Young People Deserve Second Amendment Rights too

Several states institute discriminatory policies against young people when it comes to possession of firearms. More and more regulations banning young adults from owning firearms have been popping up all over state legislatures, in the name of “gun control”. But all these regulations do is blatantly discriminate against young people based on nothing but their immutable factors, and prevent them from being able to defend themselves when they are at their most vulnerable.

The most recent law like this has popped up in Virginia. Virginia House Bill 1525 (2026) would raise the minimum age for possessing certain firearms in the state from 18 to 21. Under the bill, individuals under 21 would generally be prohibited from purchasing, possessing, or transporting handguns or “assault firearms,” with violations punishable as a Class 1 misdemeanor. The legislation extends existing Virginia restrictions that currently apply only to minors under 18 and would newly restrict adults aged 18–20.

Several other states already impose restrictions on firearm possession or ownership for individuals under the age of 21, particularly when it comes to handguns. For example, Hawaii requires individuals to be at least 21 years old to acquire or possess a handgun. The state uses a permit-to-acquire system administered by local law enforcement, which effectively prevents people aged 18–20 from legally obtaining or possessing handguns.

Other states regulate under-21 firearm possession through licensing systems. In Massachusetts, individuals must obtain a firearms license in order to legally possess most guns, and the primary license needed for handgun ownership is generally only available to people who are 21 or older. While some limited licenses may be available to those aged 18–20, these typically restrict the types of firearms that can be possessed and impose additional conditions.

Some states explicitly set 21 as the minimum age for handgun possession in statute. Maryland, New Jersey, and New York all generally require individuals to be at least 21 years old to possess or acquire a handgun, typically through a permitting or licensing system administered by law enforcement. These laws often include limited exceptions for activities such as supervised training, hunting, or temporary transfers at shooting ranges.

Now, I’ll circle back to the specific issues with these over 21 firearm laws soon. But I want to make an even broader point about age based firearm restrictions. In all states, minors are completely prohibited from being able to possess firearms, unless there are very specific exceptions such as being supervised by a parent. Just like the laws preventing people under 21 from possessing a firearm, restricting minors from owning firearms are discriminatory and wrong.

Juveniles simply possessing a firearm should not be illegal. If a police officer finds that a young person is in possession of a firearm, that should not be enough to charge them with a crime. The only time they should be charged, is if they are using that firearm to commit a crime, have used the firearm to commit a crime, or there is reasonable evidence to conclude that they were planning to use the firearm to commit a crime. Those three conditions cover every instance where someone would need to be charged with a crime if a police officer finds they are possessing a firearm. This is also how it works for adults… but when it comes to juveniles, they can be completely non-violent with absolutely zero evidence they had ever, or were going to use their firearm for any unlawful purpose, but still will get charged.

The only explanation for this is age discrimination. Putting arbitrary age restrictions on things ignores the context of an individual, and instead lowers everyone to the lowest common denominator. Sure, if a 9 year old was in possession of a gun, it would be reasonable to take it away from them since they wouldn’t know what they were doing. But should they be charged with a crime? Absolutely not. And should 16 and 17 year olds have their freedoms taken away from them, because a 9 year old couldn’t handle the same freedom? Also no.

And focusing on the “context of the individual” aspect is the most important part of this. When buying a firearm, most states already have a licensing process, in which people are background checked, and examined before being allowed to own a gun. This background checking process could easily apply to teenagers and young people as well. If the entity checking them deems that this teenager is too immature, incompetent, and untrustworthy with a firearm, then they wouldn’t receive the license. And if the entity deems that the teenager is responsible and trustworthy, then they should be able to pass and receive the license in the same way the adult can.

And when possessing a firearm, so many crimes already cover potential issues that could arise from certain young people being afforded this right. People often make the argument that if the young person is immature and doesn’t know proper gun safety, then this can be a threat towards others. This behavior can be covered by several other existing laws. If a young person is waltzing around town pointing his gun at everyone, he can be arrested for unlawfully brandishing a firearm, or assault with a firearm if he’s threatening people with it. But if a juvenile is simply minding their own business with a firearm on their person in a lawful public setting, and had no intention to use it for any illegal activity, then they should have the exact same right to possess said firearm as an adult does.

Critics of firearm rights often point to school shootings, saying that when juveniles get their hands on guns, that is what they use them for. But realistically, this is such a small statistic of shootings, and again, it’s based on generalizations and stereotypes from immutable factors. Some minors using guns to murder others, while horrible, should not be a reason to deny all minors the right to own firearms. For example, men commit more gun violence than women. But should all men be denied the right to own firearms? No. African Americans commit more gun violence than other races. But should African Americans be denied the right to own firearms? Also no. And this is because both of those restrictions would be discrimination based on immutable factors. People cannot choose their gender, they cannot choose their race, and they cannot choose their age. People who are responsible with their rights and privileges should never have their freedom taken from them because of the actions of those who are not responsible and choose to do the wrong thing.

As a society, we have progressively moved away from discrimination. Women were given the right to vote, segregation was ended. Anti discrimination clauses were added to our constitution. We have been working to make sure that all genders, races, sexualities, etc, have equal rights. Because of the fact that discrimination based on immutable factors is simply wrong. However, when it comes to age, people throw the anti-discrimination arguments out the window, and generalize all young people as incompetent, or irresponsible, or less smart than adults. When it comes to every other demographic, laws cannot be made to cover them as a whole, and are forced to focus on the context of an individual. But somehow when it comes to age, young people can be arbitrarily denied all of their rights because of a factor about themselves they cannot control.

Every argument about age restrictions goes back to this point. Another counterargument that is used against lowering the age of firearm possession, is the fear that young people will use weapons to commit suicide. Now, this isn’t an unfound claim, as there have been instances of a kid getting a hold of their parent’s firearm, and using it to end their own life. However, this claim is again based on a fallacy. While being allowed to possess a firearm could possibly make this easier for them, it is more likely that a suicidal person would find any way to end their life, and would still be successful with or without the presence of firearms. The fallacy here is that the same logic could apply to adults as well. Any adult could pick up a weapon and use it to end their own life, just as a juvenile could. But yet, there aren’t laws banning firearms for adults based on the same logic.

This is why firearm laws based solely on age are illogical. Most of the issues they attempt to cover, could easily apply to adults as well. But states only get away with restricting the rights of young people, because that’s the most socially acceptable group they can take freedom from.

Now, it’s time to address the elephant in the room. The biggest argument that is often used against second amendment rights like this, is that people just “shouldn’t” be able to own guns. A large percentage of the population would be happy if gun rights were stripped from everyone, regardless of age. So therefore, they do not see a problem with denying gun rights based on immutable factors, because to them? The less guns, the better. Now this would be a valid argument in a perfect world where everyone held hands around the campfire and sang songs all day, but unfortunately that is not the case. In America, violent crimes including assaults, robberies and rape happen frequently. And even more unfortunately, the people who are most likely to be victims of these violent crimes, are those who are younger- and thus, lack the right to own weapons for self defense in many states. Because of this, being able to possess a firearm is instrumental for self defense.

This is where I want to circle back to the earlier laws I discussed, specifically the ones that bar people under 21 from possessing a firearm. Young people are especially vulnerable to violent crime, and these laws prevent them from being able to defend themselves. Violent crime victimization in the United States is heavily concentrated among younger people. Data from the U.S. Department of Justice’s National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) consistently shows that adolescents and young adults experience higher rates of violent crime than older age groups. Individuals under 25 are significantly more likely to be victims of crimes such as robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault, with victimization rates steadily declining as people move into their late twenties and beyond. Researchers often attribute this pattern to lifestyle and environmental factors: younger people tend to spend more time in public spaces, social settings, and nightlife environments where interactions with strangers are more common, increasing their exposure to potential offenders.

