A bigger picture on gun rights

I've read through the 2nd Amendment and cannot find an age requirement to bear arms anywhere in there. Is there an age requirement that someone knows of?

The reason I ask this is the new regulation that is happening in a few States, with some States moving the age up to 21. People are saying this is unconstitutional and they want it repealed but I see a greater issue here. If there is NO age requirement in the Constitution then the States have every right to self-regulate, correct? People can vote and regulate themselves within a State, correct?

IF such law that the State imposes could be federally challenged and repealed, does that not mean that the States lose a Constitutional right to self-regulate? States do actually have a Constitutional right to self-regulate, and age on the 2nd amendment is not Constitutionally protected. It is obvious which one should be fought for and protected.

All of this seems far, far worse to me than it appears on the surface. The government may use the momentum from the pro-gun people, who may not understand the Constitution well, and use that to repeal these laws and by doing so set a dangerous precedent of eroding the State rights to self-regulate.

So, I am hoping to discuss this with people who know the Constitution and stand up for it. Is it worth losing State rights over an age which is not mandated in the Constitution? This seems to me like a Republican dream and nightmare, wrapped into one. But the people I talked to seem so hell-bent on the age being unconstitutional, they are completely willing to forego the Constitutional State rights. I don't know how to explain it to them that this is very short-sighted and potentially dangerous thinking.

I had a .22 rifle when I was still in elementary school.
I got a 12 gauge shotgun for my 12th birthday.
To this day I have never shot anyone who didn't deserve it.

a reply to: Mahogany

"The right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

Think that says it all.

originally posted by: skunkape23
I had a .22 rifle when I was still in elementary school.
I got a 12 gauge shotgun for my 12th birthday.
To this day I have never shot anyone who didn't deserve it.

That's good news, ape. On topic, though...

If your State imposed an age on owning, would you support that or be against it?

Do you think State rights to self-regulate trump age limitations? An age does not seem to be in the Constitution, which would mean a State can legally impose one.

What would you choose? I have a feeling you will also say guns over State rights. Correct?

a reply to: skunkape23

You imply by this that you have shot someone who deserved it. Was that in the military? Were you a soldier under orders to shoot the enemy? Or was it you decided in civilian life to shoot someone who you deemed deserving of being shot. What was your criteria?

.... pro-gun people, who may not understand the Constitution well ....

Is this a troll? No really is this an attempt at trolling?

IOW, lolwut?

edit on 11 10 2018 by Cohen the Barbarian because: (no reason given)

edit on 11 10 2018 by Cohen the Barbarian because: (no reason given)

originally posted by: theatreboy
a reply to: Mahogany

"The right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

Think that says it all.

I think so too. Vermont seems to be ok with it at 16. Some states at 21. Is it up to the States to regulate this, and what do you say to short-sighted people who do not get this?

originally posted by: Cohen the Barbarian
.... pro-gun people, who may not understand the Constitution well ....


Is this a troll? No really is this an attempt at trolling?

Because owning a gun makes you a legal expert?

What's your implication, please state it.

a reply to: Mahogany

So you are arguing that states can determine WHEN an individual can exercise a Constitutional right.


Would you argue for a state changing the voting age, or not allowing someone of a certain age to have free speech?

a reply to: Mahogany
States Rights is the 10th Amendment and you can’t lose that.

a reply to: Mahogany

Interestingly...some of our Revolutionary War militiamen before, during and after the Constitution was created, drafted and signed...were only 14 years old...defending us, the Constitution...and bearing arms.

originally posted by: Mahogany

originally posted by: Cohen the Barbarian
.... pro-gun people, who may not understand the Constitution well ....


Is this a troll? No really is this an attempt at trolling?

Because owning a gun makes you a legal expert?

What's your implication, please state it.

It's your implication I'm referring to. If there is ignorance regarding the Constitution/Second Amendment it's on the part of the left. And, in general, I'd say most gun owners know a lot more than most non gun owners about 2A. Also, the SC already parsed the sentence with the phrase "well-regulated militia," so arguing over that is pointless. Note the majority opinion: www.washingtonpost.com...

a reply to: Mahogany

No, there wasnt until the government changed its meaning.

As they changed the meaning of the word "militia".


George Mason, father of the US Bill of Rights, said:

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
- George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

"All able bodied males" was changed to impose an age restriction.

Don B. Kates, Jr., Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment, 82 Mich. L. Rev. 204, 215 n.46 (1983)
(stating that militia in colonial times included males aged 15, 16, or 18 [and even younger] through 45, 50, or 60, depending on colony).

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes.

