• 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.

NRA Challenges Constitutionality Of Federal Handgun Ban For Law Abiding 18-20 Year-Ol

devildoc5

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
791
Location
Somewhere over run with mud(s)
very interesting...I was honestly wondering how long it was gonna take for this arguement to be brought to court.

My only fear (while kinda a fear I guess) is that they will then have to extend the right to be stupidly and annoyingly drunk in public and creating a huge nuisance to those 18 yrs of age...

However I have NO problems with RESPONSIBLE 18-21 yr olds owning handguns, or even consuming alcohol. Key word is RESPONSIBLE though...
 

Jayd1981

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
387
Location
Richland, Washington, USA
Anytime I see people start mentioning certain people, i.e. "responsible" or "privilaged", ect., I see it as pre-crime legislation. The argument is always if we lower the age then people will be irresponsible or people will get hurt. Either you are an adult or you are not. If you are an adult, then you should have all the privilages and responsibilities associated with it. You should not deny someone certain rights based on what people claim could happen or may happen.
 

devildoc5

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
791
Location
Somewhere over run with mud(s)
That is not even CLOSE to what I was implying. I was just trying to state that certain people, REGARDLESS of age can be irresponsible and that I am not comfortable with them being allowed to pick their own nose, much less carry a firearm or drink alcohol or anything else of that magnitude.

The comment in relation to the alcohol age is due to the prevalence of DUI's around colleges and universities (mostly 18-20 yr olds) and the vast majority of partying involving alcohol that occurs in those locations and amongst that age group.

No not everyone is like that, however to deny the facts of the matter would be rediculous. Would I vote down a bill to lower the legal drinking age to 18? Absolutely not! I was 17 yrs old while I was being trained to kill. I couldnt smoke, or drink, or own a handgun, and I even had to work special hours because the place I lived in (Waukegan, IL) had a curfew for anyone under the age of 18 REGARDLESS of any circumstances...

No we should not deny someone rights or privelges just because of what people "fear" might happen. However the punishments and PREVENTATIVE measures should be in place to minimize the effects of ANYTHING that could happen. Military calls it ORM (Operational Risk Management).

On a side note I believe that if the state required (yes state required) all cab companies to use mobile credit card machines that there would be a lot less DUI's (regardless of what the legal drinking age may be).

However in the end, it all boils down to being responsible. Or holding someone responsible for their actions if they cannot be responsible for themselves...
 
Last edited:

Ruby

Regular Member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
1,201
Location
Renton, Washington, USA
That is not even CLOSE to what I was implying. I was just trying to state that certain people, REGARDLESS of age can be irresponsible and that I am not comfortable with them being allowed to pick their own nose, much less carry a firearm or drink alcohol or anything else of that magnitude.

The comment in relation to the alcohol age is due to the prevalence of DUI's around colleges and universities (mostly 18-20 yr olds) and the vast majority of partying involving alcohol that occurs in those locations and amongst that age group.

No not everyone is like that, however to deny the facts of the matter would be rediculous. Would I vote down a bill to lower the legal drinking age to 18? Absolutely not! I was 17 yrs old while I was being trained to kill. I couldnt smoke, or drink, or own a handgun, and I even had to work special hours because the place I lived in (Waukegan, IL) had a curfew for anyone under the age of 18 REGARDLESS of any circumstances...

No we should not deny someone rights or privelges just because of what people "fear" might happen. However the punishments and PREVENTATIVE measures should be in place to minimize the effects of ANYTHING that could happen. Military calls it ORM (Operational Risk Management).

On a side note I believe that if the state required (yes state required) all cab companies to use mobile credit card machines that there would be a lot less DUI's (regardless of what the legal drinking age may be).

However in the end, it all boils down to being responsible. Or holding someone responsible for their actions if they cannot be responsible for themselves...


I agree with you. There is no magical age at which one becomes responsible. Some people grow up, some just grow older. The laws against under age drinking or smoking will not deter those who are determined to drink or smoke. It might make it harder for them to do so, but if they are determined, they will. I know, I was that age once and I can speak from experience. Young people will always want to do that which is forbidden, it's a taste of the adulthood they haven't quite reached. Some people are mature and responsible at an early age and some never are, regardless of age.
 

joejoejoe

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
319
Location
Vancouver, WA
The one thing I don't like about the argument is that this man was JROTC and a marksman. He shouldn't win based on the fact that he can shoot a handgun accurately. He should win because it's a right to "keep and bear arms."

