Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: why 21?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    wisconsin
    Posts
    29

    why 21?

    anyone have any idea why the new ccw bill requires people to be 21 to carry concealed instead of 18 like open carry?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    North Central Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    768
    When Senator Galloway was at our Open Carry meet n eat at Culver's a couple of weeks ago and this issue was brought up. She said she would look into it. So email her and ask her where her position is on concealed carry at age 18.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Da Po-lock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Green Bay, WI
    Posts
    131
    The freedom and God given rights of this "anti-gun crowd" are being bravely defended by thousands of young men and women under the age of 21.

    They give their blood, sweat, tears and lives for all of us yet they will not be able to exercise the very rights they fight for in the state they call home because it might cost a lying politician a few votes. How fu@7%ed up is that?

    We owe it to them and to their memories to get this changed before it gets "slipped in" without notice.

    I have and will again contact the legislators to get this changed to 18 years old.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170
    Quote Originally Posted by Da Po-lock View Post
    The freedom and God given rights of this "anti-gun crowd" are being bravely defended by thousands of young men and women under the age of 21.

    They give their blood, sweat, tears and lives for all of us yet they will not be able to exercise the very rights they fight for in the state they call home because it might cost a lying politician a few votes. How fu@7%ed up is that?

    We owe it to them and to their memories to get this changed before it gets "slipped in" without notice.

    I have and will again contact the legislators to get this changed to 18 years old.
    X1!!

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    This Question Get Raised Again and Again

    in different contexts. The short answer is that a large porportion of 18-20 year olds are idiots. I ought to know. I was one. No, not everyone in that age group is and certainly there are a lot of old idiots as well. By idiot, I mean someone with questionable judgment, not for the age group, but for the specific issue. Those who are at least 35 can easily compare their maturity and judgment at 30 vs 18. However we have to take the general case into account. There is something about living that, in general, improves both. As for military or ex-military, I will leave aside the fact that the vast majority of service personnel do not or did not carry a weapon on a daily basis and without some level of supervision, and say make an exception for them if you like. As a society, we have decided that if you are under 21 (in general) you cannot purchase alcoholic beverages or be an FBI agent, under 25 cannot be certified as a polygraph examiner or be a Representative, under 30 cannot be a senator, under 35 cannot be president. Sometimes it goes the other way, when I was in high school, you could not participate in athletics once you reached 19, you cannot enlist in the military after a certain age (used to be 37, I think), be a commercial pilot (generally) when you hit 60. All of these restrictions are done to advance some benefit to society. We can argue all day on the specifics and everybody thinks he should be the exception to the rule. If you fall into the 18-20 bracket, appreciate your youth, it will be gone sooner than you think. Bottom line - this is not an issue worth fighting about.

    Quote Originally Posted by Da Po-lock View Post
    The freedom and God given rights of this "anti-gun crowd" are being bravely defended by thousands of young men and women under the age of 21.

    They give their blood, sweat, tears and lives for all of us yet they will not be able to exercise the very rights they fight for in the state they call home because it might cost a lying politician a few votes. How fu@7%ed up is that?

    We owe it to them and to their memories to get this changed before it gets "slipped in" without notice.

    I have and will again contact the legislators to get this changed to 18 years old.

  6. #6
    Regular Member davegran's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,565

    Non-combatants, TAKE COVER!

    Quote Originally Posted by apjonas View Post
    .... The short answer is that a large porportion of 18-20 year olds are idiots. I ought to know. I was one....
    Citation?
    Dave
    45ACP-For when you care enough to send the very best-
    Fight for "Stand Your Ground " legislation!

    WI DA Gerald R. Fox:
    "These so-called 'public safety' laws only put decent law-abiding citizens at a dangerous disadvantage when it comes to their personal safety, and I for one am glad that this decades-long era of defective thinking on gun issues is over..."

    Remember: Don't make old People mad. We don't like being old in the first place, so it doesn't take much to piss us off.

