• 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.

CPL/OC at 18 proposed bill.

OrangeIsTrouble

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2009
Messages
1,398
Location
Tukwila, WA, ,
imported post

A while back I posted about a project I am working on, and I gotten some interested folks but not much evidence of support. I hear all this talk about carrying to protect our lives and people running to the Capitol to keep their "assault" weapons but apparently nobody cares about the 18-20 year olds!

What I am asking for now, is for anybody to write letters of support addressed to Washington Legislators urging them to sponsor and support this bill (attached).

I'll also include an op-ed, so any of you can look at it and use it for ideas.


Code:
Give Young Adults Right To Protect Lives

A lot of attention has been given to a murder 
that took place in Seattle last year, the killing 
of 18-year-old Aaron Sullivan.   His name was 
invoked by Washington Ceasefire and his own 
mother in promoting the so-called Assault Weapon 
bill this year.  During the hearing for that 
bill, Mrs. Sullivan was asked if she knew the 
model of weapon that was used to kill her son, 
and she answered no.  Ceasefire may have 
neglected to mention that to her because the gun 
was an SKS, a rifle that has a fixed 10 round 
magazine, no pistol grip, and would not have been 
touched by the ban that Ceasefire brought to her as the solution.

Also glossed over was the fact that he was killed 
with a single shot from the rifle, meaning that 
even a single shot rifle would have done exactly 
the same job.  And further ignored was the fact 
that as required by law, Aaron Sullivan was 
unarmed and had no possibility of deterring or 
stopping his killer, even if he had been fired 
upon with only a single-shot weapon.

A bill was introduced this year however that, 
unlike Ceasefire’s bill, really could save the 
next Aaron Sullivan.  HB 3082, introduced by Rep. 
Brendan Williams of Olympia, would lower the age 
requirement for a Concealed Pistol License to 18 years of age.

If you question the need for an 18-year-old man 
or woman to be armed for protection, consider 
these quotes from a 1997 Department of Justice 
report titled “Age Patterns Of Victims Of Violent Crime”.

“Persons age 18 to 21 were the most likely to 
experience a serious violent crime…”

“Rates of serious violent crime for 18-21 year 
olds are 17 times higher than for persons age 65 or older.”

“Persons age 21 or younger -- slightly less than 
a fifth of the general population – suffered close to half of all robberies.”

“For whites and blacks, persons 18 to 21 were 
most at risk of becoming a murder victim.”

“…young women 18 to 21 reported the highest rates for robbery.”

“Rates of rape/sexual assault for individuals 18 
to 21 were almost 22 times higher than those for age 25 to 29.”

It is unfortunate but clear that Aaron Sullivan 
has a lot of company in his age group.

There are some who question whether an 
18-year-old has the maturity to carry a weapon, 
and at times some of them can make that tough to 
argue.  But an 18-year-old man or woman lives in 
the adult world, assumes all the responsibilities 
of adulthood, and is responsible for their own 
safety.  They face even greater risk of criminal 
attack than older folks, and Mom and Pop aren't 
responsible for looking out for them 
anymore.  The bottom line is that every adult is 
entitled to protection, and whether others are 
comfortable with that is frankly of no 
relevance.  Every person who turns 18 faces a 
three-year window of opportunity for anyone who 
wishes them harm, and there is no justifying that.

Currently 14 states allow concealed carry by 
people under 21.  If young adults in those states 
are misusing their handguns over trivial issues 
at a rate that warrants any great alarm, it has 
yet to be in the news.  Treating people like 
grownups often has the effect of making them act like grownups.

Unlike many gun-related bills this session, this 
bill is a real life-saving measure and Rep. 
Brendan Williams should be thanked for it by 
everyone.  It unfortunately can't be enacted this 
year, but it will be back next year.  We all know 
young adults, or teenagers who will soon be young 
adults, and it’s their lives and safety on the 
line in this issue.  So for their sake, we should 
all tell our reps we want them to see this one through.
As for added cookies, this bill will also make Washington accept any CPL from any state. Cheers! Please PM me your letters that are addressed to Washington Legislators and I will get them to them!


Latest version of the CPL bill is attached!
 

Jayd1981

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
387
Location
Richland, Washington, USA
imported post

Very well written story. I've always wondered why you are only a partial adult at 18. At 19 I joined the Army. They said I could go to war, but wasn't old enough for a beer. That kind of logic confuses me.
 

olypendrew

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2008
Messages
295
Location
Port Angeles, Washington, USA
imported post

Good luck, but I think that the reciprocity issue would result in fewer states recognizing WA's permit, just like WA does not currently recognize a permit from a different state if that state issues to people under 21. Because of that, there would be considerable opposition from "over 21" gun owners who have nothing personally to gain under the proposed law, and something not insignificant to lose.

