Training

[gprod55]

A lot of our State Elected Officials, Law Enforcement, and others are concerned about training of the open carry public. They are concerned about the age of the carrier. Back in the early 60's and before, guns were allowed in the high schools as part of the ROTC and like programs through out the US. Small arms ranges were located in the basement as it was at Lincoln High School in San Diego, California. The program was the California Cadet Corps. Equivelent to the ROTC programs. M1 Garands were stored there also and the range at USMC Camp Pendleton was utilized for live fire of the large caliber weapon. Most of those graduates entered the military and served this country honorably during the Viet Nam War. What I'm getting at is training can occur in the high schools of today with parental permission. 18 years of age is not too young to carry openly. Proof of training by either the Military, NRA programs, or any other certifiable programs should qualify as they are more extensive then the classes for concealed carry of today. Many of us ex-military vets who have served this country should be allowed to carry openly in defense of ourselves and families without having to pay for licensure by the state or federal government, as we have carried openly in face of the enemy in many countries both within the USA in times of disaster and outside the USA in times of aggresion. Many of the veterans of today being trained by the military you might say were trained by the federal government as thats who we were paid by to defend this country. 18 years of age with the proper training is not too young.

 

[Aknazer]

Training shouldn't be required to exercise a RIGHT.

 

[SigGuy23]

A lot of our State Elected Officials, Law Enforcement, and others are concerned about training of the open carry public. They are concerned about the age of the carrier. Back in the early 60's and before, guns were allowed in the high schools as part of the ROTC and like programs through out the US. Small arms ranges were located in the basement as it was at Lincoln High School in San Diego, California. The program was the California Cadet Corps. Equivelent to the ROTC programs. M1 Garands were stored there also and the range at USMC Camp Pendleton was utilized for live fire of the large caliber weapon. Most of those graduates entered the military and served this country honorably during the Viet Nam War. What I'm getting at is training can occur in the high schools of today with parental permission. 18 years of age is not too young to carry openly. Proof of training by either the Military, NRA programs, or any other certifiable programs should qualify as they are more extensive then the classes for concealed carry of today. Many of us ex-military vets who have served this country should be allowed to carry openly in defense of ourselves and families without having to pay for licensure by the state or federal government, as we have carried openly in face of the enemy in many countries both within the USA in times of disaster and outside the USA in times of aggresion. Many of the veterans of today being trained by the military you might say were trained by the federal government as thats who we were paid by to defend this country. 18 years of age with the proper training is not too young.

+1
I was in Navy J.R.O.T.C. at West High School in SLC, UT. We had a rifle and pistol team with a 4 lane range. Back in the 60's and 70's they shot revolvers and 45's. Now it's air rifles and pistols that shoot pellets. It was great training on how to safely handle firearms and for our marksman skills as well. We shot competitions with other J.R.O.T.C. units across UT. I think that all high schools across the nation should have a program that will teach them this kinda of thing. Of course it will be optional and not required as it is a right.

 

[gprod55]

Training shouldn't be required to exercise a RIGHT.

When you were a baby you were trained to use the toilet. When you were a child you were trained to use a knife and fork to eat with. When you were a teenager you were trained on how to drive a car. Training is an every day occurance. Without training most non-gun users would end up shooting themselves or someone else. Just like learning how to drive. Most people would end up in wrecks that would kill themselves or someone else. If you hadn't noticed I'm a great believer in training and practice.

 

[Aknazer]

When you were a baby you were trained to use the toilet. When you were a child you were trained to use a knife and fork to eat with. When you were a teenager you were trained on how to drive a car. Training is an every day occurance. Without training most non-gun users would end up shooting themselves or someone else. Just like learning how to drive. Most people would end up in wrecks that would kill themselves or someone else. If you hadn't noticed I'm a great believer in training and practice.

Then let me rephrase what I said. I agree that someone who has a weapon should train with it. With that said GOVERNMENT TRAINING should NOT be REQUIRED to exercise a right. The important part is the capital letters.

I was also "trained" in the English language and if you notice I don't need any government sponsored "permit" to exercise my first amendment right and the same goes for any other right. Why are people trying to treat the second amendment differently? Just because training is a good thing doesn't mean it should be mandated because once you start mandating it you turn the right into a privilege that can be taken away by the government.

