Constitutional carry for 18 to 21 year olds.

[SSN Vet]

I'm having mixed feelings on this one.

A Maine state rep (libertarian oriented Republican) is trying to drum up support for a bill that would expand constitutional carry to 18 year olds.

Note that the recently passed constitutional carry bill, all ready allows <21 year olds who are active duty military, or vets to carry without a permit.

I'm not sure how one becomes a <21 year old vet, as 2 year enlistments went away ages ago. So unless you got and admin. sep. you'll be at least 22 when discharged.

 

[Sistema1927]

Under our current laws at 18 they are of the age of majority, vote, and serve in the military.

Do some 18 year old persons do stupid things? Sure, but there are also 45 year old persons who do the same. There are some 7 year old boys that I would trust as hunting partners, and some 50 year old "men" that I wouldn't trust with a water pistol.

 

[bearcreek]

Note that the recently passed constitutional carry bill, all ready allows <21 year olds who are active duty military, or vets to carry without a permit.

I'm not sure how one becomes a <21 year old vet, as 2 year enlistments went away ages ago. So unless you got and admin. sep. you'll be at least 22 when discharged.

They could become a vet under 21 by being medically discharged.

 

[Dog Soldier]

I really believe if the Selective Service/Draft was in effect an 18 year old could qualify on that basis. There is no Draft so why should these rights be extended to 18 year olds who are not volunteering?

 

[Sunray]

"...at 18 they are of the age of majority, vote, and serve in the military..." And that's what matters. You're either an adult by law or you're not.
"...18 year olds who are not volunteering..." They're citizens and have the right under your Constitution.
Military service is not a requirement to be U.S. President, so why should it be for CCW? Trump, Obama and Clinton have or had no military service. Neither did any President from Taft to FDR.

 

[Dog Soldier]

Then why does Maine the subject of the thread grant privileges for Military service?

 

[jim in Anchorage]

All this stuff about "active duty military" doesn't mean a thing if your base commander doesn't allow concealed carry off base.
All active duty personal based in Anchorage (joint base Elmandorf/Richerson) CANNOT carry off base despite local law. On order of the base commander.

 

[Telekinesis]

Then why does Maine the subject of the thread grant privileges for Military service?

Just maybe they're wrong? Just because something is legal or illegal doesn't make it right.

I think this whole thing is kinda stupid. You're either an adult or you're not.


Now, If we're talking JUST about Maine, we aren't arguing that the 18-20 year olds shouldn't carry, we're arguing about whether or not they should have to apply for a permit before they can. Maine is shall issue and issues to anyone over 18. I got my Maine permit when I was 19.

From the state police website:

A person who is 18-20 years old and without the referenced military qualifications must have a permit to carry concealed.

Source: http://www.maine.gov/dps/msp/licenses/weapons_permits.html

Also, if you look at page 6 of Mane's Concealed Handgun Booklet linked below, you will see the minimum age set at 18:

25 M.R.S. § 2003. Permits to carry concealed handguns

1. Criteria for issuing permit. The issuing authority shall, upon written application, issue a permit to carry concealed handguns to an applicant over whom it has issuing authority and who has demonstrated good moral character and who meets the following requirements:

1. Is 18 years of age or older;

Source: http://www.maine.gov/dps/msp/licenses/documents/Weapons/CFP Booklet.pdf


So this is really a "some animals are more equal than others" issue. One class of eligible adults must wait and pay a fee to exercise a right while another class of eligible adults can exercise that same right without the wait and fee.

 

[Panzerschwein]

I believe with the increased kidnappings and rapes of young girls, the age should be lowered to about 13 with proper training. Our youth are some of the most vulnerable to attack.

 

[rskent]

Under our current laws at 18 they are of the age of majority, vote, and serve in the military.

I guess I’m the only one who thinks this right here is the problem.

