The Second Amendment says our right "to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It doesn't say there's an age limit on that right, though. Sure, it only applies to adults, but at what point is someone an adult?
Today, it's 18. We give people full rights at that age...or do we? Carrying a gun, for example, is restricted here in Georgia to those over 21.
And now, a case is going before the state Supreme Court that seeks to change that.
Nearly 200 years of legal precedent should not apply to a 20-year-old man who wants to carry a gun, his lawyer argued before the Georgia Supreme Court on Tuesday.
...
Georgia’s constitution elaborates by saying that the legislature “shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne.”
A lawyer from Attorney General Chris Carr’s office argued that the state’s age-based limitations date back to the Civil War era, when he said those under 21 were not subject to militia service.
“The court should stick with the analysis that it’s applied for 180 years,” said Zachary A. Mullinax, an assistant attorney general. “I don’t think that there is any historical evidence that an 18-year-old had the right to carry a handgun in public.”
But Stephens’ lawyer made the case that Georgia’s restrictions are rooted in a time before courts began applying a higher standard on government intrusion into personal liberties.
The fact that Carr's office is arguing this way is a surefire way to make sure he never gets a vote from me again.
Back during the Civil War era, we did a lot of stupid stuff here in the state, including that whole slavery thing that was a terrible thing from the start. But during that time, as I understand it, people under 21 weren't really treated like adults anyway. While they weren't subject to militia service, they also couldn't enter into contracts like an adult today can.
As such, this is some final vestige of an age of majority that doesn't apply anymore.
However, this is also the state Supreme Court. They're going to consider things differently than SCOTUS might, which means there's a chance this will hold.
If it does, though, the legislature can step in and fix this next session, which they should.
Look, adults under 21 can own handguns. They can't buy them from licensed dealers, but they can own them. The fact that they can't carry them in a constitutional carry state--and if we're being completely fair, it's not very constitutional if this group of adults can't carry--is absolutely ridiculous.
I know all of the arguments about younger adults and their brain development that anti-gunners like to throw around. In fact, I agree that the brain is still undeveloped until they turn 25. I mean, it's just biology. How can I disagree with it?
What I disagree with is the idea that this somehow justifies curtailing one specific right while leaving everything else. If impulsivity is the problem, then why do we let them sign contracts that could screw up their lives for decades? Why do we let them get married when that could potentially lead to all kinds of problems as well? Why do we let them do anything as adults?
If we're going to decide they can't be trusted with guns, then they shouldn't be trusted with any of their other rights.
Unless those are on the table, I'm not interested in talking about the right to bear arms.
Georgia's Supreme Court should, in a just world, rule that the age limit is unconstitutional. Unfortunately, we don't have a particularly just world. We're stuck with this one, and I'm going to be interested to see how the court rules on this one.
