resident. Also military personnel at 18, being a non resident, are also able to concealed carry. The law was changed from the age of 21 to 18, July 1st.The headline “teen concealed carry”, especially “teen” disturbs us. Main stream media verbiage, to draw attention, to pack advertisers. These “teens” are young adults, and let us not forget they are able to drive at what 15, and get their restrictive license at 15? We also are adamant about training, no matter 18 years old or 60 years old. Our child is now driving at 15, has completed the Idaho driving education requirements, and is driving with one of us parents. Teaching and instructing our young adult. Our young adult also shoots and trains with us. As parents we are preparing this young adult to survive in life. Idaho is a very strong gun state! Another point, if a resident was born after 1974, and desires to hunt, they must take a hunter’s safety course. This course also teaches gun safety. We wish there were honest, Idaho, stats regarding young adults who conceal carry, with some sort of basic training, either by parents, firearms courses, or hunter’s safety. WE don’t have the stats, but we know this…we went thru hunter’s safety with both our young adults, and almost all the parents (either the mom or the dad)were in attendance, in the classes, with their “student”. We know several of the instructors for this hunter’s safety course, and this little bit of info, regarding parents in attendance with their student, holds true for all the courses. Does the Idaho media cover these aspects? Here is some stats… 1. Wyoming: 195.7 firearms per 1,000 people.
2. District of Columbia: 66.4 firearms per 1,000 people.
3. Arkansas: 41.6 firearms per 1,000 people.
4. New Mexico: 40.5 firearms per 1,000 people.
5. Virginia: 30.1 firearms per 1,000 people.
6. Idaho: 24.2 firearms per 1,000 people. These stats may be a little old, but there exists a point.
Does the Idaho media cover training with regards to the USCCA? Vote, enlist, and conceal carry. Stay safe.
2 Likes
At 18 I was serving in Nam. After returning state side I took 30 days R&R and wanted to do a little squirrel hunting. Was told at 19 I would be able to purchase ammo when I turned 21. This was in 1969. Never forgot it.
2 Likes
The militia act only applies to the federal Militia, not to state, or local.
More importantly the federal gov’t has no regulatory or disciplinary power over the militia unless and until it has been called into federal service.
If worse comes to worse everyone that can handle a weapon at all will be enlisted as part of their local or state militia.
Then we get to the difference in the original meaning and intent of the 2nd vs how it is interpreted in the modern era.
Personally I am an originalist because if you can redefine any part of the constitution to suit your purposes in the modern era then the entire constitution is meaningless.
Our constitution is supposed to the be solid foundation that everything else is built upon. It does specify one way to change it and that’s through the Amendment Process, not through “reinterpretation”.
1 Like
I agree and disagree. I am a cross between an originalist and strict constructionist. The Constitution, and more importantly, the Bill of Rights, defines “the people[s]” rights. and the people, with respect to the bill of rights, has always been applied as an individual person’s rights to be free from interference by the federal government. The 2nd refers to the militia, which historically and today has been defined outside the constitution and now refers to men 17 to 45 and women is active service in the military (although that is now probably an equal protection violation). It refers to those who can be called into service. Luckily, the Constitution was written broadly to be able to be interpreted as time passed and knowledge and technology and technology evolved.
Likewise, originally, the Bill of rights did not apply tot he states. It wasn’t until the Civil War Amendments were ratified, more specifically the 14th Amendment, that the Bill of Rights became applicable to the states. And, the Supreme Court has determined that the 2nd is a fundamental right and applies to the states and federal government equally.
To say that the 2nd would only apply to rifles is like saying the freedom of press only applies to the Gutenberg Press. Keeping in mind that the drafters of the Constitution had just ended a war with a tyrannical government, the 2nd is there to prevent that from happening again. The colonies were armed with the same, or nearly the same weapons that the British government had. To think that, in the founding father’s eyes, the 2nd should be interpreted differently, in my opinion, is absurd.
My point, is that the Constitution is a document that must be interpreted, not only by what is written in the document, but also in light of the laws passed by congress and the changes in science and technology.