 

[captain awesome]

My maturity level at 18 years old was such that I think it would have been a lousy idea for me to carry. That being said, if 18 is the age they choose for all the other rights and responsibilities as mentioned, then don't cut anything out. If we're old enough to die for our country then we are old enough to enjoy all the rights entitled at any point in adult hood. Jmho
And extending rights to military personnel that are not afforded to someone else all other things equal is a BAD BAD idea..need I say why?

For the record I have a huge amount of respect and gratitude for our service men and women.

 

[Dog Soldier]

Would you also deny veterans the GI Bill to get a college degree? Would you close Veteran's Hospitals? Nations have long awarded special privileges to their soldiers. This goes back thousand of years to Rome and Greece.

 

[TRX]

> They could become a vet under 21 by being medically discharged.

A high-school aquaintance joined the Army in the late 1970s. They had two, three, and four year hitches then. He went in for two, was honorably discharged, and was a veteran when he got out shortly after turning 20. He came home and promptly spent the night in jail for underage posession of alcohol...

 

[CapnMac]

Under our current laws at 18 they are of the age of majority

Actually we have created an asymmetrical majority.
Near universally, despite being franchised to vote, and to enter into contracts, 18 y/o are not allowed to drink. That waits for 21. They also cannot buy homes or rent cars, either--have to be 25 or have a co-signer.

Historically, the age of majority has waxed and waned.

In Jefferson's day, 25 was typically the age of majority--parental consent was required until that age. In the early 1900s, the majority ages was codified as 21. (It was in the 60s 0s that the insurance companies for car rental agencies pretty much banned under-25 drivers as too high a risk--note that is also the age when single male drivers see a discount in their insurance rates, too--acturaial science is dull and boring, but ineorable.)

Note, too, that a person may enlist as early as 16--it just takes written consent of parent/guardian.

The Texas CHL, and now, the LTC, also extends those rights to those honorably discharged from military service who are as young as 18. Now, on average, a 17 y/o is likely going to have to pull a 3 year hitch to get an honorable discharge. Technically, a troop could be discharged after a full combat tour, so that could be as young as 19, if a hair unlikely.

 

[Ryanxia]

Its sad how so many in this thread think its ok to take away an American's Right until someone else thinks they are old enough to be responsible enough. Drinking and renting cars are not Rights. The Second Amendment is, just like the 1st, 3rd, 4th and rest of them something no one is supposed to be able to take away unless you've done something wrong. If you were not responsible at the age of 20 that was your your problem, but no reason to strip others of their Rights.

And let's keep in mind, currently 18-20 can and do carry firearms, that is not the issue in the OP, the issue is eliminating the extra steps and bribes they have to pay to put a jacket on. That's it. As with people of any age, the ones that are up to no good are already putting that jacket on, its only the law abiding that follow laws. Anyone against this Bill being discussed are just against putting a jacket on.

Just like when Maine was fighting to pass Constitutional Carry, everyone came up with these scenarios that could be so bad, but here we are almost 2 years later with no issues. It will be the same with this Bill.

 

[psyopspec]

> They could become a vet under 21 by being medically discharged.

A high-school aquaintance joined the Army in the late 1970s. They had two, three, and four year hitches then. He went in for two, was honorably discharged, and was a veteran when he got out shortly after turning 20. He came home and promptly spent the night in jail for underage posession of alcohol...

I never went to jail for it, but similar case for me when I got back from my first deployment and couldn't attend meetings at the VFW where I was a member since it was a bar. I got my first ccw before 21, and frequently visit a state with under 21 carry provisions. It's never been as big a problem in reality as it is in some people's heads.

 

[PabloJ]

"...at 18 they are of the age of majority, vote, and serve in the military..." And that's what matters. You're either an adult by law or you're not.
"...18 year olds who are not volunteering..." They're citizens and have the right under your Constitution.
Military service is not a requirement to be U.S. President, so why should it be for CCW? Trump, Obama and Clinton have or had no military service. Neither did any President from Taft to FDR.