Plus, I don't see the bill going anywhere in the legislature, and I cannot imagine the governor signing it.

I think your best bet is a full frontal court challenge against all the gun laws that treat young adults as second-class citizens rather than Washingtonians and Americans. If 18 year olds are adults, how can the state and federal constitutional protections for the RKBA not apply to them? I think you would come out of it with at least the right to OC from 18-21, and possibly more.

I'll file the suit myself if the law remains as it is when my daughter reaches that age. But that is more than a decade away.
 

k.rollin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2010
Messages
133
Location
Bellingham, Washington, USA
imported post

I support it, because I am not fond of the partial adult status that people in the 18-20 age bracket have. Had it not been for said status, I wouldn't have been arrested when I was transporting my firearms to my parent's house in Oak Harbor to use while house-sitting for them or had my property seized during the court case.
 

amzbrady

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
3,521
Location
Marysville, Washington, USA
imported post

Jayd1981 wrote:
Very well written story. I've always wondered why you are only a partial adult at 18. At 19 I joined the Army. They said I could go to war, but wasn't old enough for a beer. That kind of logic confuses me.
I always wonder why he's not taking law classes? So he can defend OC'ers Pro Bono. :celebrate
 

OrangeIsTrouble

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2009
Messages
1,398
Location
Tukwila, WA, ,
imported post

olypendrew, if you want to file a suit, I'm all behind you, but I don't have the funds for that, and that's going to be a long process. Instead of filing a suit, why don't we give the lawmakers of Washington a chance to make it right? Then after that, file away, at least we are giving any lawmaker a good chance to be seen as doing something that will actually help citizens that are in the 18-20 year old range.

As for other supporters, we really need your letters, that don't have to be long and highly professional, just one simply stating your stand and your wishes.

As for amz, I am too busy with business classes....maybe I'll own a bunch of lawyers one day and make them do whatever :cool:.
 

DEROS72

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2008
Messages
2,817
Location
Valhalla
imported post

I went to war at 18 carried the M-60 machine gun for a time ,trained with and used exposives ,carried a grenade launcher as well.But when I came home from that at 19 I was in no way mature enough ,or grounded enough to be carrying a fire arm as many are not.That tired argument of you can serve in the military etc..doesn't wash .I won't support it .21 is fine .
 

OrangeIsTrouble

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2009
Messages
1,398
Location
Tukwila, WA, ,
imported post

DEROS72 wrote:
I went to war at 18 carried the M-60 machine gun for a time ,trained with and used exposives ,carried a grenade launcher as well.But when I came home from that at 19 I was in no way mature enough ,or grounded enough to be carrying a fire arm as many are not.That tired argument of you can serve in the military etc..doesn't wash .I won't support it .21 is fine .
Times have changed.

Kids are experiencing more and more when they are younger.



18 or 30 still live in the same neighborhood that has the same dangers yet one guy isn't allowed to carry for some odd reason. He might shoot himself in the leg! Or he might get angry and shoot someone else! Boy I never seen a 40 year old act irresponsibly. *Mass sarcasm*


If you really believe that at 21 you are more mature enough to carry, shouldn't there be a test to actually determine if you are eligible????

Come on, let's call the lawmakers, we need a new requirement, you must pass a test to carry, which will be graded by a local sheriff,etc!

And for every year, you must re-qualify!

And if you don't qualify, they will take your weapons away because you are not mature enough!

*end of sarcasm*

I respect you deros, but that just seems unreasonable.
 

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
imported post

Poosharker wrote:
DEROS72 wrote:
I went to war at 18 carried the M-60 machine gun for a time ,trained with and used exposives ,carried a grenade launcher as well.But when I came home from that at 19 I was in no way mature enough ,or grounded enough to be carrying a fire arm as many are not.That tired argument of you can serve in the military etc..doesn't wash .I won't support it .21 is fine .
Times have changed.

Kids are experiencing more and more when they are younger.



18 or 30 still live in the same neighborhood that has the same dangers yet one guy isn't allowed to carry for some odd reason. He might shoot himself in the leg! Or he might get angry and shoot someone else! Boy I never seen a 40 year old act irresponsibly. *Mass sarcasm*


If you really believe that at 21 you are more mature enough to carry, shouldn't there be a test to actually determine if you are eligible????

Come on, let's call the lawmakers, we need a new requirement, you must pass a test to carry, which will be graded by a local sheriff,etc!

And for every year, you must re-qualify!

And if you don't qualify, they will take your weapons away because you are not mature enough!

*end of sarcasm*

I respect you deros, but that just seems unreasonable.

Poo

While I agree with you, I also agree with Deros. How can that be? 18 is old enough to carry, but many will not be ready until 21, heck, many will never be ready. Confused? LOL, so am I.

