Utah lowers conceal carry age to 18

[depserv]

It's too bad there can't be some test for maturity other than chronological age that the law could use, but unfortunately any such test would probably be used by the criminal gangs in government to disarm as many civilians as possible.  So age about has to be used, as flawed as it is.  Maybe some things could be added though, like you have to be a certain age and have a high school diploma and no record as a delinquent, for example.

To me driving is at least as dangerous as being armed.  In fact it can be more so; there is no danger in texting while carrying a gun, for example.  So the age of driving and the age of exercising our right to be armed should be the same.  I would place that age at 18, and I would add having a diploma and no record; otherwise the age for both would be higher.

I remember when I was in junior high school in the mid 60s it was not uncommon for boys my age to have our own .22 rifles and .410 shotguns, and go out shooting cans or rabbits, with no adult supervision.  And before 1968 we could buy a gun mail order.  But we still had less crime then than we do now, including so-called gun crime. 

Clearly the problem is not guns, it's rampant liberalism.  But that's a subject for a different thread.

[Mntnman]

Right now 18 year olds can open carry in Nebraska without a permit and without a shred of training. Seems to be working.

[Les]

Rights come with responsibilities, so my question is does today's average 18 year old understand and practice the responsibilities that go along with this right? Working in retail at a place where I see these young people everyday I would have my doubts that they do. Are there exceptions, yes but the general 18 year old is closer to a 5 year old in actions than an adult. Why, education and family instilling these responsibilities into our youth is a major problem,today's young adults are about their rights and don't worry about when those rights trample on yours and accommodate those rights.

I would tend to think that this is more of a responsibility issue as well, than maturity as the 2 are not necessarily synonymous, case in point, at 13 my son was anything but mature but was responsible with high-powered rifles and shotguns enough for his Dad to allow him to hunt with him and there's many adults that can't say the same.  Depending on the crowd the normal 18 yr old is running with also has a tendency to dictate the level of responsibility shown.  But since many kids aren't now raised with firearms training/familiarization the state has to impose age restrictions.  Interesting discussion for sure.  Many good points. 

[Mntnman]

But since many kids aren't now raised with firearms training/familiarization the state has to impose age restrictions.

I disagree. The problem started when the idea that we need restrictions gained acceptance. We care enough about preserving our rights to participate in gun rights groups and yet we are so conditioned that we only want limit the restrictions put on us, not go back to the way it rightfully was. We are our worst enemies.

There are ways to address the concerns that hang some of you up that aren't counter to having the rights we naturally possess. Every time we go along with a restriction "for the greater good", we put another crack in the foundation of liberty.

[Les]

I disagree. The problem started when the idea that we need restrictions gained acceptance. We care enough about preserving our rights to participate in gun rights groups and yet we are so conditioned that we only want limit the restrictions put on us, not go back to the way it rightfully was. We are our worst enemies.

There are ways to address the concerns that hang some of you up that aren't counter to having the rights we naturally possess. Every time we go along with a restriction "for the greater good", we put another crack in the foundation of liberty.

I worded that sentence poorly, I didn't mean the State had to but it has happened over the years, I've seen the effects of not raising kids around firearms, but I agree with most of your points.  It is sad we've come to except these restrictions from government.

[Nebfamman]

delete

[Mntnman]

You must prove your ability and knowledge of the safe rearing of a citizen and then beheld socially and financially responsible for all the actions of said citizen until they reach a socially acceptable level of maturity.

Actually, they would prefer you hand your children over to the state so that they can raise them to be completely dependent for every aspect of security and well being. We have already headed so far it that direction. (State as in government, not Nebraska, of course.)

Great post, you get it!

[Mntnman]

As you can see, everyone has their own idea of standards for someone else to be able to exercise their rights. What we have to realize is that it opens us up for our rights to be taken by others' standards.

We really need to wrap our heads around the fact that rights come with risks. We have to accept that just because the idea of some exercising their rights is scary to us, it does not make us right to deny their liberty. The left does that for us enough.

Once someone has abused a right, then we can talk about whether or not they should keep it. Also, once someone has fulfilled a debt to society, they too, should have their rights back.

[Mntnman]

This thread is a great illustration why our very wise forefathers founded a Constitutional Republic instead of a Democracy. They knew that the majority would vote away the rights of the minority.

[DanClrk51]

I disagree. The problem started when the idea that we need restrictions gained acceptance. We care enough about preserving our rights to participate in gun rights groups and yet we are so conditioned that we only want limit the restrictions put on us, not go back to the way it rightfully was. We are our worst enemies.
There are ways to address the concerns that hang some of you up that aren't counter to having the rights we naturally possess. Every time we go along with a restriction "for the greater good", we put another crack in the foundation of liberty.

Right on! It's simple, prosecute people for their violent actions instead of infringing on rights based on the perception of possible negative actions and leave everyone else alone. Period.

[David Hineline]

I demand state's rights to choose, unless it's something I want then I demand the Federal mandate to the states the law.