 

[okboomer]

I would accept a "Proof of Proficiency" certificate, but required training ... anything more than what is required for a CC with a little more about, perhaps, retention is about the extent of the further infringement I think is acceptable. As for the "state specified retention holster" ... until the holster manufacturers start making holsters for all makes and models of handguns available today, this is an unreasonable requirement.

With that said, a thumb break is available for just about all revolvers and semi-autos. I really need to get busy on my leather work

 

[gprod55]

I would accept a "Proof of Proficiency" certificate, but required training ... anything more than what is required for a CC with a little more about, perhaps, retention is about the extent of the further infringement I think is acceptable. As for the "state specified retention holster" ... until the holster manufacturers start making holsters for all makes and models of handguns available today, this is an unreasonable requirement.

With that said, a thumb break is available for just about all revolvers and semi-autos. I really need to get busy on my leather work

I agree. Being able to prove that you know which end the bullet comes out and can hit a target 10 feet away should be required and for that too occur you still need to be shown how by a person that has been there and done that. Retention is as easy as grabbing the wrist that has come in contact with the gun and moving with him when he moves. This allows you to use your other hand to poke him in the eyes. Retention holsters with thumb breaks can be had all over the place. Like you, I make my own holsters out of leather with retention straps. Learning proper gun tehcnique, maintenance and safety aint rocket science and can be taught to everybody wanting to open carry.;D

 

[Aknazer]

I agree. Being able to prove that you know which end the bullet comes out and can hit a target 10 feet away should be required and for that too occur you still need to be shown how by a person that has been there and done that. Retention is as easy as grabbing the wrist that has come in contact with the gun and moving with him when he moves. This allows you to use your other hand to poke him in the eyes. Retention holsters with thumb breaks can be had all over the place. Like you, I make my own holsters out of leather with retention straps. Learning proper gun tehcnique, maintenance and safety aint rocket science and can be taught to everybody wanting to open carry.;D

But it's not about the ability to teach it to people wanting to OC, it's about forcing it on people in order for them to exercise their second amendment right. Also are you saying that people can't simply look at a gun and tell which end the bullet comes out of? If so, well we might be better off with a few less people in the world... Also a lot of people don't "need" to be shown how to operate a gun as they are plenty smart enough to figure it out on their own or do the smallest of research on it. Hell I was never shown how to operate a handgun (my dad only taught me about a .22 semi-auto and 22ga single shot) but yet I've been safely operating them and any other weapon I've used without incident.

I'm willing to deal with "reasonable" mandatory training (that I likely wouldn't even need to do as I'm military and have a CPL already; both of which would likely cover the training), but I will continue to fight for no training because the government shouldn't be telling us what we need to do in order to be ALLOWED to exercise our rights. All that does is subvert a right into a privilege; and privileges can easily be taken away.

 

[gprod55]

But it's not about the ability to teach it to people wanting to OC, it's about forcing it on people in order for them to exercise their second amendment right. Also are you saying that people can't simply look at a gun and tell which end the bullet comes out of? If so, well we might be better off with a few less people in the world... Also a lot of people don't "need" to be shown how to operate a gun as they are plenty smart enough to figure it out on their own or do the smallest of research on it. Hell I was never shown how to operate a handgun (my dad only taught me about a .22 semi-auto and 22ga single shot) but yet I've been safely operating them and any other weapon I've used without incident.

I'm willing to deal with "reasonable" mandatory training (that I likely wouldn't even need to do as I'm military and have a CPL already; both of which would likely cover the training), but I will continue to fight for no training because the government shouldn't be telling us what we need to do in order to be ALLOWED to exercise our rights. All that does is subvert a right into a privilege; and privileges can easily be taken away.

You were shown by your father the basic use of firearms. This I'm sure carried you through your military training which enhanced what you already knew. Not everybody has that experience. Some sort of control has to be mandated to keep the criminal element and those that are incapable because of mental desease from open carry. So how do you differentiate them from the normal good american citizens. So I guess what your advocating is give everybody a handgun or rifle no matter the consequences. In order to prevent undesireables from obtaining weapons certain checks and balances have to occur. Most of it is done by the individual states themselves who obtain information from the feds who have access to all criminal records from each state. So here we go Government control either the city, county, state or federal government. Training doesn't have to be controled by the government but proving your capable and legal to carry will be done by who?