2 Likes
I believe that as the youth become empowered with the right to vote, enlist etc…This is a path towards becoming responsible adults. The point in which a young adult selects his MOS when enlisting to be Combat is a serious situation. Not sure of the percentages, but a typical scenario in my eyes are they signed up for 4 years active which brings them home at 22, reservists really on touch weapons at BT and occasionally on the once a month mandatory visit. This is also under extreme supervision and is not combat. So we all can agree on one thing, at that age it is not some of our best decision making moments…they can wait till 21.
Many of them are “home” for much or all of that time… I think very few are deployed the entire time.
Total agree that’s not an age of wisdom for most. But neither is 25.
They own the responsibility for their actions and their lives at 18. Their life is valuable. I believe it is wrong to not allow them the tools to protect it.
When we say “you can’t carry from 18 to 20” we effecively say “your life is not worth protecting”. We say “you are so essentially untrustworthy, and such a risk to others and the value of your own life does not compare to other’s, so your rights are forfeit.” And we say it categorically without individual adjudication.
When a person becomes an adult they are entitled to their full set of rights. To have any of those rights curtailed takes a court of law acting in regard to your specific behavior. Unless you’re 18-20 in which case your rights are automatically restricted, without regard to your specific behavior, and without a court of law.
We are founded on a principle of innocent until proven guilty. My rights are not curtailed based on what I might do, or what other people like me might do, or what people like me have done. They are curtailed because of what I, personally. have done.
We carry because life is precious. What we are saying to every 18 year old is your life is not sufficiently precious to give you the tools to protect it. We judge that to be true because some people like you aren’t responsible, so your right to self protection is forfeit based on their actions.
I’m not Ok with that.
2 Likes
One more thought on this… we, as people, tend to imagine the worst will happen, I think its a pretty natural human behavior. The media tends to fan that flame because its good for profits.
Back when the first states were going to constitutional carry there were predictions of wild-west gunfights, shootings over parking spaces, and blood running in the streets. Obviously that didn’t happen, and the statistics show the opposite.
Basically it was a fear that “people” can’t be trusted. Especially people different than us.
I wonder if this “no guns for 18 year olds because they aren’t mature enough” isn’t just another form of “people can’t be trusted”.
Before, “they” believed “we” couldn’t be trusted to act responsibly. Now “we” believe “they” (young adults) can’t be trusted.
It’s a dynamic that occurs in human tribes since the dawn of time… we trust our tribe, but that other tribe, not so much.
“They” were wrong about “us”. Maybe “we” have been wrong about young adults.
4 Likes
We all started somewhere on our weapons journey. I have served in a hostile zone with Soldiers of all ages and have witnessed some awesome restraint from some 18-21 year olds as well as plenty of immaturity from older Soldiers. We have to take an adult at his worth until he proves otherwise just as we do the rest of society. My 2 cents worth
1 Like
SELECTIVE SERVICE at 18, CCW at 18!
2 Likes
If they pass the same standards as you and I do, I wholeheartedly agree @Ronald1. They are citizens of age and their rights should reflect so.
3 Likes
My son is enlisted and he is not home nor deployed, they are stationed at a select base that the military decides upon based on their MOS as I stated for Combat/ Infantry. I only see my boy on Holidays, and I’m sure they leave the base in the weekends. I wish I could say I agree that your view of there life is valued at 18 makes sense to me, but there are more moving parts to this dynamic. And I certainly don’t want to reference the use of weapons in the Military as enough reason to CC in public at 18.
Just saying
1 Like
@Michael23 I come from a heavily military family, as does my husband. Thank your son for us.
I don’t see the responsibilities of citizenship and the rights of citizenship as separable… if you take on one, you should get the other. I think we’re going to just have to agree to disagree on this one.
1 Like
I don’t disagree Zee, I absolutely respect that if we can rely on them at that age what is the difference None…I just tend to favor on the side of the mentality level of an 18 year old and that is what scares me.
Thanks for sharing.
1 Like
@Michael23, I’m interested in exploring your thinking, if you’re willing.
When you think about this with your son as part of the picture, what is it that scares you? That your son would make a bad decision if he were carrying? That his friends would? That 18 year olds you don’t know would? That someone your son knows in his own age bracket would make a bad decision and your son would get hurt?
Is your concern that someone would accidentally cause another harm, or that they deliberately would? That they, or he, would try to do the right thing and make a bad decision? That they, or he, would lose control of their emotions and act to harm someone?
