The 'Under 21' Argument

You would think we could get some form of consistency here -

The United States may ban federally licensed firearms dealers from selling handguns to people under age 21, an appeals court ruled on Thursday, in a defeat for the National Rifle Association.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Houston rejected the NRA's argument that 18- to 20-year-olds had a right to buy the guns under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as the equal protection clause of the Fifth Amendment.

A unanimous three-judge panel said Congress, in a law dating from 1968, adopted the sales ban to help curb violent crime. It also said that the nation's founders and 19th-century courts and commentators believed that disarming specific groups did not trample on the right to bear arms.

"Congress was focused on a particular problem: young persons under 21, who are immature and prone to violence, easily accessing handguns," mainly from licensed dealers, Judge Edward Prado wrote for the panel.

"The present ban appears consistent with a longstanding tradition of age- and safety-based restrictions on the ability to access arms," he added.

This stuff is getting so convoluted, it's amazing this country functions at all. Which angle is an individual supposed to take this from? Well, let's finish the article first -

In reaching its conclusion, the 5th Circuit also rejected an NRA request that it apply "strict scrutiny" in considering the sales ban.

It said a less rigorous review was appropriate because the law did not prevent 18- to 20-year-olds from using handguns for self-defense and other lawful purposes, and people subject to the ban would eventually surmount it by turning 21.

"The government has satisfied its burden of showing a reasonable means-ends fit between the challenged federal laws and an important government interest," Prado wrote.

Prado was appointed to the 5th Circuit by President George W. Bush. He was joined in his opinion by Judge Carolyn Dineen King, who was appointed by President Jimmy Carter; and Judge Catharina Haynes, who was also appointed by Bush.

Now, I can't speak to any particulars on the case, only on the generalities being offered by the article but the first thing that jumps out at me is that this was a unanimous decision and 2 of the individuals were appointed by...Bush. (So much for the concept of conservatives making important judicial appointments)

You see, the Federal government has taken on this 'interested party' routine a lot lately whereby the conversations are transformed from being a non-existent third party mediating issues to being one of the injured parties. Some of that can be seen in the following comments -

"The government has satisfied its burden of showing a reasonable means-ends fit between the challenged federal laws and an important government interest," Prado wrote.

 Government interests eh? And what are these interests?

"Congress was focused on a particular problem: young persons under 21, who are immature and prone to violence, easily accessing handguns,"

 Ahhhhhh...and now the big evil comes into view. "There ought to be a law..." asserts itself again. In this particular situation, there is a law, but it's not good enough because we don't want something, namely gun violence.

You will routinely find this with free-market tinkerers. Things are good, we just need to tweak it a bit. Of course the cause is always noble and you can count on them being incommunicado when the consequential roosters of their experimentation come home to roost. Perhaps the violence has another cause that you need to investigate, but even that ignores the much larger issues -

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. ~ 2nd Amendment

Oh my, that causes some problems doesn't it? The supreme law says that Congress, which coincidentally gets its authority from the supreme law, cannot infringe the people's rights. Last I checked 18 was considered a person, no?

But this raises a much larger issue that's been finding it's way into the American psyche as of late, specifically tiered rights. We see this with regards to many of the discussion cropping up in judicial circles, social networking, and journalism. Let's examine the example provided -

"Congress was focused on a particular problem: young persons under 21, who are immature and prone to violence, easily accessing handguns,"

 Here's how this conversation should have gone.
"Congress was focused...."
"Do they have authority?"
"No"
"Next item on the agenda."

...buuuuut, that's not how it went. So let's look at the next thought process.

"...young persons under 21, who are immature.."

Now right there, this should give everyone pause. Know why?

No?

Here, I'll give you a hint. According to definition, just who is mature?

Got it? Old people.

The statement made is a relative statement. Of course younger people are immature, they're SUPPOSED TO BE BY DEFINITION. Put another way, are 5 year-olds good with checkbooks? Of course not, they haven't gotten to that point yet. Guess what, 20 year-olds are going to be more prone to violence than 80 year olds because they are young and inexperienced and full of testosterone. (Seriously, watch some toddlers deal with toy distribution once, you'll get the idea.)

The difference between children and 'young adults' is in the legalities of the whole thing. We have decided in this country that 18 is the age at which we will hold individuals, instead of their parents, accountable for their actions. (As an aside, I think a good case can be made for making that age 15-16, if not 13) As such, the first time these individuals start experiencing the full ramifications of their decisions is 18. Some individuals are slow learners and as such, it takes them a few years to learn how not to be an idiot.

In total, this has the real effect of delaying adulthood and responsibility. The stats are bearing this out and the consequences are punishing us. Marriage rates are way down, childbearing is way down, the prison population is exploding and the country's culture is decaying.

However, we've figured out that trying 16 year old murderers works. Why? Because we are holding what should be an adult, to an adult standard. This action has a chilling effect on would be child murderers because they know they can go to jail. (If you doubt this, ask what would happen if ever person under 18 knew they could kill without legal consequence. Hint - The gangs would hire 17 year-olds to do all the shooting because it would be legal.)

Overall, this country thinks it can tweak everything to the point that it will all just...work. This is foolhardy though because moving the standards, also moves the goal post. The harsh reality though is that biology is a constant and the consequences of denying its reality are corroding the pillars of the New Utopian Construct that the elite desire so desperately.