Secondly, I could care less if alcohol goes to 18-year-olds. Not my child... The argument that someone who is irresponsible shouldn't have the ability to drink is the same as saying we should ban guns because criminals shoot people. People were drinking by age 13 when I was in school. I have been to foreign countries where there is no age limit. The fact of the matter is (with both guns and booze), we gotta stop handing the responsibility over to the State. It is our job to keep our neighborhoods safe and responsible. We have Mayors, police, teachers, and PTA meetings. If responsibilities were left to the towns like the Republic calls for, then we might see a change in how our neighborhoods are run WITHOUT restrictions on our liberties. One of the members on this site has a riffle for his toddler. He said when hes old enough, he is going to teach him. Gogo has two children both capable of handling a firearm.

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good" -- George Washington

Joe~
 

devildoc5

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
791
Location
Somewhere over run with mud(s)
I too have been to various countries where there is no legal limit (the first time I drank alcohol was at age 16 in a bar in Venice)

The problem with everything even coming close to having to do with responsibility is that responsibility is something that is learned...

How many people have a neighbor or friend of a friend or know someone who just lets their kids run buck wild? In order for kids to LEARN responsibility they have to be taught by their parents, unfortunately (in my neighborhood at least) most parents are too busy getting high/drunk/pimping each other out/stealing/being gangbangers to even care about what their kids are doing.

The minute parents (some do, but those numbers are dwindling right now unfortunately) start taking RESPONSIBILITY for their kids, their kids will learn to be responsible and more productive in society. Heaven forbid parents actually CARE about their kids (again I know most, if not all of the parents on here do, however that is the minority now a days unfortunately...)
 

Lucky_Dog

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
71
Location
Kenmore
If they are old enough to die for you.
Then they are old enough to carry to protect themselves.

And old enough to have a drink.
 

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
Yes, and I would like my little girls to be able to protect themselves.

When legal cases are choosen by the NRA and SAF, they carefully choose plaintiffs that will survive media scrutiny. Don't worry about his qualifications, they will not be a part of the question that the court answers.

The one thing I don't like about the argument is that this man was JROTC and a marksman. He shouldn't win based on the fact that he can shoot a handgun accurately. He should win because it's a right to "keep and bear arms."

<snip> One of the members on this site has a riffle for his toddler. He said when hes old enough, he is going to teach him. Gogo has two children both capable of handling a firearm.

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good" -- George Washington

Joe~

My girls...




[video=youtube;XrPyrhlg6W8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrPyrhlg6W8[/video][video=youtube;825HiYOa07s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=825HiYOa07s[/video]
If they are old enough to die for you.
Then they are old enough to carry to protect themselves.

And old enough to have a drink.
 

Deleted_User

Guest
Joined
Aug 30, 2010
Messages
807
I learned to fire pretty young myself. I was 17 in the Army and had a rifle and was carrying it, LOADED, in the defense of our country! My son is 13 and will be firing for the first time on a real gun Wednesday. He's fired his pellet rifle and the like and learned how to handle that. Now that he's safe, I'm moving him up. If I was in the country, he'd have been firing and carrying by now. I personally think the PARENTS should decide, not someone in the Capital who thinks they know my family better than I do.
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
AFAIK an 18yo can own a pistol, they just can't buy one from an FFL.

A minor can legally drink alcohol, in their own home with their parents. No law against that in WA at least afaik.

18 is the age of responsibility. You can vote, be drafted, drive a car, sign a binding contract, etc. So yes, imho you should be able to walk into an FFL and by a pistol, just like you can a rifle.

Either make 18 the legal age for everything, or make some other age the legal age for everything. This patchwork of ages is bs imho.

And when it comes to 'maturity,' some people are mature at 18 (or younger) and some people will never be mature. That has little to do with the issue at hand imho.
 
Last edited:

amzbrady

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
3,521
Location
Marysville, Washington, USA
AFAIK an 18yo can own a pistol, they just can't buy one from an FFL.

A minor can legally drink alcohol, in their own home with their parents. No law against that in WA at least afaik.

18 is the age of responsibility. You can vote, be drafted, drive a car, sign a binding contract, etc. So yes, imho you should be able to walk into an FFL and by a pistol, just like you can a rifle.

Either make 18 the legal age for everything, or make some other age the legal age for everything. This patchwork of ages is bs imho.

And when it comes to 'maturity,' some people are mature at 18 (or younger) and some people will never be mature. That has little to do with the issue at hand imho.

