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.
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.
Citation?.... The short answer is that a large porportion of 18-20 year olds are idiots. I ought to know. I was one....
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.
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 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".
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.
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!
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.
anyone have any idea why the new ccw bill requires people to be 21 to carry concealed instead of 18 like open carry?
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.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..
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?
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.?