I agree 18 year olds should have same rights as 21 year olds or much older people. The way things are they should make legal age 21 not 18.

 

[Wisco]

Veterans are very well compensated after their service(certainly not overpaid during active duty) without needing additional rights applied to them and not others. Rights are rights, 18 or 80 years old, applied to all without regard to status.

Would you also deny veterans the GI Bill to get a college degree? Would you close Veteran's Hospitals? Nations have long awarded special privileges to their soldiers. This goes back thousand of years to Rome and Greece.

Earned benefits are not "rights" like bearing arms. The GI Bill is a benefit of service, part of the contract. As is post-service medical care for service-connected disabilities. Special privilege? Maybe, but that's what it takes to get people to put their lives on the line.

Should we assign veterans more free speech? More Fourth Amendment rights? Maybe Sixth Amendment - only a jury of other veterans? I would say no and can't think of a compelling argument for it.

 

[Dog Soldier]

Nothing was said about free speech. Can you carry concealed without earning your rights? Do you pay a fee take required training? I suppose a Veteran would see this from an another point of view. Thanks for you thoughts.

 

[Wisco]

Nothing was said about free speech. Can you carry concealed without earning your rights? Do you pay a fee take required training? I suppose a Veteran would see this from an another point of view. Thanks for you thoughts.

Nothing specifically was said about free speech, but the Bill of Rights, while not all equally applied to the states, all generally apply to the same group of people. There's no special classes of citizens. I'm just thinking that laws shouldn't needlessly exclude some people or accept some over others. (Edit: the 15th and 19th Amendments clearly points out some classes, but for the purposes of more total inclusion.)

And many places one cannot carry without earning the right. It's wrong, but it's law. Same with required training. It's an infringement - same as allowing a 18 year old military member to carry, but not a better trained civilian. It's even more of an infringement than a denial if one is being target for not being a member of a specific class.

I am a veteran. Multiple post-9/11 combat tours which included actual combat. I still don't think I earned any special rights. Privileges, maybe. Rights, no.

 

[Sunray]

"...You're either an adult or you're not..." Exactly.
"...18 y/o are not allowed to drink..." Depends on where you are. The age of majority is the key. And Maine says it's 18. Mind you, the U.S. is one of 4 countries on this planet with a Federal drinking age of 21. Democrats and the MADD lobbyists.

 

[.308 Norma]

Special privilege? Maybe, but that's what it takes to get people to put their lives on the line.

Not always Wisco.
Other than that, I pretty much agree with everything you've said in this thread. And I'm a Veteran too.

 

[Wisco]

Not always Wisco.

You're right! ... Sometimes a draft and people not dodging is what it takes, or the threat of global domination by Nazis, but the volunteer army definitely needs incentives.

I'm always hesitant to thank people for their service, because I don't like the way it feels from people I don't know, so I'll just say - knowing what it takes to serve, I appreciate your service.

 

[.308 Norma]

You're right! ... Sometimes a draft and people not dodging is what it takes, or the threat of global domination by Nazis, but the volunteer army definitely needs incentives.

I'm always hesitant to thank people for their service, because I don't like the way it feels from people I don't know, so I'll just say - knowing what it takes to serve, I appreciate your service.

Thank you. I appreciate your service too.
When I wrote that, I was thinking more of people already in the service who sometimes put their lives on the line by going beyond their calls of duty. I wasn't thinking about the volunteer army we have nowadays. I agree with you - a volunteer army does need incentives.
Sorry for straying off-topic everyone.

 

[Dudedog]

Under our current laws at 18 they are of the age of majority, vote, and serve in the military.

This is what I feel is the main point.
If you are old enough to vote, be drafted, then you should be old enough to own and carry.
Here in CA you you cannot even own a pistol or buy a beer until your 21.
As I recall the State of CA and Federal goverment had no problem collecting income tax from me when I turned 16 and started working....(of course that was years......ago)