The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has issued a major ruling on the Second Amendment, declaring that federal prohibitions on gun sales to adults between the ages of 18-20 are unconstitutional. The case is Reese v. ATF. For gun rights advocates, it may have been better if this decision had been handed down during the Biden Administration. The Trump Administration will likely support the ruling and might not appeal to the Supreme Court.
The case concerns 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(b)(1) and (c)(1), and related regulations, including 27 C.F.R. §§ 478.99(b), 478.124(a), and 478.96(b). These provisions are the basis for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to bar Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) from selling or delivering handguns to adults under the age of twenty-one.
Writing for the panel (with Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, a George W. Bush appointee. and Judge Rhesa Hawkins Barksdale, a George H.W. Bush appointee), Judge Edith Hollan Jones relied on the 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen to find that the prohibition was not grounded in the historical tradition of the amendment:
Ultimately, the text of the Second Amendment includes eighteen-to-twenty-year-old individuals among “the people” whose right to keep and bear arms is protected. The federal government has presented scant evidence that eighteen-to-twenty-year-olds’ firearm rights during the founding-era were restricted in a similar manner to the contemporary federal handgun purchase ban, and its 19th century evidence “cannot provide much insight into the meaning of the Second Amendment when it contradicts earlier evidence.
…In sum…[statues which ‘prohibit Federal Firearms Licensees]…from selling or delivering handguns to adults under the age of twenty-one. and their attendant regulations are unconstitutional in light of our Nation’s historic tradition of firearm regulation.”
The decision reverses the ruling of Judge Robert Rees Summerhays of the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, a Trump appointee.
The case involved some interesting historical arguments about how some states set the age for the militia at 21 rather than 18. The effort to ground the provisions in a historical context proved unavailing since most states set the age at 18.
“The government’s theory inverts historical analysis by relying principally on mid-to-late-19th century statutes (most enacted after Reconstruction) that restricted firearm ownership based on age. Then the government works backward to assert that these laws are consistent with founding-era analogues focusing on the minority status and general “irresponsibility” of eighteen-to-twenty-year-olds.”
Instead, the court found ample support for the right of young adults to bear arms:
“[C]ontrary to the government’s recitation of concerns expressed in the colonial and founding eras about the “irresponsibility” of those under twenty-one, these young individuals were expected to keep the peace rather than disturb it. In addition to serving in the militia, eighteen-to-twenty-year-olds could be obliged to join the posse comitatus, for which the minimum age was often fifteen or sixteen, and bring “such arms or weapons as they have or can provide”…Before the emergence of standing police forces, the posse comitatus was made up of civilians who accompanied sheriffs or other officials in pursuit of fugitives. … In early colonial America, the posse was “transformed . . . from an instrument of royal prerogative to an institution of local self-governance” that “all but precipitated the American Revolution.” Citizens could be called to “execute arrests, level public nuisances, and keep the peace;” they faced fines or imprisonment if they refused. Instead of refusing to arm young Americans for fear of their irresponsibility, founding-era regulations required them to be armed to secure public safety.”
Everytown for Gun Safety, a gun control group associated with former New York mayor Mike Bloomberg, called upon the Trump Administration to appeal the decision: “We hope the federal government will fight this reckless ruling by seeking rehearing en banc, or taking the case directly to the Supreme Court.” There is an argument for the Solicitor General to defend the federal law as a matter of course. However, the ruling is consistent with the views of many in the Administration.
Had this decision come down under the Biden Administration, an appeal would likely have been taken and this could have strongly reinforced the Court’s Second Amendment jurisprudence. Success at the Supreme Court would have extended this precedent nationally. Of course, there is always the unknown of how Chief Justice John Roberts would react to such limits. Roberts has previously signaled his willingness to entertain reasonable limits.
The case, however, will add persuasive authority for challenges in various states to age limitations.
I agree with the Professor! Well said.
I’m not scared of an 18 year old having a handgun. However, Kamala Harris having a Glock is another matter. Now that right there is scary as hell.
Even worse is Walz with a shotgun.
Oh, don’t worry about Walz’s shotgun. From what I hear, he uses tampon-shot rounds. Like rock-salt, except fluffy cotton balls.
Floyd,
Good one!
The FAA contracts with outside companies to provide air traffic controllers.
The new administration just transfered the contract for the San Carlos airport to a new contractor who cut the pay for controllers.
The entire team of controllers immediately resigned leaving the airport without any air traffic control.