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322
    Quote Originally Posted by apjonas View Post
    in different contexts. The short answer is that a large porportion of 18-20 year olds are idiots. I ought to know. I was one. No, not everyone in that age group is and certainly there are a lot of old idiots as well. By idiot, I mean someone with questionable judgment, not for the age group, but for the specific issue. Those who are at least 35 can easily compare their maturity and judgment at 30 vs 18. However we have to take the general case into account. There is something about living that, in general, improves both. As for military or ex-military, I will leave aside the fact that the vast majority of service personnel do not or did not carry a weapon on a daily basis and without some level of supervision, and say make an exception for them if you like. As a society, we have decided that if you are under 21 (in general) you cannot purchase alcoholic beverages or be an FBI agent, under 25 cannot be certified as a polygraph examiner or be a Representative, under 30 cannot be a senator, under 35 cannot be president. Sometimes it goes the other way, when I was in high school, you could not participate in athletics once you reached 19, you cannot enlist in the military after a certain age (used to be 37, I think), be a commercial pilot (generally) when you hit 60. All of these restrictions are done to advance some benefit to society. We can argue all day on the specifics and everybody thinks he should be the exception to the rule. If you fall into the 18-20 bracket, appreciate your youth, it will be gone sooner than you think. Bottom line - this is not an issue worth fighting about.
    There are plenty of 40+ year old idiots. There are many 12 year olds I'd trust with my life before some 40 year olds. How about enjoying liberty instead of tyranny? The anti-gun and anti-rights people really don't care about the magical age of 21 for carrying a firearm. They'd rather see no one carry and be completely defenseless.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    Quote Originally Posted by apjonas View Post
    If you fall into the 18-20 bracket, appreciate your youth, it will be gone sooner than you think. Bottom line - this is not an issue worth fighting about.
    I think it is worth fighting about. It criminalizes our 18-20 year old men and women for practicing the right of self defense plain and simple.
    Last edited by Schlitz; 06-01-2011 at 08:48 AM. Reason: meh...

  9. #9
    Regular Member Da Po-lock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Green Bay, WI
    Posts
    131

    Thumbs up

    I was a complete idiot at that age as well. Had I served in the military I would hopefully have matured from it, all of my friends did who served did.

    The posted comments about age requirements for polygraphs, senators etc. I respect.
    The comment about soldiers being "supervised" I do not.
    Their superoirs are not watching how they handle or carry a gun, that was trained into them all through boot camp and basic training I assure you. Their superiors are "watching" that orders given are followed and completed as expected.

    The comment about "not worth fighting for" I take great exception to. Yes it is, these 18-20 y.o. WILL be 30, 40, 50 y.o. some day, just like all of us here now. What will they think of US for selling them out or not worth our respect ? Then what ? They then sell out their youth ? Ugly example for our youth we could be setting now if you ask me.

    BUT the issue is 2A guaranteed rights, specifically HOW to carry a gun.
    If an 18 y.o. can open carry (Quoted frequently) why can't they cover it with a piece of cloth ? Does wearing a jacket over a gun suddenly turn an otherwise capable and mature person of that age into an idiot ?

    I have more respect for veterans AND the young men and women currently serving than most people I meet, including some I know very well.

    At a MINIMUM we should ONLY accept wording to the effect: "except those 18 to 20 years of age who are veterans of or currently serving in any branch of the United States military".
    Last edited by Da Po-lock; 06-01-2011 at 09:56 AM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    GREEN BAY, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by Da Po-lock View Post

    I have more respect for veterans AND the young men and women currently serving than most people I meet, including some I know very well.

    At a MINIMUM we should ONLY accept wording to the effect: "except those 18 to 20 years of age who are veterans of or currently serving in any branch of the United States military".
    Oh truer words could not be spoken!
    My stance is this, Military Personal should be EXEMPT from ANY and ALL restrictions placed by these so called Right to Carry Bills being flung around.
    I can't even get too involved in this cause it REALLY gets my undies in a bunch!

  11. #11
    Regular Member Da Po-lock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Green Bay, WI
    Posts
    131
    Wild boar said it for ALL who have had the courage to serve !

    I quote him respectfully " I served in the military for all rights, not just mine"

    My hat is off to you Sir and AND all like you; Sir - Ma'am with the nod of my head I thank you for my freedom.
    Last edited by Da Po-lock; 06-01-2011 at 10:11 AM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Outdoorsman1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Silver Lake WI
    Posts
    1,249
    Wild boar said it for ALL who have had the courage to serve !

