Posted on 06/29/2010 4:25:26 PM PDT by marktwain
I suspect that even after McDonald, most gun controls will be upheld, either on the theory that certain kinds of gun possession are outside the scope of the Second Amendment as interpreted in Heller (e.g., bans on gun possession by felons), or on the theory that the gun control imposes only a slight burden on the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and thus doesn’t “infringe[]” that right. (See here for more on that.)
But what about limits on gun possession by 18-to-20-year-olds? New York City totally bars gun possession by 18-to-20-year-olds. Illinois bars gun possession by 18-to-20-year-olds, except with the permission of a parent, and sometimes not even then. Many other states bar handgun possession by 18-to-20-year-olds. See N.Y. Penal Law § 400.00; N.Y. City Admin Code § 10–303; NYPD, Permits | Rifle/Shotgun Permit Information; 430 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. §§ 65/2(a)(1), 65/4(a)(2)(i) (barring gun ownership or possession by under-21-year-olds unless they have the written consent of a parent or guardian, and the parent or guardian is not himself disqualified from owning guns, which entirely bars 18-to-20-year-olds from possessing a gun if their parents are dead, or if the living parent or parents are felons, nonimmigrant aliens, mental patients, or otherwise disqualified from owning a gun in Illinois); Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. §§ 29–34, –36f (banning handgun possession by anyone under 21); N.M. Stat. § 30–7-2.2 (2004) (banning handgun possession by anyone under 18). Federal law doesn’t ban such possession, but it does bar gun dealers from selling handguns to 18-to-20-year-olds, which makes handguns available to 18-to-20-year-olds only by the good graces of a nondealer third party who is willing to sell to them.
As I noted, there’s a possible argument that gun possession by 18-to-20-year-olds is also outside the scope of the Second Amendment as interpreted by Heller, because historically the age of majority has been 21. But I doubt that this would work, because the pre-1970s cases that I’ve seen involving lesser constitutional rights for minors — lesser free speech rights, lesser religious freedom rights, and lesser criminal procedure rights — involved age cutoffs of 18 or less. Whatever setting the age of majority at 21 might have meant for purposes such as contracting, parental authority, and the like, it seems not to have affected those other constitutional protections. So my sense is that these laws might well be struck down, especially if courts take seriously the Court’s suggestion that “incorporation will [not] require judges to assess the costs and benefits of firearms restrictions and thus to make difficult empirical judgments in an area in which they lack expertise” and that instead “[t]he very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government — even the Third Branch of Government — the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.”
Um. “shall not be infringed”
That’s pretty simple.
Check out the State Constitution for the minimum age for being called forth as the State’s Unorganized Militia. That may give you some idea of how it may fall out in your state
“If they can vote, they should have full rights of citizenship. “
Well I disagree with that... Hell, we let democrats vote... But if they can be drafted they should have full citizenship rights.
NY is not about the constitution, it’s all wrapped up in the Sullivan Act.
They don’t give a rats a** about your “rights”
Certainly the right to possess is not absolute. No constitutional right is. The future litigation for the next 10 to 20 years will be what State or local firearm restrictions are “reasonable” enough and narrowly tailored to address a compelling state interest, so as to pass constitutional muster. Daily is already threatening to set the stage for this with a bunch of harrassment type regulations in Chicago.
I consider two measures. One: Are they old enough to enlist in the Armed Services? Two: Can they vote? If the answer is yes to either question, then they should be able to own any firearm that they desire (including fully automatic weapons). Citizenship has rights and responsibilities.
And if they are old enough to enlist, the should be able to drink legally.
I was stopped in traffic.
Seriously, what's so sinister about a switchblade aside from their frightening name? Like a 15" long German-made butcher's knife from Crate & Barrel's kitchenware section or a wazikashi seafood filet knife some liberal city snob's favorite sushi bar isn't equally lethal? Hell, MORE lethal?
I haven't seen very many excellent quality switchblades since only Emerson or Benchmade seems to be making good ones, but I do know that some super high end sushi chef knives sell in Japan for $900 or more and are made like samurai swords.
Ever since the '50s when the movies 'West Side Story' and '12 Angry Men' came out was the switchblade knife first maligned to become ingrained in the American psyche as menacing and sinister as a black widow spider appears. It's just nuts.
The Second Amendment -- an individual civil right to keep and bear arms as Incorporated under the 14th Amendment -- should also correctly regard 'arms' to include spring-assisted knives with zero regard for it's appearance where it may look like it belongs in the hands of Johnny Switchblade Punk with a '50s pompadour hairstyle and a leather jacket.
Well said.
The Leftwingtards have a real problem here since they are the ones who argued from the subordinate "militia clause" side of things.
Once you argue that and accept all that goes with it, you are rather stuck with the age.
I got my first Rifle when I was Eight Years Old.
Is there a Statute of Limitations?
does the first amendment have age restrictions?
Both of my sons received firearms training and a new .410
shotgun when they were 12. When they turned 16, I gave them
each a 12 gauge. Both remain responsible, avid hunters, now
in their 30’s. Age is a weak criteria for responsibility.
Welcome to Arizona!
AZ Governor Signs Nation's First Knife Preemption Law!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2503530/posts
You are correct, of course. I suspect there will be a challenge fairly soon.
The armed forces presently issue most excellent switchblade knives...the Smith & Wesson model I’ve used is a very effective tool. They are front pocket-clippers, and are issued to the emergency personnel (Fire, rescue, air crews, and anyone else who can snag one). When I was in the 101st Airborne, in the olden days, the troops were issued switchblades to cut the parachute risers, if necessary, with only one hand being available (any other old farts out there who remember this?) These were like cheap jack-knives, but they did the job; the modern counterparts are really substantial pieces. Can’t understand why they’re illegal, and I’d love to legally carry one.
During deer hunting season our local paper always carries the pictures of small kids and their kills. They always have the biggest smiles you ever saw. If they ever try to outlaw this there will be lots of mad people. It is a family tradition for families here.
This should be straightforward. In the law, minor children, less than 18 years of age, are in effect chattel of their parent or guardian. In many instances, they can be and are confined against their will, in some cases in private mental hospitals, where they remain until the money runs out, or they turn 18.
However, when they turn 18, there is only one national exception to their legal majority—the right to purchase and consume alcohol. This is because of the double reason that alcohol can incapacitate the user, and this can cause an immediate public threat, especially when driving.
Guns, however, do not fit either of these criteria.
Importantly, any excuse that a prohibition by age would be designed against gang members is fallacious, because there is an alternative means that can be, and often is used to keep guns out of the hands of gang members. The legal injunction.
Injunctions can and do strictly limit any number of activities or behaviors of gang members, at a judges discretion, whether they are minors or adults. And injunctions can and frequently do invalidate constitutional rights.
Injunctions can be designed to prevent telephone use, freedom of association, and limits to means of transportation. They can create exclusionary zones, where the gang member cannot legally go, and can require gang members to not wear certain clothing or make hand gestures in public.
Violations of an injunction are contempt of court, and have no jury. They can be punished for up to a year in jail.
So there is no reason, or legal basis, to prohibit all 18-20 year olds from having guns.
Dayum!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.