There has been a double standard (at least double perhaps double double
) for the between 18 and 21 group.
And parts of it have fluctuated over the years. Like the drinking part. and now, today the guns, too...
I can remember the days when an 18yr old couldn't vote, or buy a beer, but could be sent off to war...
At 18 the Fed govt could put a machine gun in your hands and "send you off to die in a foreign land..." to protect, preserve, and defend our democratic way of life....
You could get married at 18. You certainly had to pay taxes...and you could enlist or be drafted....
Most folks thought it only fair to give 18yr olds the vote, even if it wasn't the smartest idea...
The GCA 68 set the first Federal age limits 18 for long guns, 21 for handguns,
purchased from an FFL dealer.
This is a key point of that law, and one largely ignored today as various states passed their own more restrictive rules over time.
The GCA 68 did not say someone under 21 could not buy, or possess a handgun. Only that they could not buy one from an FFL dealer.
Even in the restrictive state of NY, back in those days, an under 21 person could get a pistol permit, and could buy a pistol second hand or receive one as a gift legally, following the regular permit process, as long as the judge issuing the permit agreed. I was one of those people, back then. I got my NY state pistol permit at age 18, and had my father's pistols listed on it. When my little brother turned 18, he got his, too, with those same guns on it, and for the same reason, in order to be able to legally keep them if something happened to Dad.
This whole idea of everyone under 21 shouldn't be allowed to have a handgun is a rather recent crop of BS.
Sadly as they say, the past is a different country, they do things differently there....
the biggest problem faced by advocates for the rights of the 18-20 group is that no one stays in that group. By the time our system addresses any claim of harm or denial of rights from someone in that age group, they have turned 21 and so, "it no longer matters" ...
yes, it does still matter, but when its no longer an ongoing thing, there isn't the same driving force to correct the problems.
And, the people who claim 18-20yrolds do some (ok, a lot of) stupid stuff aren't wrong, either.
so, where would you draw the line, to be fair? to protect the most people, and, hopefully, trample on the rights of the fewest??
I agree with the reasoning of the decision in general, but I doubt it will stand for much in our world today.
Point here is, if there has to be an arbitrary age limit for all (and not a case by case individual approval system) then shouldn't that limit be uniform, and as fair as possible??
One place I was stationed in the years when I was between 18 and 21, I could drink anything on post (duh) but off post in the civilian world, since I was over 18 I could drink beer but since I was under 21, I could not drink hard liquor. At the time that struck me as most unfair. After all, you get equally drunk on either.
Another place I was during those years, if you went off post, if you were "tall enough to see over the bar", you could drink anything they sold. (Germany)
(and, if you weren't tall enough, you could sit on a stool...
)
So, Uncle Sam puts a machine gun in my hands at 18 but Uncle Joe doesn't think I should be able to touch a pistol until I'm 21....someway, that just don't seem right to me..
)