Young women in particular face elevated risks of sexual violence. National crime data shows that women between the ages of 18 and 24 experience the highest rates of rape and sexual assault compared to any other age group. Surveys have also found that the majority of female rape victims experienced their first assault before the age of 25, highlighting how sexual victimization is disproportionately concentrated during adolescence and early adulthood.

So according to the statistics, women are the most vulnerable when they are young adults, yet various states prevent them from owning a firearm, and therefore being able to defend themselves against violent crime. 18–20 years old is a very important age for this topic, because this is usually when people are in college. College campuses represent one environment where these risks are especially visible. Multiple national studies have found that sexual assault is a significant issue within higher education settings, with surveys estimating that roughly one in four undergraduate women experience rape or sexual assault involving force, violence, or incapacitation during their college years. The concentration of young adults living, studying, and socializing together in campus communities can create circumstances where sexual violence occurs more frequently than in the general population.

This is the biggest issue with these over 21 laws for firearms. From what all the data is reflecting, young people, especially young women in college campuses are the most vulnerable to all sorts of violent crime including sexual assault. This would be the most important age for young people to be able to have firearms, since they have the greatest chance of being in a situation where they would need to defend themselves from a violent criminal. Yet the law specifically discriminates against them at their time of vulnerability.

The argument people often use against this, is that firearms aren’t actually effective at preventing violence, and instead cause more harm than they’re worth. However, there have been several documented instances of young women using firearms to successfully defend themselves against violent criminals.

One widely cited case occurred in Albuquerque, New Mexico, where a woman shot and killed a man who broke into her home and attempted to assault her. The attacker climbed into her bed while she slept and threatened her with a gun. During the struggle, she managed to gain control of the firearm and shoot him, preventing the attack. Police later discovered that the intruder was a convicted sex offender with a history of burglaries and rape, reinforcing the seriousness of the threat she faced. In another case discussed in court reporting, a woman claimed she shot a man who attempted to rape her.

These instances prove the firearms are effective in helping women defend themselves from attackers. And sure, there are other methods of self defense women could use. Pepper spray is easily usable and concealable. Women also often carry tasers that could hopefully incapacitate attackers. However, it’s just a simple fact that these methods are less effective than firearms. A 250 pound man could overcome being pepper sprayed and overpower a 100 pound woman. The effectiveness of a taser can be reduced if the probes fail to penetrate thick clothing, if the attacker is moving quickly, or if only one probe makes contact with the body. Even when a stun device does make contact, it may only cause temporary pain rather than fully incapacitating the attacker, potentially allowing a determined assailant to continue the attack. The bigger a man is, the more likely he would be to overcome the taser. You know what he couldn’t overcome regardless of his size or toughness? A bullet through his skull.

Imagine those two women didn’t have a firearm because the law prevented them from possessing one? Then what? They’d be forced to rely on ineffective defense methods, which would likely only invigorate their attacker to unleash more fury. Imagine a woman under 21 had a gun, used it to defend herself from a violent robber or rapist, and then when she reported the situation to the police, she herself was charged with a crime for possessing a firearm. This seems ridiculous, right? No one should be punished for defending themselves. But situations like this have arisen recently with weapon possession.

One of the most widely reported cases of this occurred in Sønderborg, Denmark, in 2016. A 17-year-old girl was attacked on a street by a man who forced her to the ground and attempted to remove her clothing, according to police reports. She used pepper spray she was carrying to stop the attacker, who fled the scene. However, the girl herself became the subject of a criminal investigation because pepper spray was illegal for civilians to possess under Danish weapons laws. Authorities said she could face a fine even though she used it to defend herself.

Though this situation happened in Denmark, and involved pepper spray instead of a firearm, the parallels are clear. A young woman used a weapon to defend herself against a violent criminal, but was then investigated as a criminal herself since the weapon was illegal for her to possess.

Situations like this could easily arise in the US as well, especially with an increase of these laws banning young adults from owning firearms. Self defense is never a crime, and should never be treated as one. Young people deserve to defend themselves just as adults can, so therefore young people deserve the right to own a gun just as adults can. Constitutional rights and liberties should never be dependent on an individual’s age. Young people deserve their second amendment.