The new administration has an unusual way of ensuring the safety of air travel.
^^ Paid DNC troll. Ignore. ^^
That is a true story, look it up, what is your problem with it?
The controllers negotiated higher salaries, and the San Carlos tower will be staffed. Breaking news just a few hours old.
Wait a minute, you mean they won’t save money under trump? It will cost more? Like about everything else trump touches?
Pathetic.
You’re going to love those 25% tariffs. Certainly they will lower prices by everything imported by 25%? Right? Tell me trump is doing things to lower prices, please. Pretty please.
Pathetic is the person that voted for trump because they thought he had a plan. All he had was a concept of a plan.
At the time of the signing of the DoI, Alexander Hamilton would have just been legal at 21 and James Madison would still be covered by his parent’s health insurance at age 25. The soon-to-be Commander of the Continental Army and future President was only 44. The point being this is more of an Overton Window issue than anything else.
Putting an age restriction on when someone has their 2nd amendment disability lifted is simply arbitrary. Same for the right to vote. They are both rooted in the idea of incapacity. Perhaps it’s the right time to open that debate. What is a more accurate way to measure one’s capacity (responsibility) to exercise their 2nd amendment right and the right to vote?
JT, Please come out of hiding and admit trump is a disgusting piece of human flesh. History will not treat trump supporters well.
Which side are you on?
What did Trump have to do with this? Perhaps if America were a nation of lawful order and 18 year olds weren’t being sent to war people would not have to buy guns to protect themselves from illegal criminals, hood rats, vegan trannies, and people on the edge of the next psychotic episode.
“people on the edge of the next psychotic episode”
You mean Democrats.
Bazinga!
The Trump phenomenon is most bizarre. He’s a pathological liar who tells lies even when he doesn’t have to. He sent the military to to turn the water back on??? Just his latest in thousands of these kinds of lies which have no bearing on anything. Why tell it? But his fanatical followers jump to his defense with concoctions of “proof” that what Trump says is true or they follow in his mold to insult people who point the lies out. Yes, history will not treat these people well.
How will history treat those that promote sexual deviants grooming children? How will it treat those that participated in subversion of a duly elected President? How will it treat those that opened our borders to an illegal invasion used a virus to try and advance their anti American agenda?
I think the winners write history and what’s coming from American patriots will solidify the correct narrative for the future. You sir are no patriot.
Who’s the patriot?
“I have great confidence in my intelligence people, but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial.”
Wha!!!!! You’re impugning the integrity of Trump’s boss?
How will history treat those that promote sexual deviants grooming children?
You mean like the christian church? Certainly the Catholic Church has its share of sexual deviants.
More than half of abused kids are abused by religious “leaders” or close family members.
Praise Jesus! Praise Gawd!!!!
Why is it that you want someone who is reporting the facts, with some opinion to resort to name calling as you do. Can’t you accept that people have different views than you. Calling people names, like Trump does is childish, so you are stooping to the same level as you accuse Trump of being.
Why do you hide your identity? If you are strong in your beliefs then tell us who you are. It’s easy to hide behind your keyboard and spew the hatred. Man up, if you are one and be willing to defend yourself.
The army diverts young recruits, who display immaturity, from weapons stewardship routinely. Show lack of responsibility and you might find yourself working in logistics or supply.
I agree with the decision. 18 yr olds are perfectly capable of handling firearms safely. Some are stupid and are not capable. Some eventually grow out of that condition. However there are still many people who are stupid at 18, and still stupid at 38 or 58 or even 78 if they live that long. As stated by others, if you want to control gun violence then take those individuals who commit gun violence off the streets and keep them off.
It never ceases to amaze me that some of the major cities in our country who tend towards the blue side of the political spectrum will not follow through on convicting people of gun crime and then incarcerating them. These criminals, by their very actions, have spotlighted themselves as highly likely to engage in gun crimes again. Simple logic would seem to suggest that if you take them off the streets, there will be less gun crime. We have statistics from the DOJ, and Institute of Justice that reiterates this all the time. If they continue to violate these laws then they get longer sentences until they are there in prison forever (not a bad outcome) We are not talking rehab but threat removal.
Rehab is good for heart disease, neuromuscular problems, recovery from knee replacements etc. Maybe even drug rehab is effective for some.
I have seen no real studies that tell us violent criminal are affected positively by rehab, hence the argument for threat removal.