Actually I believe in constitutional carry without an age limit! If you forced me to have an age limit it would be 14. However, I would force your father to sign off on carry at 14. At 18 you are then on your own. I know that I was capable at 14, because if I would of done anything my dad would of kicked my .....
 

Jayd1981

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
387
Location
Richland, Washington, USA
imported post

DEROS72 wrote:
I went to war at 18 carried the M-60 machine gun for a time ,trained with and used exposives ,carried a grenade launcher as well.But when I came home from that at 19 I was in no way mature enough ,or grounded enough to be carrying a fire arm as many are not.That tired argument of you can serve in the military etc..doesn't wash .I won't support it .21 is fine .
If thats the case, then you shouldn't be an adult until 21. I don't believe in having partial rights as an adult at 18 and then being a full adult at 21. You should either be an adult and have all the rights and responsibilities that come along with that, or your still a minor and your parents are responsible for you.
 

Matt85

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2010
Messages
176
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
imported post

DEROS72 wrote:
I went to war at 18 carried the M-60 machine gun for a time ,trained with and used exposives ,carried a grenade launcher as well.But when I came home from that at 19 I was in no way mature enough ,or grounded enough to be carrying a fire arm as many are not.That tired argument of you can serve in the military etc..doesn't wash .I won't support it .21 is fine .

so you were mature enough to use a LMG and explosives but not mature enough to use a sidearm?

i dont like the idea that an 18 yr old is old enough to make life or death decisions but isnt old enough to be trusted with firearms on his/her own. i was raised by a family that believed at 18 you are a man/woman and you are old enough to vote and die for your country. so naturallyby 19 i had my own rifle and my own sidearm which i carried on a regular basis.

yer either and adult at 18 or at21, we need to make up our minds. if its going to be 21, then you should be legally considered a minor until 21. (no military, no prison, no voting)

-matt
 

Lurkus Maximus

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 4, 2009
Messages
41
Location
Stanwood, Washington, USA
imported post

The "old enough to be in the military" argument loses weight with me because I know there isn't an 18-21 year old alive who is watched, supervised, and trained more than one in the military.
 

Aaron1124

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
2,044
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
imported post

Lurkus Maximus wrote:
The "old enough to be in the military" argument loses weight with me because I know there isn't an 18-21 year old alive who is watched, supervised, and trained more than one in the military.
It depends on what you mean by "trained". One could argue a college student is watched, supervised, and trained more, depending on what you mean.
 

OrangeIsTrouble

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2009
Messages
1,398
Location
Tukwila, WA, ,
imported post

Well if you believe in that right so much, how about a couple of you guys, write a letter addressed to WA legislators? A paragraph would be enough.

I see nothing in my messages box!
 

killchain

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2009
Messages
788
Location
Richland, Washington, USA
imported post

Jayd1981 wrote:
Very well written story. I've always wondered why you are only a partial adult at 18. At 19 I joined the Army. They said I could go to war, but wasn't old enough for a beer. That kind of logic confuses me.
Didn't confuse me. ;) My guys got to drink regardless of their age in the Army. I just told them if they got a DUI is was their hide, otherwise I went to bat for them if they got in trouble.

I fully support 18-year olds who enlist being able to buy alcohol.

I support lowering the CPL age as well. Rights are rights, they shouldn't be determined by someone's "apparent maturity." Although I will admit that some people don't act their age. Haha.
 

brianstone1985

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2009
Messages
132
Location
Spokane, Washington, USA
imported post

My 2 cents....probably not going to be well liked.

While I agree "Adults" should not have only partial rights given to them at 18. I also feel that many of my friends would not have had the right outlook towards the responsibility of owning a handgun when they were 18.

I cant say I would be for this... Yet I think it is wrong... Maybe move the legal age of becoming an adult to 21?

-B
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
imported post

Aaron1124 wrote:
Lurkus Maximus wrote:
The "old enough to be in the military" argument loses weight with me because I know there isn't an 18-21 year old alive who is watched, supervised, and trained more than one in the military.
It depends on what you mean by "trained". One could argue a college student is watched, supervised, and trained more, depending on what you mean.
This is an absurd comparison. No one is watched or supervised more than a Junior enlisted man.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
imported post

brianstone1985 wrote:
My 2 cents....probably not going to be well liked.

While I agree "Adults" should not have only partial rights given to them at 18. I also feel that many of my friends would not have had the right outlook towards the responsibility of owning a handgun when they were 18.

I cant say I would be for this... Yet I think it is wrong... Maybe move the legal age of becoming an adult to 21?

-B
A large percentage of muders are 18-19 year olds killing other 18-19 year olds and most get their guns illegally. I wouldn't see the problem of someone who wants to get an FBI background check and be fingerprinted being allowed to have a CPL.
 
Top