    I quote him respectfully " I served in the military for all rights, not just mine"

    My hat is off to you Sir and with the nod of my head I thank you for my freedom.
    X10

    Oh truer words could not be spoken!
    My stance is this, Military Personal should be EXEMPT from ANY and ALL restrictions placed by these so called Right to Carry Bills being flung around.

    I can't even get too involved in this cause it REALLY gets my undies in a bunch!
    x100

    Outdoorsman1
    Last edited by Outdoorsman1; 06-01-2011 at 10:15 AM.
    "On the Plains of Hesitation bleach the bones of countless millions who, at the Dawn of Victory, sat down to wait - and waiting, died."

    George Cecil (18911970) American advertising copywriter

    Outdoorsman1
    Member: Wisconsin Carry Inc.
    Member: Silver Lake Sportsmans Club
    Wisconsin C.C.W. License Holder
    Utah State Permit Holder.
    Arizona State Permit Holder.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170

    an 18 yr old can legally O-C................

    So what changes so drastically when a piece of cloth covers the same firearm, in the same holster on the same person where now you must be 21?

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    Well...

    There is nothing "magical" about any age. However, minimum (and maximum) ages are set by law, regulation and policy. A restriction based upon age is rarely arbitrary. It is arrived at by the experience of many years and certain traditions. If you cannot discern a change in a person from 18 to 21, you are not paying attention.

    Most military members deal with weapon infrequently once they are past basic training. They are certainly supervised during that time. Usually, when required for some activity, weapons are drawn at the beginning of the day and returned at the end. Tight control is the rule. Operations in combat areas are different but also are the exception.

    There is no "right" answer to this issue. I think most people will agree that a 5 year old should not possess weapons. Then we increment 6, 7, 8, 9.... At some point we establish an age - because it is impractical and legally risky to attempt to evaluate every individual.

    I say this is not worth fighting for simply because (1) it gives the opposition another club to beat you with and (2) everybody works out of the disability automatically. Most people here are ok with restrictions for domestic violence offenders but short of a pardon that disability is forever.

    Why 18 to OC and not CC? Probably because CC is not a constitutional right (except in limited circumstances) and thus subject to state restriction. If this were not true why would we even be talking about this issue? It is interesting that the proposed law says that if a person is 21, etc. then a license *shall* be issued. It does not say it is prohibited to permissively issue to those under 21.

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322
    Quote Originally Posted by apjonas View Post
    There is nothing "magical" about any age. However, minimum (and maximum) ages are set by law, regulation and policy. A restriction based upon age is rarely arbitrary. It is arrived at by the experience of many years and certain traditions. If you cannot discern a change in a person from 18 to 21, you are not paying attention.

    Most military members deal with weapon infrequently once they are past basic training. They are certainly supervised during that time. Usually, when required for some activity, weapons are drawn at the beginning of the day and returned at the end. Tight control is the rule. Operations in combat areas are different but also are the exception.

    There is no "right" answer to this issue. I think most people will agree that a 5 year old should not possess weapons. Then we increment 6, 7, 8, 9.... At some point we establish an age - because it is impractical and legally risky to attempt to evaluate every individual.

    I say this is not worth fighting for simply because (1) it gives the opposition another club to beat you with and (2) everybody works out of the disability automatically. Most people here are ok with restrictions for domestic violence offenders but short of a pardon that disability is forever.

    Why 18 to OC and not CC? Probably because CC is not a constitutional right (except in limited circumstances) and thus subject to state restriction. If this were not true why would we even be talking about this issue? It is interesting that the proposed law says that if a person is 21, etc. then a license *shall* be issued. It does not say it is prohibited to permissively issue to those under 21.
    So why can someone who is 20 and 364 days not able to conceal but 21 can? Where in the US or state Constitutions say the age, location, or method of carry? This is all personal responsibility and liberty. When cars were becoming more popular, parents would teach their children to drive and only when they completely trusted them, they let their kids drive the car alone.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  16. #16
    Regular Member theoicarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    baraboo, wisconsin
    Posts
    178
    Quote Originally Posted by protias View Post
    So why can someone who is 20 and 364 days not able to conceal but 21 can? Where in the US or state Constitutions say the age, location, or method of carry? This is all personal responsibility and liberty. When cars were becoming more popular, parents would teach their children to drive and only when they completely trusted them, they let their kids drive the car alone.
    All I can say is the military should not enlist our men and woman whom are not 21 years old. Explain to me why someone whom serves our country in this day and age at 18 years old, fights in two wars, gets out at 20 years old and cannot carry concealed.?
    The way that you wander is the way that you choose,
    The day that you tarry, is the day that you lose!

