Firearms Owners Against Crime
Institute for Legal, Legislative and Educational Action
Institute for Legal, Legislative and Educational Action
During an intriguing video discussion between John Lott, founder and president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, and Frank Miniter, editor-in-chief of NRA’s America’s 1st Freedom Magazine, both men dissected the pipe dream by gun banners to raise the legal age for gun ownership to 21. They questioned the basis of the arguments for the increase and noted the implications for the Second Amendment.
Lott highlighted the fact that the freedom-haters calling for raising the legal age for a gun purchase frequently point to the “relatively high crime rates committed by 18, 19, and 20-year-olds.”
However, he argued that the proposed laws ignore a crucial distinction of the difference between criminals/gang bangers and law-abiding 18 to 20 olds that subject themselves to government background checks.
“The type of people who you’re stopping now[by raising the age], because you’re not allowing them to go through the background check, they’re not the same as the other ones who aren’t going through a background check,” Lott noted, suggesting that the proposed law might be misdirected.
The researcher further delved into the matter, offering compelling data from Nevada, Texas, and Michigan [embeded below].
That data showed 18, 19, and 20-year-old concealed carry permit holders, who undergo background checks, actually have lower rates of firearms convictions than people who are 21 and older.
Lott pointed out that the analysis of crime rates should not be generalized for all individuals in an age group, as the proposed law would affect only those eligible for gun purchases under the current rules.
Lott also drew attention to the historical precedents of firearm legislation, indicating that the proposed age limit could face legal challenges in light of the Constitution’s Second Amendment. He noted that during the late 18th and 19th centuries, the laws actually mandated young adults of certain age groups to own a rifle, a stark contrast to today’s calls for increased age restrictions.
Self-Defense & Running Out The Clock
Another point of discussion was the potential effect of the proposed changes on individuals who may need a firearm for self-defense. “They’re victims of crime too,” Lott stated, mentioning the potential dangers faced by 20-year-old women who may be stalked or threatened. According to him, these individuals might be left defenseless if they can’t legally purchase a firearm or are forced to wait, as in the tragic case of New Jersey’s Carol Bowne.
The potential for legal challenges to the proposed age increase was also explored, with Lott commenting on the varying perspectives of the Supreme Court justices, hinting at the potential for a shift in the court’s view on the Second Amendment due to the advancing ages of Justices Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito.
During the conversation, Miniter reiterated the importance of considering the Heller and McDonald decisions, two key Supreme Court rulings that upheld the individual’s right to bear arms. He expressed concern about the possibility of a shift in the court’s composition that could lead to a reversal of these landmark decisions.
Both Lott and Miniter indicated that the debate around increasing the legal age for gun ownership creates a complex interplay of individual rights, crime prevention, and legal interpretation.
It seems the easiest solution for this “fix” in search of a problem is to KISS[keep it simple stupid] and stick with the original “right to keep and bear arms, shall Not Be infringed” for adults 18 and older.