 

[Badger Johnson]

You were shown by your father the basic use of firearms. This I'm sure carried you through your military training which enhanced what you already knew. Not everybody has that experience. Some sort of control has to be mandated to keep the criminal element and those that are incapable because of mental desease from open carry. So how do you differentiate them from the normal good american citizens. So I guess what your advocating is give everybody a handgun or rifle no matter the consequences. In order to prevent undesireables from obtaining weapons certain checks and balances have to occur. Most of it is done by the individual states themselves who obtain information from the feds who have access to all criminal records from each state. So here we go Government control either the city, county, state or federal government. Training doesn't have to be controled by the government but proving your capable and legal to carry will be done by who?

Going by your logic, you should have been trained in the English language before allowing you to post because (and I'm kidding) you have failed miserably. Yet you got your words downrange.

You're also putting words in his mouth - 'advocating...no matter what the consequences'. Well, my friend the consequences is taking away our freedoms given to us by the US Constitution as Rights. So nobody is persuaded by some rather feeble and insulting attempts at logic. (no diss, just facts).

1. There is NO way to keep the criminal element and those that are incapable because of mental disease from open carry using training by handgun experts. Mental illness is RARELY openly visible. Many many people (criminal element) have not been CAUGHT committing a crime. They're not in any database.

2. You cannot and it's visibly apparent that we can not prevent undesirables from obtaining weapons. Many are not visible perverts or ne'er-do-wells. Would we have these bad guys who play close to the vest get TRAINING to be BETTER SHOTS?

3. The idea that the 'feds' can correlate all criminal records from each state is laughable. There are several databases and they are frequently protected fiefdoms and access restricted. Many records have not been entered or are done so incorrectly.

The point is MANDATED training by an agency which routinely screws things up ROYALLY is pointless. If a million people carry handguns and ONLY 0.001% are bad shots, deranged people, evil, murderers, what have you, that's still a lot of people. Yet if some of those million carriers save 10,000 lives or more we are ahead of the game and your Granny won't die cowering in the back of a 7-11 because she was too feeble to drive to Roanoke from Anysmalltown, Va and take a permit class to open carry her husband's WWII service revolver, which she can still see well enough to shoot and hit a felon trying to murder witnesses. Moreover just having the right and being allowed to carry she feels empowered. Not everyone is a freeman able to jump in a car and go drive to training classes and spend a bundle on ammo. Yes some people may screw up. We let people drive who can't see the broad side of a barn without their glasses (which they might forget) and cars are a bit more dangerous than a handgun.

Even with training we've all seen horrible shots, horrible shoots, our LEOs only hit the target 35% of the time from 10 feet. You're positing a losing position, why, I can't fathom.

 

[MilProGuy]

18 years of age with the proper training is not too young.

You've made some great points in your posts, and thanks for starting this thread.

I do, respectfully, disagree with you on the idea of 18-yr-olds carrying handguns.

It's just my personal opinion. When my twin sons were 18, there's absolutely no way I would have wanted to see them carrying a handgun...but, by the time they were 21-years-old, it was amazing the level of maturity they had reached.

 

[thebigsd]

You've made some great points in your posts, and thanks for starting this thread.

I do, respectfully, disagree with you on the idea of 18-yr-olds carrying handguns.

It's just my personal opinion. When my twin sons were 18, there's absolutely no way I would have wanted to see them carrying a handgun...but, by the time they were 21-years-old, it was amazing the level of maturity they had reached.

The idea that 18 year-olds are not mature enough to carry a firearm is complete bollocks. First of all, there are thousands of members in our armed forces under the age of 21. We trust them to defend our lives and our freedom but we can't trust them to carry a handgun? Second, please cite some specific cases where an OCer under the age of 21 caused an incident.

 

[gprod55]

Going by your logic, you should have been trained in the English language before allowing you to post because (and I'm kidding) you have failed miserably. Yet you got your words downrange.

You're also putting words in his mouth - 'advocating...no matter what the consequences'. Well, my friend the consequences is taking away our freedoms given to us by the US Constitution as Rights. So nobody is persuaded by some rather feeble and insulting attempts at logic. (no diss, just facts).

1. There is NO way to keep the criminal element and those that are incapable because of mental disease from open carry using training by handgun experts. Mental illness is RARELY openly visible. Many many people (criminal element) have not been CAUGHT committing a crime. They're not in any database.