Off course after seeing some of the blue senators in action over the past 2 weeks in confirmation hearings, I am not sure any of them should ever hold a firearm either. You can make up your own reasons for my conclusion there.
Never ending to take people who commit gun violence off the streets. Preventing them from getting guns is important.
Teach at a young age. subvert what the trannies do: teach good morals, respect, and most importantly gun safety when kids can understand they are holding a weapon designed to kill.
This is a tough one for me as I completely agree that in 2025 the average *30* year-old’s ability to responsibly drive, vote, get to work on time, cook a meal, or do their own laundry is suspect (anyone thinking that’s an isolated phenomena as in days of yore doesn’t get out enough and DEFINITELY doesn’t work in education 😂), but I do not favor messing with the Constitution, seems to me the onus is on us to do better than trophies and babying with our young people. It’s a tough one, indeed.
No military helicopters collided with airliners while Lloyd Austin was Defense Secretary.
This is what happens with DUI hires like Pete Hegseth.
That’s absurd and you know it. If you’re going to make comments, at least try to make them plausible.
How is Pete Hesgeth supposed to reverse in one week the neglect of air traffic control and the imposition of the DEI measures which has left the controller positions understaffed, overworked, and demoralized under both Obama and Biden, which reports have warned for years was putting our air space safety at serious risk?
Sounds like when Trump pulls anything out of his ass you immediately defend it as fact.
Only when what he pulls out of his a$$ is some Democrat attack plan that is exposed for what it is.
LOL, you simply can’t bring yourself to admit that Trump ever lies. Like I said, you defend any and everything he pulls out of his ass, no mater how putrid or slimy.
Well I would agree with you but then that would make us both WRONG!
Only a progressive can make a leap like that. You have earned a spot on the U.S. Olympic conjectural shark-jumping team.
“How is Pete Hesgeth supposed to reverse in one week . . .”
In the same way that in one week Trump is supposed to reverse four years of inflationary policies.
Magic. Or clicking his heels. Maybe both.
Aren’t you enjoying a war free Europe today?
“If I were president, I would end that war in 24 hours. It would be easy. I know both Putin and Zelenskyy very well.” — Donald Trump
Jesus F Christ, what it takes to be a moron to believe anything this imbecile says.
The two parties on that border were willing to go to the table before the 20th. Hell, they were willing to go 4 years ago, but Biden and his WEF masters sent Boris Johnson to tank it.
LOL, so you’re blaming Trump’s failure to broker peace in 24 hours on Biden.
“Or clicking his heels”
Careful with those heel clicking references or GooGoo or another of our resident loony-toons may accuse you of being a Prussian sympathizer, and by extension, a Nazi.
No American servicemen have been killed in Afghanistan while Hegseth has been Defense Secretary. This is what happens when you hire competent people.
(This is fun. You can blame or exculpate anyone you want, for anything — irrespective of causality, history, evidence, argument. Just use the post hoc fallacy.)
🤣 Right. And it’s Trump’s fault that after 2 weeks, he hasn’t hatched enough egg-producing chickens to replace the millions killed, to lower egg prices.
I’m always struck by timelines for posters on comments section. Can I assume any commenter replying to every other comment at roughly 5 minute intervals is currently a government bureaucrat sitting home in his jammies and contemplating his severance package?
Trumptards on here are just common everyday household idiots.
Hmmm. The pilot of the helicopter might have been an angry trans woman. See this interview it did, the day before the crash, on the Smerconish podcast:
https://x.com/ProjectConstitu/status/1885270354253275264
This has not been confirmed, and may be a hoax. I am trying to run the story down.
I had a feeling this might be mass suicide by terrorism. It will be interesting to see how the facts unfold.
It looks like the story is wrong. It posted on its Facebook that it is alive, and was not the pilot of the chopper.
I am still trying to get to the bottom of things.
Floyd
No need to look any further.
If it is on Facebook, then it MUST be true.
After all, we all know that Facebook is by far the most authoritative and reliable source of information on the planet.
No, it is that the person who was supposedly the pilot, is still alive and posting – therefore, not the pilot.
Floyd, you just made a fool out of yourself. Try waiting for some damn facts before you humiliate yourself again.
Yep, I should have waited on that one.
Time will tell. It will take months before a final determination can be made, still, one has to wonder why now? Why with experienced pilots?
Something is off about this incident.
Actually, it appears that both the helicopter pilot and the ATC both had a hand at the end result. I don’t believe anything nefarious, it is reported that the ATC was under staffed without a dedicated staff solely focused on helicopter traffic. This is reported as a constant isse with three other incidents in the recent past. The helicopter pilots were 100 feet higher than their regulated airspace corridor allowed and there appeared a lack of communication between them and the tower. The 100 feet can be attributed to different factors as they all are dependent upon altimeter settings and reported atmospheric pressure. It appears the helicopter pilot confused the aircraft ahead of him and not the one on approach, he never saw them until it was too late. God rest their souls and may their loved ones find peace in their time of loss.
According to what I read recently, the ATC shift supervisor let a controller leave early, with the result that, instead of separate controllers for airplane and helicopter traffic at that time, the remaining controllers were doubling up. The report claimed that such doubling up does normally occur after 9:40 PM, when the density of flights decreases. I also read another report claiming that there was a potential airplane-helicopter incident the previous night at 8:11 PM. It did not cite staffing levels on that occasion, but it causes me to wonder if the short-staffing situation was confined to the night of the crash. In any event, if there had been anything like the close call implied by the latter report, I would have thought that there would be increased alertness and reluctance to short staff on the following night. It’s starting to seem as if there may have been risks involved that could and should have been minimized, but were not. I’m certain there is a lot more to be reported here, and someone is very likely to be left without a chair when the music stops.
Typo – cited “doubling” time should have been 9:30 PM, not 9:40
The pilot also might have been a drunk white supremacist hillbilly. I’m tracking that story now. Will report back.
You are absolutely correct! It may have been a drunk white hillbilly. But why are we all wondering if it was a DEI hire??? Because there is concrete evidence that the people who ran the FAA were really pushing hiring people on a basis other than merit.
Incompetence has existed ever since civilization began. How come Hammurabi Code had penalties for incompetence??? Because incompetence and negligence existed back in old Babylon, and old Uruk, and wherever
BUT – when merit-based hiring, as flawed as it is, is replaced by a non-merit-based system, to wit, DEI, then how much worse will the problem become?
We live in a highly-structured society where lapses by a single individual can affect large numbers of others. An airline pilot, a fry cook, a lab tech, a building inspector etc.
You’re a disgrace , please get some psychiatric treatment.
According to the Left, there should be age limitations for owning a gun. But no age limitations for getting genital-mutilation surgery.
In what universe does that make any sense?
(The Left’s reply is: How does that “surgery” affect you? To which the only reply is: If that barbaric practice does *not* affect you, then you have a black hole where your soul should be.)
My grandson has been hunting and fishing since he was a child. Where we live, you never know when some young scholar is going to start shooting up the place, so there is that, too.
I got my first guns when I was 8 years old. My Grandfather 4x was a Sargeant in the 1812 militia at 14 years old.
Fuggem
maybe if we ACTUALLY punished crime…people would get the msg. I bet Singapore has low drug usage!
What is more powerful: a vote or a gun? The people who push to increase the age of gun ownership to 21 because of maturity are the same ones who want 16 year-olds to vote.
Make it make sense…
can we buy a pocket version of the Constitution for these Democrat judges!
TIME to remove judges who get it WRONG frequently(overruled 3 times you are out) or are JUST criminals like the ones attacking Trump!
I believe Judges, President and Congress should be 12 year limits. PERIOD!
“TIME to remove judges who get it WRONG frequently(overruled 3 times you are out)”
You do realize that could cut both ways, do you not? By that rule, a conservative judge whose opinions were reviewed and overturned by libtard judges in a higher court could just as easily be dumped.
So according to liberals a 7 year old can determine if he wants to have surgery and medicine to affect his whole life but a 19 year old can’t make a legal purchase of a constitutionally protected firearm??
You beat me to it.
Good to see the 5th Circuit so far follow Bruen unlike the rubber stamp 9th Circuit in recent 2A cases.
there is always the possibility of going after kitchen knives
Idris Elba on stabbing crisis: ‘Not all kitchen knives need a point on them’
Not all kitchen knives need to have a point on them, that sounds like a crazy thing to say,” he adds, “but you can still cut your food without the point on your knife, which is an innovative way to look at it.”
https://www.aol.com/news/zombie-knife-ban-wont-solve-080508378.html
Elba is a Brit. They arrest people for unapproved opinions. Get back to me when the UK adopts a solid Bill of Rights. Meanwhile, my knives are pointy and sharp, paring knives to machetes, yanagi ba to heavy US cavalry sabre.
