• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

kwiebe

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2009
Messages
206
Location
Tacoma, Washington, United States
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.
 

0V3RC10CK3D

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
144
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
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.
 

swatspyder

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
573
Location
University Place, Washington, USA
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.
 

kwiebe

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2009
Messages
206
Location
Tacoma, Washington, United States
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! :idea:
 

FunkTrooper

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
584
Location
Eagle River, Alaska, USA
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.
 

olypendrew

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2008
Messages
295
Location
Port Angeles, Washington, USA
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! :idea:
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.
 

jbone

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,230
Location
WA
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?
 

Vandal

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
557
Location
Spokane, Washington, USA
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.
 

Vandal

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
557
Location
Spokane, Washington, USA
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.
 

Dr. Fresh

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2008
Messages
390
Location
, ,
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.
 

Vandal

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
557
Location
Spokane, Washington, USA
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.
 

Brad Cowin

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2007
Messages
67
Location
Spokane, Washington, USA
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.
 

Dr. Fresh

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2008
Messages
390
Location
, ,
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.
 

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
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.]
 

jbone

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,230
Location
WA
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
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
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.
 

FunkTrooper

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
584
Location
Eagle River, Alaska, USA
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.
 
Top