2. You cannot and it's visibly apparent that we can not prevent undesirables from obtaining weapons. Many are not visible perverts or ne'er-do-wells. Would we have these bad guys who play close to the vest get TRAINING to be BETTER SHOTS?

3. The idea that the 'feds' can correlate all criminal records from each state is laughable. There are several databases and they are frequently protected fiefdoms and access restricted. Many records have not been entered or are done so incorrectly.

The point is MANDATED training by an agency which routinely screws things up ROYALLY is pointless. If a million people carry handguns and ONLY 0.001% are bad shots, deranged people, evil, murderers, what have you, that's still a lot of people. Yet if some of those million carriers save 10,000 lives or more we are ahead of the game and your Granny won't die cowering in the back of a 7-11 because she was too feeble to drive to Roanoke from Anysmalltown, Va and take a permit class to open carry her husband's WWII service revolver, which she can still see well enough to shoot and hit a felon trying to murder witnesses. Moreover just having the right and being allowed to carry she feels empowered. Not everyone is a freeman able to jump in a car and go drive to training classes and spend a bundle on ammo. Yes some people may screw up. We let people drive who can't see the broad side of a barn without their glasses (which they might forget) and cars are a bit more dangerous than a handgun.

Even with training we've all seen horrible shots, horrible shoots, our LEOs only hit the target 35% of the time from 10 feet. You're positing a losing position, why, I can't fathom.

Unlike some of you I'm not an english major. My spelling and punctuation will be incorrect. My original post was that concerning training requirements by this state for open carry. My disagreement to not allow people under the age of 21 or 25 to open carry was and is my concern. As stated high school students can be trained through courses such as JROTC and like programs. This used to be a means of proper training. Meaning 18 year olds with proper training should be allowed to open carry. In this state where open carry is still illegal taking baby steps forward is better then no steps.
Open carry in this state without a licsense by anybody is still far off in the future. It will eventually happen. Is this a mute subject? Should this subject be removed from this site? Just as any 18 year old in the state of Oklahoma.

 

[MilProGuy]

The idea that 18 year-olds are not mature enough to carry a firearm is complete bollocks. First of all, there are thousands of members in our armed forces under the age of 21. We trust them to defend our lives and our freedom but we can't trust them to carry a handgun? Second, please cite some specific cases where an OCer under the age of 21 caused an incident.

I certainly agree with your salient point about the young American men and women under the age of 21 who serve in the Armed Forces.

I served in the Armed Forces too, entering at the age of 19.

However, I couldn't vote, couldn't buy alcohol, couldn't buy a handgun, couldn't enter into any binding legal contract, and even had to get my parents to sign for me to get married.

In our county, many young people under the age of 21 are actively involved in gang activities, the manufacturing and distribution of crystal meth, grand larceny, and I could go on and on.

Giving them carte blanche to handguns would be like helping them along as they ply their trades and would further embolden an already brash and lawless element of teenaged gangs.

I don't say that everybody who differs from my opinion is "wrong"...far from it; I'm merely stating my own personal opinion.

 

[Trent91]

"We let people drive who can't see the broad side of a barn without their glasses (which they might forget) and cars are a bit more dangerous than a handgun."

Good point Badger.


I personally do not believe allowing 18 and over to open carry would be "Giving them [teen criminals] carte blanche to handguns". Any criminal of any age who wants to obtain and carry a handgun will do so, whether it is legal or not. Hence them being called "criminals", and hence the law abiding citizen, whether 18, 21, or 60, requireing a means to protect themselves from said criminals in their community. Furthermore, a criminal, no matter the age, is more likely to carry their weapon concealed so as not to draw attention to themselves. This making the arguement mute. Also, if the state ends up requiring a background check to be able to OC as they do with CC, which I'm sure they will, anyone of age to OC who has any kind of criminal record will be disqualified.

All in all, I believe that baby steps are better than no steps at all. I have said before, and still believe, that if this country deems an individual that is 18 years of age responsible enough to carry a weapon in a foreign combat zone, this country should also deem the same individual responsible enough to protect themselves in their own community. I would be happy to see the age limit set at 18, although I seriously doubt this will happen. I would be satisfied with 21, but anything past that is outragous.

cheers.

 

[Badger Johnson]

Yeah, it's never going to be a perfect system. If people knew how bad cars and cigarettes were gonna be they'd never have been allowed, yet we survive and learn.

