As we suggested at the time, the U.S. Supreme Court’s McDonald decision was something of a Pyrrhic victory. In that case, the Supremes struck down Chicago’s handgun ban and incorporated the Second Amendment (i.e. ruled that the right to bear arms trumps local and state law). BUT the Court’s “reasonable restrictions” caveat opened a can of worms clearly labeled “gun control.” At the Washington Post, editors ask themselves, can we do the can can? Yes we can!

Eighteen-year-olds can and do fight for their country. And they are able in many instances to vote and partake of the full rights enjoyed by much older citizens. But there is nothing unconstitutional about the state or federal government determining that a few more years of maturity – and the discipline and wisdom that hopefully come with such age – are needed before such a youngster is allowed to carry a lethal weapon on the streets. It takes some kind of gumption – or blind ideological fervor – to challenge such reasonable limitations.

Who’s accusing whom of blind ideological fervor?WaPo editorial writer blows a hole in his whole”discipline and wisdom” argument by adding the word “hopefully.” Hopefully? Is hope a sound basis for public policy, especially as it infringes on an American citizen’s constitutional right? Can we change that? Yes we can!

7 Responses to Washington Post: Age Limits on CCW Are Constitutional

  1. I've always been against the drinking age being set above the dying (draft) and voting age. If you're mature enough to die for your country and mature enough to vote into office those who send you to die for your country, you should be able to celebrate with a beer. Ditto CCW.

  2. Robert – as a society, we have been increasingly increasing the length of childhood. I'm not sure of all the causes, or what can be done to prevent it, but we are seeing many so-called adults living with parents until the mid-20s (or later, much later) without working or even an attempt at self-sufficiency. Part of it may be the desire for college education, meaning the true onset of adulthood is now 22 – 24 years of age. But I know of absolutely no 18 year old "kids" who have full time employment or actually support themselves. Without that cold responsibility, I don't see the maturity or mindset we assume when we say "adult". Two century ago, kids 14 and younger were taking on apprenticeship roles and preparing for a career. Today "kids" 24 and older are telling us that they're not ready for a career and don't really know what they want to do. There are exceptions, but not many people see 18 as a mature adult age anymore. I've got no answer to this, and I'm dealing with a 19 year old son right now. Frustrating as hell, but there you have it.

  3. There are two good points made above. Here is mine. First, there are adults in their fifties that should not own a gun or drive a car. Second, there are teenagers out there with more common sense than some adults. What is the answer? I think if we trust a "minor" to drive a tank or fire a 155mm, he is probably capable of owning and carrying a gun. I don't remember seeing an age of "adulthood" in the Constitution, so no help there. As for "reasonable limitations", the limitations have never been very reasonable in the past.

    If you look at insurance companies, a male is not considered an adult until he is 25, for females, its 23. After that age, insurance rates drop sharply. Most states don't allow drinking till age 21. You can get a private pilots licence at age 16? A ham radio licence at age 12? Dont quote me on those.

    I guess what I'm getting at is that age should not be as important a factor as an individuals ability to accept responsibility. So, the next question is how do you decide who is responsible?

    Psych evaluation? Conducted by an anti-gun state paid head shrinker, no way.
    The credit rating seems to be favored by employers lately, but how much credit does an 18 year old have?

    I wish I knew the answer. I have two kids that don't seem to be getting any younger. One I could trust with a gun almost immediately, and the other, well, maybe never.

    Maybe self policing is the answer for CC licences? A board of licence holders who volunteer their time to interview applicants? People who know what is required and what is involved? Very little burden on the tax payers too.

  4. Great more hypocrisy. My prediction : the age to purchase from an FFL will be lowered to 18. The constitution does not address age, and 18 seems to be the age for most things. But then someone will go after the drinking age.

  5. I've always hated the fact that a 19 year old with a bottle of whiskey could be arrested as a "minor in possession" and then charged and treated as an adult because he is over 18.

    The real problem with getting rid of age discrimination on the lower end is that unlike with other types of discrimination, you don't have a permanently aggrived class of people to give your movement energy and support. Every 18 year old who is denied a right knows he will get it on his 21st birthday which means that, because it takes so long to get laws changed, the likelihood of an 18 year old being able to reap the benefit of his efforts before time makes it moot are very slim. Thus, 18 – 20 year olds have few reasons to push for a change in the law and 21+ adults have none.

  6. I hate to say it but I agree with the WP on this small point.

    From a medical viewpoint the human is not fully mature until about age 24.

    From a practical view point most people will admit they did realy stupid things when they were in their teens. Why would CCWers be different?

    Shields Up/ Screens Energized/ Kelvlar ON.

    Let the flames begin

  7. 43,000 people killed in car accidents in a year. 1100 killed in firearms accidents in a year. We let 16 year olds drive, but they have to be 21 to carry a firearm. Makes no sense.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *