Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: Why Must 18 thru 20-year-olds Be Defenseless?

  1. #1
    Regular Member kwiebe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, United States
    Posts
    206

    Post imported post

    I think it's odd that in WA adults 18, 19, and 20 years of age are not allowed to carry. Of course there are exceptions, like within their abode and so forth, but I still disagree with the law that singles out the age group for no apparent reason.

    This reminds me of the "old days" when voting age was 21, and the (rightful) comparison was made with serving in the military and not being able to vote made no sense and was unfair.

    Is this just a case of a relatively small demographic being picked on because they have no clout as a bloc?

    Just wondering what others may think about this in WA. A quick glance at the OCDO maps indicates most of the other OC-friendly states do not discriminate against this age group.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    144

    Post imported post

    I wouldn't have a problem with it, you're technically an adult at age 18 and as such you should be able to vote and purchase / carry a pistol, alcohol is more of a want than a need though and I don't have a problem with that staying at 21 years of age. Though in reality, in other countries where children are exposed to alcohol at a younger age it seems that they are less ....trigger happy with it once they get it. I think they'd be more responsible if it wasn't such a big deal.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,268

    Post imported post

    Your thread title is not accurate. They are not required to go defenseless. They just have to elect alternate means of protection.

  4. #4
    Regular Member swatspyder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    University Place, Washington, USA
    Posts
    573

    Post imported post

    David.Car wrote:
    Your thread title is not accurate. They are not required to go defenseless. They just have to elect alternate means of protection.
    I have been carrying pepper spray for a while now. Not able to carry a gun until about 15 days from now.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Port Angeles, Washington, USA
    Posts
    295

    Post imported post

    An argument could certainly be made that the statute is unconstitutional. I'm not sure if it has ever been litigated.

  6. #6
    Regular Member kwiebe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, United States
    Posts
    206

    Post imported post

    olypendrew wrote:
    An argument could certainly be made that the statute is unconstitutional. I'm not sure if it has ever been litigated.
    If someone needs a plaintiff (or would that be defendant -- yikes), my son turns 18 in a couple of weeks!

  7. #7
    Regular Member kwiebe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, United States
    Posts
    206

    Post imported post

    David.Car wrote:
    Your thread title is not accurate. They are not required to go defenseless. They just have to elect alternate means of protection.
    That kinda depends on what the adversary is armed with, of course...a relative thing

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Eagle River, Alaska, USA
    Posts
    584

    Post imported post

    I agree I don't see why there is an age limit to begin with, at some point we have to decide when someone is legally an adult and it sure as heck isn't when your 18.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Port Angeles, Washington, USA
    Posts
    295

    Post imported post

    kwiebe wrote:
    olypendrew wrote:
    An argument could certainly be made that the statute is unconstitutional. I'm not sure if it has ever been litigated.
    If someone needs a plaintiff (or would that be defendant -- yikes), my son turns 18 in a couple of weeks!
    Hewould be a plaintiff if he went to court and sued to have the statue declared unconstitutional. He would be a defendant if he carried, was cited, then challenged it in court.

  10. #10
    Regular Member jbone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    2,241

    Post imported post

    FunkTrooper wrote:
    I agree I don't see why there is an age limit to begin with, at some point we have to decide when someone is legally an adult and it sure as heck isn't when your 18.
    The military says they'reAdults at 18 & 19 (teen years). If they can train, carry and operate a multitude of firepower in the defense of our nation, then why shouldn’t they be able to train and carry in defense of themselves? You have hunter safety andboating safety classes for teens, why not firearms safety class asrequirement for an 18 year old to own and carry?
    Im proudly straight. I'm free to not support Legalization, GLBT, Illegal Aliens, or the Islamization of America.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    558

    Post imported post

    jbone, military personnel undergo a lot of training. Most in the 18-21 year old range who would want a handgun would not train with it and primarily own them as a status symbol. Nor do they have the maturity that is forced into trainees at Basic and the next level of training. The younger military personnel also are not allowed to keep the weapons in their rooms or use or carry them unsupervised, there is a reason for that.

    I am going to take a lot of crap for this but I do not feel that most 18-20 year olds and younger do not posses the levels of maturity necessary to own and carry a handgun on a daily basis. I actually agree with the 21 year old rule because of that. As another poster said, the title is misleading; they can carry things to defend themselves, just not handguns. Tasers, Mace, ASP batons, kubatons (sp?) knives, and good running shoes come to mind.

    The voting age was a very different deal. Young adults were being sent off to war and yet had no say in the election of the officials who were sending them to Vietnam. There is a big difference between voting and going to war and the daily carrying of a deadly weapon for one's defense in a primarily peaceful nation. Please ponder that before you compare not being able to vote against war and carrying a gun in the US.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    558

    Post imported post

    FunkTrooper wrote:
    I agree I don't see why there is an age limit to begin with, at some point we have to decide when someone is legally an adult and it sure as heck isn't when your 18.
    Maturity. You live on a college campus, look around and tell me that those on WSU should be allowed to pack a gun on a daily basis. From what I have seen, most of them should be kept away from guns. Those with the levels of maturity essential to daily carry aren't those who will be in dangerous places or situations.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    390

    Post imported post

    Vandal wrote:
    FunkTrooper wrote:
    I agree I don't see why there is an age limit to begin with, at some point we have to decide when someone is legally an adult and it sure as heck isn't when your 18.
    Maturity. You live on a college campus, look around and tell me that those on WSU should be allowed to pack a gun on a daily basis. From what I have seen, most of them should be kept away from guns. Those with the levels of maturity essential to daily carry aren't those who will be in dangerous places or situations.
    And who are you to make sweeping judgements regarding the maturity level of others? I went to WSU, and I know the type of people about whom you speak, but they aren't usually the gun-owning type anyway.

    All legal adults have the right to keep and bear arms. That includes pistols. 18-year-olds are legal adults. Period.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    558

    Post imported post

    Just looking at their actions. I will grant that there are handfuls of that particular demographic who posses the maturity and proper state of mind, but they are few and far between on a college campus and elsewhere. They are the gun owning types, just not for the same reasons as you or I. They want to own guns because it's "cool" and is something they use to show off with and don't think when they use them.

    You may be legally an adult at 18, but it doesn't mean you should be able to carry a gun daily.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    67

    Post imported post

    Well I just recently turned 21 and am finally done with all that crap. I'd still like to see something to give the 18-20 year olds the ability to at least OC. Maybe require 18-20 to pass a knowledge test and show they can safely and properly handle a pistol to obtain a CPL. Maybe even go as far as adding $20 to the CPL fee and requiring a drug test. Just enough time, money, and red tape to keep the undesirables from obtaining a CPL.


    Trust me, this gun law is just like any other and doesn't actually stop anything, just punishes someone if they are caught.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    390

    Post imported post

    Vandal wrote:
    Just looking at their actions. I will grant that there are handfuls of that particular demographic who posses the maturity and proper state of mind, but they are few and far between on a college campus and elsewhere. They are the gun owning types, just not for the same reasons as you or I. They want to own guns because it's "cool" and is something they use to show off with and don't think when they use them.

    You may be legally an adult at 18, but it doesn't mean you should be able to carry a gun daily.
    Explain to me why you think it's OK to arbitrarily restrict the Constitutional rights of legal adults.

    Keep in mind there are ridiculous numbers of stupid, immature older people out there who do not face the same restrictions.

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    It's this law which restricts 18-21 possession:

    Unless an exception under RCW 9.41.042, 9.41.050, or 9.41.060 applies, a person at least eighteen years of age, but less than twenty-one years of age, may possess a pistol only:

    (1) In the person's place of abode;

    (2) At the person's fixed place of business; or

    (3) On real property under his or her control.
    [1994 sp.s. c 7 § 423; 1971 c 34 § 1; 1909 c 249 § 308; 1883 p 67 § 1; RRS § 2560.]



  18. #18
    Regular Member jbone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    2,241

    Post imported post

    Vandal wrote:
    SNIP: jbone, military personnel undergo a lot of training. Most in the 18-21 year old range who would want a handgun would not train with it and primarily own them as a status symbol. Nor do they have the maturity that is forced into trainees at Basic and the next level of training. The younger military personnel also are not allowed to keep the weapons in their rooms or use or carry them unsupervised, there is a reason for that.
    I just complete 24 years in the military. Not all undergo a lot of training, of course those in required job specialties will. I’ve know an equal number in the civilian sector as those in the military that are plenty responsibly and mature enough to safely handle firearms. As in the military if they don’t cut the mustard and qualify or demonstrate required safety they don’t get qualified. The same principle could apply to civilians. Oh! It’s not just the youngsters that can’t keep a firearm in their BOQ or BEQ, it’s everyone. You’re reasoning is sound, but I’m thinking improvement could be made in the law for responsible 18 year olds
    Im proudly straight. I'm free to not support Legalization, GLBT, Illegal Aliens, or the Islamization of America.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,509

    Post imported post

    Vandal wrote:
    jbone, military personnel undergo a lot of training.
    Most don't get squat for training. The few times they get to handle a firearm when they're not deployed to an active zone, everything is strictly controlled, by the numbers, and they are never trusted to have both guns and ammo other than on a strictly supervised range.


  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Eagle River, Alaska, USA
    Posts
    584

    Post imported post

    Vandal wrote:
    FunkTrooper wrote:
    I agree I don't see why there is an age limit to begin with, at some point we have to decide when someone is legally an adult and it sure as heck isn't when your 18.
    Maturity. You live on a college campus, look around and tell me that those on WSU should be allowed to pack a gun on a daily basis. From what I have seen, most of them should be kept away from guns. Those with the levels of maturity essential to daily carry aren't those who will be in dangerous places or situations.
    I do see your point but if I want to be free then I have to allow others to be free as well, I'm 21 and happen to be (in my own opinion) very responsible with firearms. Other 21 year olds are irresponsible in just about anything they do but if I want I should be free to own a gun to protect myself then so should they. If they are irresponsible with a gun they will be punished and if they use it properly then good for them but the same rules apply to me as well.

  21. #21
    Regular Member swatspyder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    University Place, Washington, USA
    Posts
    573

    Post imported post

    FunkTrooper wrote:
    Vandal wrote:
    FunkTrooper wrote:
    I agree I don't see why there is an age limit to begin with, at some point we have to decide when someone is legally an adult and it sure as heck isn't when your 18.
    Maturity. You live on a college campus, look around and tell me that those on WSU should be allowed to pack a gun on a daily basis. From what I have seen, most of them should be kept away from guns. Those with the levels of maturity essential to daily carry aren't those who will be in dangerous places or situations.
    I do see your point but if I want to be free then I have to allow others to be free as well, I'm 21 and happen to be (in my own opinion) very responsible with firearms. Other 21 year olds are irresponsible in just about anything they do but if I want I should be free to own a gun to protect myself then so should they. If they are irresponsible with a gun they will be punished and if they use it properly then good for them but the same rules apply to me as well.
    and................
    /thread

  22. #22
    Regular Member kwiebe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, United States
    Posts
    206

    Post imported post

    NavyLT wrote:
    I don't think that the 18 to 20 year age group has any higher percentage in it of persons who are too immature to handle a firearm responsibly than the 21+ age group. In this era of ours, personal responsibility is on a severe decline across all ages. There are just as many persons 21+ who I, personally, do not think areresponsible enough to carry a firearm, but I am not going to advocate restricting their rights.

    My vote is to treat 18 to 20 year old persons the same as 21+ for firearms. If the government can givethem a gun and send them to Iraq or Afghanistan, that same person should be able to have and carry their gun in civilian life as well.
    +1

    It's disheartening to see the posts making generalizations re: "maturity" of an age group, etc. This is just nanny state thinking, imo, and has no place in a Constitutional Republic. If they're adults, they're adults. Deal with it.

    And I think the comparison with the voting issue/serving in the military is valid (while not a perfect analogy). Comparing things does not mean you're equating them, and I disagree with the premise that the voting issue was about "voting against the war." That may have been the practical impression of those involved, but the real issue from a societal perspective was the relative responsibility and trust associated with the concept of voting vs. the concept of serving your country.

    My point was that, in the issue of adult carrying, it is reasonable to compare the level of societal trust and responsibility associated with carrying a firearm, peaceful society or no. By law, that decision should be left up to the adult, and once again, if the adult is of the age where he may serve his country, that should be indicative of the amount of societal trust and responsibility willing to be placed upon that individual.

  23. #23
    Regular Member compmanio365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,013

    Post imported post

    I happen to know people in their 60s I wouldn't trust being around if they were armed......I know people under 18 I would have no problem covering my back in a firefight....age has very little to do with it.

    I happen to know someone personally that's the same age as I that I wouldn't trust at this point with a rusty spoon, much less a firearm. Unfortunately this person hasn't done anything yet to get their carry rights revoked......until they do something, they have the same rights as any other person; my opinion is only that, my opinion.

    Frankly, arbitrary laws about age have very little to do with reality, and just perpetuate the "feel good" society we live in. The world is not safer because little Johnny can't own his own rifle or pistol.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    90

    Post imported post

    Vandal wrote:
    FunkTrooper wrote:
    I agree I don't see why there is an age limit to begin with, at some point we have to decide when someone is legally an adult and it sure as heck isn't when your 18.
    Maturity. You live on a college campus, look around and tell me that those on WSU should be allowed to pack a gun on a daily basis. From what I have seen, most of them should be kept away from guns. Those with the levels of maturity essential to daily carry aren't those who will be in dangerous places or situations.
    B.S. If a person is old enough and mature enough to vote for the leader of the most powerful nation on earth and are also mature enough to carry and use a machine gun in the military then they are certainly old enough to buy and carry a handgun or buy a beer.

  25. #25
    Regular Member killchain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    788

    Post imported post

    virgil47 wrote:
    Vandal wrote:
    FunkTrooper wrote:
    I agree I don't see why there is an age limit to begin with, at some point we have to decide when someone is legally an adult and it sure as heck isn't when your 18.
    Maturity. You live on a college campus, look around and tell me that those on WSU should be allowed to pack a gun on a daily basis. From what I have seen, most of them should be kept away from guns. Those with the levels of maturity essential to daily carry aren't those who will be in dangerous places or situations.
    B.S. If a person is old enough and mature enough to vote for the leader of the most powerful nation on earth and are also mature enough to carry and use a machine gun in the military then they are certainly old enough to buy and carry a handgun or buy a beer.
    Word Virgil, word. Very true, I agree with you 110%, especially in reference to the military. Anyone who can take the Oath and put their life on the line for their country should be afforded all the rights a "full-blooded adult" has, including the right to own/carry a handgun, buy alcohol, etc.

    Just like open carrying, everyone has the right to own a gun/carry but maybe some people shouldn't do it. It is the right of a 35-year old man with anger problems who got a few suspensions in school for fighting, and screams at people on the road, but maybe he should think twice about carrying a pistol if he thinks he'll blow his top. (Not speaking of anyone in particular, just saying. )

    Me personally, I have a very firm grasp of what I feel is right and what people's rights are. I support things like open carry because it is everyone's right. Sometimes I think some people shouldn't do it, but I'm not going to try to stop them or tell them. It's your right, your business, and as long as you don't hurt anyone around me everything is A-OK. This applies to a LOT of things, not just open carry.

    But who are we to say who can and who can't? Why should an 18-year old be restricted whereas a 21-year old isn't? Other than the relative idea of "maturity" no one can really provide a concrete answer... and maturity is relative.
    "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." -John Stuart Mill

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •