I’ve been thinking about laws concerning age controls on guns. I am willing to concede that limiting access may play a small part in effective gun regulations however I have some questions.
Will laws concerning raising the age to buy guns be patterned after the current laws dealing with cigarettes, marijuana and alcohol and if so is there any reason to believe that they will be more effective?
Will the proposed laws also ban the use of guns under a certain age or just the sale?
Can a parent give a legally purchased gun or its use to their child ?
How will this affect the illegal transfer of, gifting of, or the testamentary transfer of weapons from non parents?
If use or ownership is banned will there be a requirement that the millions of now illegal guns be turned over to authorities or held in trust until the owner is of legal age and if so will current underage but legal owners be compensated for loss of ownership and material use if not allowed to keep their guns. If guns are seized from underage owners how will that fit in with 4th amendments protection against search and seizure as the courts have held that underage individuals may not normally be denied rights before majority ?
Doing something just to be doing something is rarely effective, Is it true that gun laws such as these being proposed , no matter how well meaning and sounding, will at best move the age of atrocity commission back 3 years for a very limited group of malcontents and are highly unlikely to even accomplish that?
I know that this position is going to upset many of you. Rather than attacking my intelligence or me personally perhaps you should try to answer the questions posed above. And also the more important question, “Which is worse, a law that appears to do something but accomplishes nothing or no law at all.