Adulthood and the Rite of Passage

When is an Adult an Adult?

A consequence of the recent atrocity in Uvalde, Texas is the typical, left-of-center, knee-jerk reaction wherein “we need to do something” morphs into, “we need more gun control.” As of the writing of this rant, Congress is considering a bevy of eight gun control proposals ranging from the ubiquitous ” ban high capacity magazines,” “ban assault weapons,” and “ban ‘ghost’ guns” to raising the age upon which a citizen can purchase a shotgun, center-fire rifle, and their ammo from 18 to 21. At the risk of vulgarity, “this pisses me off!”

Although all are typical (Karen) anti-gun talking points, raising the age limit seems to be more problematic than the others.

Constitution and Code

To belabor a point, Amendment II of the U. S. Constitution reads, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Militia may be the operative word, here.

§ U. S. Code defines the militia of the United States as “all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and . . . under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard” (10 USC § 246). Thus, U. S. Code suggests males between 17 and 21 constitutionally cannot be deprived of the individual right to keep and bear arms, since they are legally identified as members of the militia necessary to the State’s security.

What is Good for the Goose is Good for the Gander

However, if the penchant of Congress is to raise the age at which a citizen privately can obtain arms, i.e., a shotgun or center-fire rifle, due to the “minor’s” psychological and emotional immaturity, coupled with the implied propensity toward psychological and emotional instability, then it also seems reasonable that the definition of militia in U. S. Code must be modified from “all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age,” to “all able-bodied males at least 21 years of age. . . .” It follows that such a modification would also mean legal minors between 17 and 21 would not be eligible for a military draft, or for voluntary service therein (at least without his or her parent or guardians’ consent), also due to the minor’s propensity toward psychological and emotional instability.

Further, if Congress defines the legal adulthood/rite of passage marker as 21, then Amendment XXVI (the right to vote at 18) must also be repealed since, by Congressional fiat, those under 21 would be psychologically and emotionally ill-equipped to render cogent voting decisions.

“But, . . .”

§ I already hear the rebuttals, “But, we already prohibit drinking alcohol until age 21,” “limit CDLs to age 21,” and so on, ad nauseum. None of those privileges are specifically protected from government overreach and abuse by the Constitution (U. S. Constitution, amend. ii). Thus, they might be regarded as privileges rather than rights (or at least as implied rather than explicitly protected rights per Amendment X).

Another typical “but” is, “Who needs an ‘assault rifle?'” Property ownership in the U. S. is not grounded in need. Otherwise, your Cadillac, Lexus and Tesla might also be deemed illegitimate property–After all, do you really need it?