  17. #17
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by weston502 View Post
    anyone have any idea why the new ccw bill requires people to be 21 to carry concealed instead of 18 like open carry?
    It's for the children..... Guns are scary.... yadda yadda yadda... There simply is no reasonable justification for that. It is an emotional reaction by both anti gun Democrats and Republicans who only pretend to support gun rights. There really is no reason that someone under 18 years old should not hunt with a handgun, especially if they are with their parent. It has grounds in ignorance.
    Quote Originally Posted by apjonas View Post
    There is nothing "magical" about any age. However, minimum (and maximum) ages are set by law, regulation and policy. A restriction based upon age is rarely arbitrary. It is arrived at by the experience of many years and certain traditions. If you cannot discern a change in a person from 18 to 21, you are not paying attention..
    It most certainly IS arbitrary in this case. WI (Senate and Assy) has been traditionally anti-hangun. When handgun hunting was first proposed, there was great opposition as many thought that the woods would be red in the blood of lives lost. An exemplary record has not been enough to allow those under 18 to hunt with handguns. There is nothing magical about concealed carry vs open carry. It is an emotional response, pure and simple.
    Last edited by Interceptor_Knight; 06-01-2011 at 12:32 PM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    Because

    Quote Originally Posted by protias View Post
    So why can someone who is 20 and 364 days not able to conceal but 21 can?

    **21 > 20 and 364

    Where in the US or state Constitutions say the age, location, or method of carry?

    **Where does the word "carry" appear?

    This is all personal responsibility and liberty.

    **No. We are not a bunch of autonomous individuals. We are a society as well. Our society recognizes the importance of the individual better than any other but we also have rules. There is just disagreement about what the rules mean sometimes.

    When cars were becoming more popular, parents would teach their children to drive and only when they completely trusted them, they let their kids drive the car alone.

    **And if the parents chose not to instruct? If the kid had a car of his own? If carrying is a right and there is no age limitation, how can parents interfere?
    Think about the consequences of unfettered "liberty" - rights without responsibility.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    This Day and Age

    Quote Originally Posted by theoicarry View Post
    All I can say is the military should not enlist our men and woman whom are not 21 years old. Explain to me why someone whom serves our country in this day and age at 18 years old, fights in two wars, gets out at 20 years old and cannot carry concealed.?
    What about somebody who enlists at age 17? Do you limit concealed carry only to those who have been in combat? Would that be one day or one month or one year? Do you make an exception for somebody with other than an honorable discharge? What about somebody who didn't handle a weapon after basic training? What other age restrictions do we waive for veterans?

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    I'm all for lowering the age for veterans... But what about the guys who enlist in the national guard as a junior in high school, go to basic training that summer, then go back to finish their senior year. Do you want seniors in high school at 17 years old carrying guns? Is it a bad idea? I haven't developed my opinion on that yet.

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322
    Quote Originally Posted by apjonas View Post
    Think about the consequences of unfettered "liberty" - rights without responsibility.
    Age is meaningless. Again, there are many "kids" who are far more responsible than some "adults."

    To bear means to carry.

    What rules are different?

    Then a responsible person would get the means on how to drive, or in this case, shoot.
    Quote Originally Posted by Schlitz View Post
    I'm all for lowering the age for veterans... But what about the guys who enlist in the national guard as a junior in high school, go to basic training that summer, then go back to finish their senior year. Do you want seniors in high school at 17 years old carrying guns? Is it a bad idea? I haven't developed my opinion on that yet.
    There are some children who I'd trust my life over some 40+ year olds. Neither state or federal Constitution has an age limit, places not to carry, method of carry, etc. Both reiterate our ability to carry, how, when, and where we choose, or not choose.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

Posting Permissions

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