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age

And for those who argue that the militia is the national guard, thats another lie.

(b) The classes of the militia are —

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

a reply to: Mahogany

Let's get this out of the way, I am VERY Pro 2nd Amendment.

Now that my disclaimer is out of the way, I shall address what you have asked about. No, the 2nd does not specify an age, nor does it specify an age in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Therefore, your assessment is correct and the states have every right to self-regulate and impose an age requirement because of the 10th Amendment, which states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

However, because of the "shall not be infringed upon" part of the 2nd, it does become a bit convoluted. This is what other Pro 2nd Amendment folks use to argue many of the gun laws. In my opinion, it does not hold water because there have been numerous laws upheld at the state and federal level that have already "infringed upon" certain people's right to bear arms. The federal government imposed an age requirement on the purchase of long guns and handguns. Because of that, the states are now able to impose age requirements and raise them to 21. The Gun Control Act of 1968 raised the federal age requirement to 21 for a handgun and that was not overturned by the SCOTUS. This opens the door for states to put any age requirement they want, just as long as it meets the minimum federal requirements. I am not a lawyer so it is entirely possible that I'm wrong but that is how I'm seeing things.

My personal opinion is that states should have more rights to regulate so, even though I do not agree with the raising of age requirements, I feel they have the right to do it and I fully support the states' choices to legislate themselves.

a reply to: theatreboy

That seems to translate to "any age".

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Mahogany

So you are arguing that states can determine WHEN an individual can exercise a Constitutional right.


Would you argue for a state changing the voting age, or not allowing someone of a certain age to have free speech?

So, you are advocating gun rights at birth?

Wanna reconsider your position before I point out how ridiculous and illegal that statement is. All States have a gun age. And they differ. They are not federally imposed.

Go ahead, prove me wrong.

originally posted by: Tanga36
a reply to: Mahogany

Let's get this out of the way, I am VERY Pro 2nd Amendment.

Now that my disclaimer is out of the way, I shall address what you have asked about. No, the 2nd does not specify an age, nor does it specify an age in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Therefore, your assessment is correct and the states have every right to self-regulate and impose an age requirement because of the 10th Amendment, which states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

However, because of the "shall not be infringed upon" part of the 2nd, it does become a bit convoluted. This is what other Pro 2nd Amendment folks use to argue many of the gun laws. In my opinion, it does not hold water because there have been numerous laws upheld at the state and federal level that have already "infringed upon" certain people's right to bear arms. The federal government imposed an age requirement on the purchase of long guns and handguns. Because of that, the states are now able to impose age requirements and raise them to 21. The Gun Control Act of 1968 raised the federal age requirement to 21 for a handgun and that was not overturned by the SCOTUS. This opens the door for states to put any age requirement they want, just as long as it meets the minimum federal requirements. I am not a lawyer so it is entirely possible that I'm wrong but that is how I'm seeing things.

My personal opinion is that states should have more rights to regulate so, even though I do not agree with the raising of age requirements, I feel they have the right to do it and I fully support the states' choices to legislate themselves.

Thank you for your educated response. It is sad you got no stars for describing how this works legally.

Instead, opinionated drivel gets all the attention as usual. I was truly hoping for a conversation here, not what page 1 looks like. Guess I can't hope for more out of a website like this, but I thank you for your response.

a reply to: Mahogany

Instead of trying to play your little game why not just come out and say what you really want to say about our 2nd amendment rights.

I hate these stupid games played by the left.

The 2nd Amendment states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

But, just as you have pointed out, it does not address age in its entitlement, nor does it specify what is to be defined as “arms”; the 2nd does not say “the right to bear firearms shall not be infringed”.

We’ve always assumed that the Founders meant firearms, but, as per your argument, since they did not specifically state as such, wouldn’t it be up to the states to decide?

originally posted by: theatreboy
a reply to: Mahogany

"The right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

Think that says it all.

if it said it all then you would have posted it all.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

also if it says it all then there would not be constitutional lawyers arguing this # every day with interpretation and precedent
but there is

On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. Under this "individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional.

On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Scholars have come to call this theory "the collective rights theory."

people like you always come in with
"the right to bear arms....."
then boom. drops the mic like you figured it all out.

this # is complicated. there are people far smarter than all of us that have studied this and the law that can not agree on what the founders meant.

this # is complicted.

i wish people would at least agree with that

if it is so cut and dry why are these issues in court?
why are there constitutional lawyers?

its cut and dry right?
whats to argue then?

but we took civics 20 years ago in high school and read rightwing.net and wikipedia so we have it all figured out