Would you mind sharing what you’re thinking when you feel that scare?
Well my son is well into his 20’s and the statement of what scares me is a simple one, there is no mistake about It that the young generation today is relying heavily on the internet.
The real life and real world situations are far, few and in between and I just don’t believe that even with training for these different situations they can make an effective decision under the pressures of the moment.
You would agree that as an adult we evaluate, process and gather as much information as possible before making a decision, what 18 year old today has enough real life experience to assess a life threatening situation and react properly.
3 years is not a life time.
Michael
1 Like
@Zee Zee here in the People’s Republic of Illinois it’s not even possible to own (legally) a firearm until 21 years old. Yes; By Law you can own a “long gun” at 18 years of age and a handgun at 21 years of age, but the Hook comes in so The State Law is that you cannot apply for your FOID CARD until 21 years so gun ownership at 18 is a Moot Point, and if you’re caught in the possession of a firearm under 21 or with no FOID or Expired FOID your Second Amendment Rights will never be restored unless of course you’re a criminal or a professional gang banger.
2 Likes
@Michael23, I agree that 18 years is not enough to gather a lifetime’s wisdom - but neither is 25, or 30, or, now that I’m almost 60… 60. 
I’ve lived on my own since I was 15 - at 15 would I make the same decisions I do now? not hardly. nor at 18. nor at 21 or 25 or 50. But when did I become an adult responsible for my own actions? 15. Wise or not, my actions were mine, and I knew it was on me to be responsible for them.
I do. But that is how I’ve always done. At 15, and 18, and now, I gather as much information as I can before making decisions. It is in my nature, and my upbringing, to do so. I have more data to compare to now, but that doesn’t mean I didn’t put in the effort at 15… or that I was rash and brainless. It doesn’t mean that all 18 year olds today are rash and brainless either. I see plenty of people who are rash and brainless, or who don’t gather information, or who go on emotion and the media hype, and they’re way over the age of 21. There is no equivalence between age and maturity that applies to everyone.
I ask the same question back… what 21 year old does? and as is often seen when legal adults do stupid things that put their life or others at risk inappropriately, what 30 year old does? what 40 year old does?
I’ll tell you that at 18, I had a great deal more life experience, and a lot better judgement, than many people twice my age. Granted I’m not typical, but we’ve given adult responsibility to people at the age of 18, they deserve the benefits - the rights - that go with it.
I’m not arguing that 18 is mature or that 21 is. Mostly when I look around I see a lot of 40 that isn’t mature. But if we’re going to hold people accountable for their actions at 18, give them the rights to go with it. If they can’t be trusted, then don’t make them adults until 21. Withhold the right to vote, to own and operate a vehicle, to serve in the military, to marry, until 21. Keep them wards of their parents and make their parents responsible for their lives and decisions and actions until they are mature enough to operate on their own responsibility. … … I’ll wager if we’re waiting for that, 21 isn’t going to be nearly long enough.
agreed - but the life I wouldn’t get to defend in that time would be my own.
You’re misreading me there somewhere.
The intent behind the 2nd was to preserve our rights to arms which as defined at the time wasn’t limited to firearms but all of the weapons and accouterments of a basic infantryman.
That would include long guns, carbines, pistols, bladed weapons and all of the gear necessary for a basic infantryman to show up and do battle when necessary.
My issue with textualists is that they ignore the fact we have a treasure trove of documentation as to the meaning and intent beyond the text itself in the form of letters, articles written by and speeches given by the drafters at the time of the convention and during ratification.
The 14th has been intentionally misinterpreted and misrepresented since the 60’s. It’s intent was to clarify the citizenship of everyone born in the US at the time of and prior to it’s drafting and passage.
Most people today don’t realize that it’s scope was expanded exponentially in a series of court rulings during the sixties and seventies and I seriously doubt that those who did so realized just how much harm they were doing to the country with those rulings in the long term.
Back to the 2nd, my only real point there beyond the militia clause was to point out that it’s perfectly in keeping with the 2nd to limit concealed carry to permit holders as long as no such requirement is made for open carry.
As Scalia points out in Heller, “To Keep and Bear Arms” isn’t all difficult to understand as a phrase when one looks at the founding era sources.