The only thing that will be close to a perfect method of SD will be when everyone gets personal force-field shields, like they had in Dune (but not vulnerable to a slow blade, hah).

You -must- allow the weak, disabled, young, and other vulnerable people to be able to protect themselves, even if some people are harmed inadvertently. It's one of the few 'greater good' arguments I'll get on board with, even though flawed.

 

[gprod55]

Yeah, it's never going to be a perfect system. If people knew how bad cars and cigarettes were gonna be they'd never have been allowed, yet we survive and learn.

The only thing that will be close to a perfect method of SD will be when everyone gets personal force-field shields, like they had in Dune (but not vulnerable to a slow blade, hah).

You -must- allow the weak, disabled, young, and other vulnerable people to be able to protect themselves, even if some people are harmed inadvertently. It's one of the few 'greater good' arguments I'll get on board with, even though flawed.

Until our draconian laws are reversed and the constitution is applied as it was written, we will have to put up with the laws whether we like it or not. To me training is imperative as this prevents the person covering my back from shooting me accidently or blowing out my eardrum because he discharges his weapon next to my head. Almost anyone can pull a gun and fire it but to do it safely requires training. Training can begin at an early age. Whether its a child who finds a gun laying around and not to touch it because its loaded (all guns are loaded until proven otherwise) and to bring it to an adults attention for their retrieval or an 8 year old with his first bb gun or sling shot not to shoot anything like the family pet or another child is still training. Safety is not a trait everyone has and needs to be taught or brought to their attention. Training is imperative at any age for weapons safety and you own peace of mind.

 

[Aknazer]

You were shown by your father the basic use of firearms. This I'm sure carried you through your military training which enhanced what you already knew. Not everybody has that experience. Some sort of control has to be mandated to keep the criminal element and those that are incapable because of mental desease from open carry.

Look at states that already allow OC and tell me how many criminals and mentally ill OC their weapons? Assuming you even find any cases they could most likely be counted on a single hand. The facts show that those who are going to commit a crime don't OC their weapon unless said weapon is in hand (at which point it turns into brandishing).

So how do you differentiate them from the normal good american citizens. So I guess what your advocating is give everybody a handgun or rifle no matter the consequences. In order to prevent undesireables from obtaining weapons certain checks and balances have to occur.

What happened to "innocent until proven guilty" in this country? Instead everyone is assuming guilty/incompetent until proven otherwise. I'm not saying that everyone should be given a weapon, I'm saying that the stores that sell the weapons should be making the call on if they want to sell the weapon to the individual. Why? Because the second the government gets involved you're talking about all sorts of mandatory extras that infringe upon the rights of the innocent simply to ineffectively try and stop the guilty.

Most of it is done by the individual states themselves who obtain information from the feds who have access to all criminal records from each state. So here we go Government control either the city, county, state or federal government. Training doesn't have to be controled by the government but proving your capable and legal to carry will be done by who?

And once again, why does one need to prove that they are capable? Until they do something to show otherwise it should be assumed that they are capable. But instead this goes back to something I've noticed with a LOT of people in this country. And that is government dependency. You don't trust your fellow countrymen to do the right thing (such as get training if they don't know how to handle a gun), nor do most people trust parents to properly raise their kids. So they push it off onto the government. How about we start holding people accountable for their actions and we start making parents actually be parents again. If someone is a criminal and can't be trusted, then don't release them back out into the public. If someone is mentally unstable then don't allow them to be unsupervised (either in a facility or watched by family). If someone commits a crime, then make sure the punishment fits the crime so as to "highly encourage" that they don't commit said crime again.

I certainly agree with your salient point about the young American men and women under the age of 21 who serve in the Armed Forces.

I served in the Armed Forces too, entering at the age of 19.

However, I couldn't vote, couldn't buy alcohol, couldn't buy a handgun, couldn't enter into any binding legal contract, and even had to get my parents to sign for me to get married.

In our county, many young people under the age of 21 are actively involved in gang activities, the manufacturing and distribution of crystal meth, grand larceny, and I could go on and on.

You could and still can vote at the age of 19. In fact you can vote at the age of 18. If you choose to exercise that right or not is another story. You could have (and still can) also of bought a handgun at age 19, just not from an FFL (and depending on how old you are, you might of even of been allowed to buy one from an FFL). In regards to alcohol it depends on how old you are for if you could have bought it at age 19 or not and where you lived as the states didn't all change to the 21 age requirement at the same time. So I think you need to learn exactly what an adult (someone 18 years of age) can do.