Gotta point out this one. Knows nothing about UK civics, and has a s!ck fixation with sharp objects. This one belongs in a mental ward.
Meanwhile, my knives are pointy and sharp, paring knives to machetes, yanagi ba to heavy US cavalry sabre.
I still have the machete my father gave us kids to trim the grass and weeds off of the walkways at our home. We also used it to cut sugar cane in the Everglades, cut ripe mangoes and avocados from high trees. Aside from my Glocks and AR-15, I pity the fool who does a home invasion in our home. That old machete has a blade literally capable of slicing a sheet of paper. It is far sharper than the brains of the Media Matters / Act Blue troll on here, which is a low bar but you get the point.
Oldfish
The English Bill of Rights was established in 1689. It was used as a model for the US Bill of Rights in 1789. It is an original Act of the English Parliament. The Bill firmly established the principles of frequent parliaments, free elections and freedom of speech. It also includes no right of taxation without Parliament’s agreement, freedom from government interference, the right of petition and just treatment of people by the courts.
Apparently, ignorance is bliss in MAGA world.
And yet people get arrested for hate speech in the UK. Clearly it isn’t a proper Bill of Rights. Call it stagnant, unevolved.
Ahhh!!
So you believe that Bills of Rights and Constitutions should EVOLVE.
Presumably you believe that such laws should be interpreted differently as society changes. Interpretation should change with the times so to speak.
Of course this puts you at odds with the right wing ORIGINALISTS of the Supreme Court who insist that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution should be interpreted based on their original meaning at the time of the Founding Fathers.
Be careful, don’t let your MAGA friends find out about your new found beliefs.
Anonymurk lobs a meatball right up the ****.
Wrong again Anonymuck. I believe that our Constitution means today what it meant when it was written and that it was meant to be read by everyone, not just lawyers. The underlying reason is that while technology may have changed, human nature has not.
E.G. “Well regulated” means “properly functioning and effective” not “controlled by shitweasel bureaucrats.”
Our Constitution prescribes its own evolutionary mechanism – amendments.
You: “but it’s too hard to control guns by amending our Constitution.” And that is a damned fine state of affairs.
PS – time for President Trump to pardon Douglass Mackey.
PPS – vote Bootyfudge/AOC by texting IHateAmerica to 800-MAR-XIST
You go old fish, spot on! Egggggcellent work!
Speaking of ignorance . . .
England does *not* have a constitution (and thus does not have a codified Bill of Rights). Its government is guided by a hodgepodge of historical tradition, common law, and parliamentary acts. It has what is called an “uncodified constitution” — which in reality is a constitution*ish*.
It never fully understood or implemented the principles of its greatest political philosopher, John Locke.
However, our Founders did.
The English Bill of Rights was an Act of Parliament passed on December 16, 1689.
It received the Royal Assent, and is therefore fully codified into English law.
“. . . codified into English law.”
Which, of course, is not the same thing as having a *codified* constitution and bill of rights (as America has).
But nice try.
The movement for individual rights started in England, then was (nearly) perfected by the Founders. Just as the Industrial Revolution started in England, but was perfected in America.
Those historical developments are not an accident.
BTW, my Socrates Meets Hume book came in. Last night, I ordered a used copy of Socrates Meets Jesus. So far, loving it! Thanks for the tip!
You’re very welcome. Suggestion: read Church Patristics. Most Protestants ignore the first 1500 years of Christianity, particularly the Early Church Fathers, to their great poverty. Sola Scriptura is not scriptural. Roman Catholics and Orthodox Catholics are not fundamentalists b/c they have knowledge of church history. They rely on Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, the latter being the writings of Early Church Fathers and successive authors.
A reliable source for the writings of the Early Church Fathers (aka Patristics) is gathered in a collection of 38 books known as Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Complete Set. Although expensive, I bought my set back in the 1990s when it was cheaper and a great investment. I consult with them for private studies and when I lead bible study groups. You can find individual books on Abe Books generally used and dirt cheap.
You have alot of time on your hands, Floyd, given your situation. If you were to become familiar with these types of writings, your sphere of influence on others would be substantial. It would also transform you personally.
Ora et labora
Pax
I am working to have more time on my hand, or better said, to use my time more efficiently and productively. As it is, I am not doing a very good job of it.
