Anytime the penalty for breaking the law is worse than what harm the law seeks to protect you from, its time to rethink the law. I haven’t bothered to research it, but I would bet that most adult drinkers had their first drink when they were about 16 … or younger.
That said, I would hate to see a bunch of 16-yr-olds frequent my favorite watering hole.
It is still a State decision, but defying the Feds by lowering the smoking (and/or drinking) age comes with a financial penalty in the loss of formula distribution of Federal Funds.
If an 18 year old can drive, vote, buy smokes and learn to handle a rifle in the U S Armed Forces, than he/she should be eligible for a carry conceal. As pointed out by another poster, it would also make sense to lower the drinking age to 18.
Yes. When you serve, you are issued somebody else’s rifle. It goes back to an armory when you don’t need it. And you never get live ammo unless you are in some type of live fire exercise with NCO’s and officers in charge. Most monkeys are more responsible with firearms than teenagers.
My state of residence, though, Massachusetts, a student must be a minimum of 15 years & 9 months to even learn to drive, so probably these teens are closer to 17 when they take their Operators License test & drive by themselves.
That’s my point. If you’re 18 & driving, particularly if in the service & learning to handle a rifle, why if passing a background check shouldn’t you be able to carry conceal?