Giving them carte blanche to handguns would be like helping them along as they ply their trades and would further embolden an already brash and lawless element of teenaged gangs.

And you know what? This attempted ban on OCed weapons is going to stop those under 21 that are involved in things such as gang activities how? Oh that's right it isn't. Those people will continue to CC their illegal weapons even if it was legal to OC. For proof just look to states that don't require a permit to OC and then look at how their criminal population carries. Even the Jared Loughner CCed his weapon until he was in position to start using it.

This is far from giving the criminals carte blanche to handguns. Besides why are they going to go to a store and pay retail price for something that they can either steal or buy a stolen one for a lot cheaper?

I don't say that everybody who differs from my opinion is "wrong"...far from it; I'm merely stating my own personal opinion.

I won't say that your opinion is wrong, but I will say that the facts as can be viewed from other places where things like OC is already legal don't support your opinion of what will happen.

You've made some great points in your posts, and thanks for starting this thread.

I do, respectfully, disagree with you on the idea of 18-yr-olds carrying handguns.

It's just my personal opinion. When my twin sons were 18, there's absolutely no way I would have wanted to see them carrying a handgun...but, by the time they were 21-years-old, it was amazing the level of maturity they had reached.

If 18 is the age that someone is an adult then treat them as an adult and raise them to be able to handle adult responsibilities. If someone isn't mature enough to handle adult responsibilities until they are 21 then the age of becoming a legal adult should be raised from 18 to 21. Which would also mean that parents would be responsible for their "kids" actions for an additional three years.



All of this said, I don't think OK will get unlicensed OC this time around given the view of most people in the state legislature. But that doesn't mean I support licensed OC; it simply means that I will take what I can while working to fully restore our rights as reaffirmed in the Constitution and BoR. And no where in there does it say that one must meet government endorsed wickets to exercise one's rights.

 

[gprod55]

Thats what I like about this site. Everbody can state their opinions. Either pro or con. I'm Pro training by any source but being a realist and realize that most training is controled. Your con as am I on Government controls of any sort. But as a realist you know that its not going to happen. We obide with our laws as mandated whether we like them or not. It is up to the people to change the laws that prevent us from being free. Most are brainwashed in their attitudes and until we can show and prove otherwise to those in charge, as others have done in their individual states, until we can convince the public and officials that open carry will not hurt them as demonstrated by other more progressive states. We live with it.
From an old Viet Nam Vet to those of you still in the military and to those who like me have since long retired. Thank you for your service to this country. In 20 years I have been in many foreign countries and still have not found one better even with its faults then the good old USA

REMEMBER TO VOTE 2012

 

[okboomer]

I certainly agree with your salient point about the young American men and women under the age of 21 who serve in the Armed Forces.

I served in the Armed Forces too, entering at the age of 19.

However, I couldn't vote, couldn't buy alcohol, couldn't buy a handgun, couldn't enter into any binding legal contract, and even had to get my parents to sign for me to get married.

In our county, many young people under the age of 21 are actively involved in gang activities, the manufacturing and distribution of crystal meth, grand larceny, and I could go on and on.

Giving them carte blanche to handguns would be like helping them along as they ply their trades and would further embolden an already brash and lawless element of teenaged gangs.

I don't say that everybody who differs from my opinion is "wrong"...far from it; I'm merely stating my own personal opinion.

Responding to bolded: I don't know what country you were born in, nor how old you are at this time, but in the US, the "age of majority" has been 18 since the 1970's and you most definitely did not need parent's permission to join the Armed Forces at 19, nor would you have been denied the right to vote, get married, enter into a binding legal contract. Of course, any time before the 1970's and there are a lot of places in the US which had differing ages of majority :lol:

In the United States, nineteen states permit 17-year-olds to vote in primary elections and caucuses if they will be 18 by election day. An amendment to the state constitution is being considered in the Illinois legislature that would lower its voting age to 17 for non-federal elections, though states can set their voting age to lower than 18 for federal elections as well. Because it only applies to state elections, 17-year-olds would not be able to vote in primaries and general elections for representatives, senators, and President of the United States even if the amendment passes the legislature and referendum.[SUP][44][/SUP]