Estovir-I would have to disagree with you on the knowledge of Protestants and the history of the church. It varies widely from sect to sect. Some are so anti catholic they tossed that history and started anew. Others have modified the teachings of the Catholic Church or changed very little. Lutherans and Anglicans are maybe closer to Catholicism, others are farther away. But many have a great sense of Christianity over the centuries. Catholicism, of course, has a huge structure behind it that is both a state and a movement. It, of course, has it’s different parts that are sometimes in conflict with other parts and canon law is often a combination of the teachings of Peter and Jesus and yet uses the structure and nomenclature of Imperial Rome.
Some Protestant sects are very decentralized with little structure and meet in homes and prayer meetings with no priest or minister. All seeking to find god.
So understanding the history of Christianity still comes down to your point of view.
They tried to consult with the Pelosi’s but they were out getting hammered.
It’s an ninteresting problem. A law needs to state a number, a boundary that can be measured. Humans mature at different ages. Some 15 year olds are hard-working and responsible, some 25 year olds are like spoiled children. Sad to say, I think our culture produces far more of the latter than it did in 1776.
“Some 15 year olds are hard-working and responsible, some 25 year olds are like spoiled children. Sad to say, I think our culture produces far more of the latter than it did in 1776.”
I do have some concerns over the maturity of the average 18 yo in our society relative to what existed in the late 18th century. However, I strongly believe this decision to be the correct one. Altering Constitutionally guaranteed rights based on a perceived change in societal norms since those rights were articulated is a downward slope that we very much need to steer clear of. The solution to any dilemma posed here is for us to demand and foster changes in our society that mitigate toward increased maturity for 18 yo citizens.
A share concerns the same as yours….there are some very immature, and deranged young men, who are socially disconnected, and addicted to dark internet trash and video game fantasies of bravado.
My understanding of how militias were run in the 1770s: A Militia Captain had broad powers and responsibilities to see that firearms were used properly. He had the power to disarm the mentally-ill, the habitual drunkard, the senile, the criminally-minded…all on his own judgment. This is what was meant by “A well-regulated militia…”
Therefore a historical interpretation of the 2nd Amendment supports some level of decentralized, non-governmental supervision. I’d like to see gun-owners under 25 have a co-sponsor, who takes up liability for misuse of the firearm. That older person can revoke sponsorship of s/he finds their charge is involved in crime, or going through mental instability.
There are rights to public safety as well as individual rights. They have to be kept in balance.
Pb
In the 1770’s the militia was comprised of the men of the area. They were organized by Camp number, and the population was less than 40M people in the USA. These people were living in the wilderness, carving out their lives. I would believe they all knew how to safely carry a firearm and reckless discharge was not so much a concern. Those were blackpowder and flintlock weapons, a beast unto itself. If it was raining or moisture, good luck getting a charge ignition.
No one cares what you would like to see, that’s absolutely ridiculous. Gun Owners under 25, why not 30? How about if they do harm with their weapon they alone are responsible. Under 18 they should need the approval of their parents to purchase, no criminal record or emotional problems by either party might be more reasonable.
Again, not obnly can’t he think and write clearly, he smells like an old fish.
BTW, cuture is not the approriate word, cultures do not produce, a society does.
Society, culture… seems like a distinction without a difference. And throwing in the odd French noun does not make you smart. I suspect you are a social sciences type.
From my point of view the mapping between society and culture is one to one and onto.
So the thought at the USDC was that an 19 year old soldier, who is armed with a variety of weapons, who can vote, smoke, sign contracts, wed, and do all things otherwise left to adults (except buy alcohol – another inane restriction in view of the foregoing), cannot legally buy a handgun. Ludicrous
Whig98, Agreed. If there is going to be a legal age of majority it can’t be nonuniform. As a complement to that, personal responsibility needs to be a part of the culture from the egg.
NB: some gangs use minors to commit violent crimes. I’m not against charging violent crimes uniformly to some age below the age of majority.
Whew, anothetr wacky comment. Whoever you are, please stay away from people. “from the egg”. What degenercy.
Anonymush, You like to cast aspersions but offer nothing in the way of honest reasoning.
Oh, btw, from the egg simply means from the beginning. In case you wondered.
Reasonable people get it, the uniform establishment of reasonable regulatory limits. Cradle to grave so to speak like RCRA! Annoyingus has the problem of being dropped on his egg early on in the game, how dare we initiate cultural changes to include all Americans that promote health, safety, responsibility and sense of duty to the fundamental basis of our nation…oh the horrors…Nazis/s!