Comments (29) | Add a comment
EDITORIAL
Gun rights
Tools
The U.S. Supreme Court has been, of late, restoring Second Amendment rights taken away by states and cities -- specifically in the overturning of handgun prohibitions in the Heller case out of Washington, D.C., and the McDonald case from Chicago.
But at what age does the constitutional right to own and carry a handgun accrue?
The National Rifle Association has filed suit in federal court in Lubbock, Texas, challenging federal and Texas laws limiting the right to purchase a handgun and obtain a concealed carry permit to those aged 21 or older.
The suit argues, "At eighteen years of age, law-abiding citizens in this country are considered adults for almost all purposes and certainly for the purposes of the exercise of fundamental constitutional rights. "
The plaintiff in the case is James D'Cruz of Lubbock, who was first trained in the handling of firearms by his grandfather, a veteran of World War II. Mr. D'Cruz is a member of the Navy Junior Reserve Officer's Training Corps and is a member of the JROTC's marksmanship team.
Of course there are those who continue to argue only criminals should be allowed to have guns.
A recent editorial in The New York Times, for example, wails over the implications of the success of this lawsuit, projecting images of carnage.
"In its recent Second Amendment rulings," the Times editorialists write, "the Supreme Court struck down complete bans on handgun ownership, but explicitly left room for limits on gun ownership and possession by felons and the mentally ill, and other reasonable restrictions like Texas' age limitations. The Supreme Court has said nothing to suggest that the Second Amendment requires Americans to allow armed teenagers in their communities."
Armed teenagers! What a frightening thought. But hasn't this country long allowed those as young as 17 to enlist in the armed forces and fight -- with real guns?
Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, tells the Austin American-Statesman: "The U.S. Supreme Court clearly stated that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms for all law-abiding Americans. ... That right is not limited only to Americans 21 years of age and older."
The Times calls arming teens "breathtakingly irresponsible," but then admits the criminal ones are already armed.
Citing FBI crime statistics, the Times says 18- to 20-year-olds account for 5 percent of the population but 20 percent of homicide and manslaughter arrests -- apparently contending law-abiding teens should not be allowed to protect themselves from the marauding ones.
In the McDonald case, Justice Samuel Alito spelled out why the 14th Amendment was passed after the Civil War to extend Bill of Rights prohibitions to states as well as Congress. It was specifically to prevent states from disarming free slaves and leaving them at the mercy of armed gangs.
"Evidence from the period immediately following the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment only confirms that the right to keep and bear arms was considered fundamental," Alito writes. "In an 1868 speech addressing the disarmament of freedmen, Representative Stevens emphasized the necessity of the right: 'Disarm a community and you rob them of the means of defending life. Take away their weapons of defense and you take away the inalienable right of defending liberty.'"
But giving teens access to handguns would create a Wild West atmosphere, you protest. Perhaps that would be better than a turkey shoot.
Comments
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The Review-Journal does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please use the Report Abuse button.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
@Malousnormal,
I'm not sure vigilante justice counts as real justice. It's too random. Too many of the innocent get slain along with the wicked.
I know that our courts do put innocent people behind bars. But when we look at percentages of total "convicts" who are later proved innocent vigilante justice loses badly.
2nd post.....a report from Helena Montana in the early 1900s....a guy got off the train from the east and thinking like an eastern crook he proceeded to get the drop on a store owner with his small (cheap) .32 revolver to rob the store....as he had no horse he ran to a rooming house to count his dough...Helena is not Chicago or any eastern town...the store owner had him followed and then gathered the townspeople and with the his and the townspeople's various personal weapons in large pistol calibers like .44-40 and .45 caliber they "ventilated" the crook AND the room where the crook was hiding...end of story...no trial needed....town paid for the burial in potters field....justice delayed is justice denied....
Another vacuous; silly comment by ODJ...I usually read ODJ's first comment so I can figure out what silly take he has on the topic (though they vary so little and contain so little logical content I am not sure if I need to do that again.)...armed teenagers?????The criminal teens ARE armed AND we trust thousands of trained teens to walk point on patrol with M-4s in Afghanistan...what a rube....amazing, then they come home and can't buy a .22 Ruger revolver??????????beyond silly......
There is one glaring problem with this whole story, Americans Rights are not Constitutional!
It works like this, if the US Constitution gave or granted Our Rights, then Govt would have the authority to take tem away. The Declaratin of Independance clearly states where our rights come from. "certain inalienable RIGHTS, ENDOWED to us by our CREATOR." It continues with Life, Liberty, & the Pursuit of Happiness. Self Defense is part of life, don't you think?
In relation to the last sentence of the article I want to point out that the "wild" West was a myth anyway.
Back then violent behavior was so infrequent that bank robbers like Jesse James are remembered by name for more than a century after their death.
Now violence is so common that bank robbery barely makes the news.
We need to remind the liberals of that fact so that hopefully they'll stop trying to scare people based on depictions of the Old West that were never true to begin with.
How do you think we gained our freedom and continue to keep it? GUNS. "History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." HITLER,
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms." HITLER, "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." THOMAS JEFFERSON, Who are you going to pick????
As a liberal Democrat, this is one of the very few times I can completely agree with an R-J editorial. If you are old enough to go off to a foreign war and fight with guns and be killed, then you are old enough to legally be allowed to own a gun in the U.S. I believe 18 should be the legal age for adulthood and full rights as a citizen in all instances, including the legal age for drinking alcohol; and by the way, including the privilege of getting a license to drive a car.
Idiocy comes in all ages. All the "Ages of Adulthood" should be the same, whatever number is used.
@mschafer....so are you proposing a ban on cars since no one wants intoxicated people in control of them either.
@Lawyer... I'll play devils advocate and toss out the flip side of your argument. At what age do you propose REMOVING the right to vote from older Americans? After all, there are as many elderly that are easily confused and duped as there are ones sharp enough to know who and what they are voting for.... See how ridiculous that sounds? Some teens may not make the "correct" choice in your eyes, but they get to make a choice same as you, if you love your country and the constitution, why are you advocating disenfranchising folks based on their age?? You can't be much of a lawyer if you think age discrimination and violation of constitutional rights are a good thing!