The social concepts of childhood and adulthood are relatively recent inventions.
Most of history, if you were old enough to breed, you were out on your own.
If a person, regardless of age, has the mental maturity and capacity to possess a weapon, he should be able to do so.
18 is pretty much the accepted line for most purposes (alcohol and tobacco aside), so it is probably a good point for weapons ownership.
At that time, the Colonies still followed British law regarding adulthood. The age of an adult was 21, but the age of ādiscretionā (at which age the individual could make certain decisions on their own) was 14. Boys age 16 became eligible and obliged for the Militia and could join the army or navy without parental approval.
All weapons, or just handguns? What about hunting?
What about hunting?
For what itās worth, my own kids started hunting about age 7. Which is pretty typical around northeast Pennsylvania.
As for ownership, handguns, shotguns, rifles, blades, etc. at 18. Maturity is maturity so the type of weapon makes little difference.
Yeah, thatās what I am getting at. I suppose you can āgiveā a kid a gun, but he doesnāt actuality own it.
In light of Bruen, do you think the Supremes would entertain a younger age for hunting rifles?
No, there was manhood and freedom.
Those last two paragraphs seem like a contradiction.
Ownership and eligible to purchase are two different things. Your 7-yr-old child could legally own his hunting rifle, but you (or someone else) would have had to purchase it.
Which is a straw purchase in hoplophobe eyes.
There are no limits on ownership, unless under Court Order following Due Process to suspend your right to keep and bear.