+1, Just to add, you shouldnt have to wait till your 65 to retire either, I'm ready now and think I am responsible enough and old enough to not to work. :*P
 
Last edited:

k.rollin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2010
Messages
133
Location
Bellingham, Washington, USA
AFAIK an 18yo can own a pistol, they just can't buy one from an FFL.

A minor can legally drink alcohol, in their own home with their parents. No law against that in WA at least afaik.

18 is the age of responsibility. You can vote, be drafted, drive a car, sign a binding contract, etc. So yes, imho you should be able to walk into an FFL and by a pistol, just like you can a rifle.

Either make 18 the legal age for everything, or make some other age the legal age for everything. This patchwork of ages is bs imho.

And when it comes to 'maturity,' some people are mature at 18 (or younger) and some people will never be mature. That has little to do with the issue at hand imho.

Agreed that the patchwork of ages is arbitrary bovine scat. If not for the 18/21 split in what defines a minor, I would've never been arrested for transporting my firearms from my apartment in Bellingham to my parent's house that I was supposed to be house sitting.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Agreed that the patchwork of ages is arbitrary bovine scat. If not for the 18/21 split in what defines a minor, I would've never been arrested for transporting my firearms from my apartment in Bellingham to my parent's house that I was supposed to be house sitting.

What? When? And under what basis if you are allowed to own you are allowed to transport, where they clearly visible? Was that the reason?
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
+1, Just to add, you shouldnt have to wait till your 65 to retire either, I'm ready now and think I am responsible enough and old enough to not to work. :*P

You don't have to wait till you're 65 to retire. You can retire ANY TIME you can AFFORD it. Want to retire before 65, either work harder, or work smarter.

And you should NEVER recieve any tax payer funded retirement subsidy* from the government, and you should NEVER be required to pay into a government run retirement pyramid scam.

* possibly with the exception of true disability relief (and I'm not talking welfare momma's or people whose arms and legs work, but they don't).
 

Whitney

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
435
Location
Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
Supressors

Why do you suppose it is illegal to use supressors (silencers) in the state of Washington, yet you can own one? Since this is a criminal statute, does it not imply pre-crime legislation?

Where two reasonable constructions of a criminal statute are possible, a court is required to adopt the interpretation most favorable to a person accused of violating the statute. State v. Gore, 101 Wn.2d 481, 681 P.2d 227 (1984). http://www.atg.wa.gov/AGOOpinions/Opinion.aspx?section=archive&id=8666


9.41.250 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41&full=true
Dangerous weapons — Penalty — Exemption for law enforcement officers.

(1) Every person who:

(a) Manufactures, sells, or disposes of or possesses any instrument or weapon of the kind usually known as slung shot, sand club, or metal knuckles, or spring blade knife, or any knife the blade of which is automatically released by a spring mechanism or other mechanical device, or any knife having a blade which opens, or falls, or is ejected into position by the force of gravity, or by an outward, downward, or centrifugal thrust or movement;

(b) Furtively carries with intent to conceal any dagger, dirk, pistol, or other dangerous weapon; or

(c) Uses any contrivance or device for suppressing the noise of any firearm, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW.
 

joejoejoe

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
319
Location
Vancouver, WA
I learned to fire pretty young myself. I was 17 in the Army and had a rifle and was carrying it, LOADED, in the defense of our country! My son is 13 and will be firing for the first time on a real gun Wednesday. He's fired his pellet rifle and the like and learned how to handle that. Now that he's safe, I'm moving him up. If I was in the country, he'd have been firing and carrying by now. I personally think the PARENTS should decide, not someone in the Capital who thinks they know my family better than I do.

Amen to that!

Also, Gogo.. that's just awesome, lol.

Joe~
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
Where two reasonable constructions of a criminal statute are possible, a court is required to adopt the interpretation most favorable to a person accused of violating the statute. State v. Gore, 101 Wn.2d 481, 681 P.2d 227 (1984). http://www.atg.wa.gov/AGOOpinions/Opinion.aspx?section=archive&id=8666

Now find a test case that involves the civilian use of a silencer. Oh wait, afaik there isn't one.

But if you want, I can talk to a police officer I know and see if he's willing to take you to a range, watch you use a silencer, and then arrest you -- so you can argue Stave v. Gore ;)

Read the AG opinion letter and form your own conclusion about if you might lose (he cites the 'ordinary meaning' of the words 'use'):
http://www.atg.wa.gov/AGOOpinions/Opinion.aspx?section=archive&id=8666
 
Top