Monday, February 24, 2014
Supreme Court Denies to Hear Gun Law Challenges
This article is about how the Supreme Court declined to review two cases involving the rights of those under 21 to own handguns today. One of these cases involved someone trying to challenge a law in Texas prohibiting people 18-20 years old from obtaining permits to carry handguns. Personally I am glad the the Supreme Court declined to review this case because I find it unnecessary for people that age to be carrying a gun around town. What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
While I don't necessarily agree with the Supreme Court's decision not to even hear the cases, I see no reason for those laws to be ruled unconstitutional. I cannot think of a single reason why anyone would need to carry a handgun (other to protect themselves from other people carrying handguns - but that's another story) especially if they are under the age of 21. Nothing good can come from (mostly) immature young people having the ability to carry and own a handgun.
ReplyDeleteI believe that individuals who have reached the age of adulthood should be allowed to own handguns. Thus, I believe that the Supreme Court should have enforced the second amendment protection guaranteed to individuals who are prospective gun owners. However, I do so only because of my belief that the laws must be upheld (and given the fact that the Bill of Rights, applied to Congress under the 14th amendment to the Constitution, is the Supreme Law of the Land, this must be upheld). However, I personally object to the 14th Amendment’s weakening of the Bill of Rights and believe that this Amendment ought to be the subject of revision (or at minimum stricter interpretation) in order to strengthen the rights of the states.
ReplyDeleteThough I think the court cases should've been heard, I am happy that people under the age of 21 can't purchase handguns. I can only imagine the awful things that could happen. Increased school shootings, gang violence, and then just general stupidity running amuck. Can you imagine people in 12th grade carrying guns? Even just looking at the general population of seniors at Penncrest I'm thankful 18 year olds can't own guns. What if people brought their guns to parties? The list of bad scenerios goes on and on.
ReplyDeleteI am all for stricter gun control laws and upholding the Texas law to prohibit those under the age of 21 from obtaining permits to carry handguns is a good thing. I don't think these challenges would have won if they were heard in court. Declining to even listen to these challenges prevented a long and costly battle. Besides, as others have said, nothing good can come from young people owning handguns. People age 18-21 are among the most impulsive of any age group and I can only imagine the negative consquences that would occur as a result of access to handguns
ReplyDeleteI don't think there is really much to say about this. I can't think of any possible rationale as to why people of that age should I have the need to carry guns. Self-defense isn't even that strong of an argument for this. If you are carrying a gun at that age, you are most likely looking for trouble, and therefore shouldn't have one.
ReplyDeleteOn one of the late-night talk shows I remember someone saying "Carrying a gun in case you need to defend yourself is like carrying chicken around in case you get hungry." I don't know why this article made me think of that, but it did. I feel that there is no reason at all for anyone to be carrying weapons of any sort around. I agree with you Olivia; our age group is the most impulsive and I wouldn't feel comfortable knowing that the person behind me in the mall is carrying a handgun. There is already enough fear spread around.
ReplyDeleteI agree that people aged 18-20 should not own handguns. Just as people under 21 are not allowed to drink alcohol, the government can make certain laws apply to people of different ages differently. I don't believe it violates the Constitution to distinguish between 18-year-olds and 21-year-olds. When 18-year-olds can independently own handguns, there arises greater possibility for gun violence among high school students. In general, I support measures to reduce gun violence, and I believe that this law helps accomplish that.
ReplyDeleteI disagree. At 18 one can serve his country, operate heavy guns, and kill people on deployment. If we give those people responsibility in a foreign country why not give them it here? People say when you turn 18 youre "legal", but that is not true. I say we keep all legalities the same age, have some consistency for a change.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ethan. I believe that if you can serve in the military at 18 and handle really lethal fire arms, then you should be able to carry a handgun at 18. Also, i think the Supreme Court did a horrible job here only because they didnt even review the case. It is their job. Why wouldnt they? All they have to say is "no" and the case is over. Instead, they make themselves look bad and not even review the case.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Ethan and Steve. Just because someone enlists in the army doesn't mean they are automatically are given a gun and furthermore they are given a specific purpose when given firearms. A 18-20 year has no instruction or reason for a handgun. If he were be able to purchase one. It's a scary thought to have an impulsive young person with no gun education carrying around a handgun in public.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Ethan and Steve. Just because someone enlists in the army doesn't mean they are automatically are given a gun and furthermore they are given a specific purpose when given firearms. A 18-20 year has no instruction or reason for a handgun. If he were be able to purchase one. It's a scary thought to have an impulsive young person with no gun education carrying around a handgun in public.
ReplyDelete