Richardson reasons that (1) the age of majority at the Founding was 21, but (2) people as young as 16 were forced into militia service, so (3) people aged 18-20 today have a freestanding right to bear arms that is completely unattached to military service. Does that track?
https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1415054386141741066
If the age of militia service at the Founding dictates the age at which people can buy guns now, why don't 16-year-olds have a right to bear arms? Richardson says 21 is arbitrary, but isn't 18 just as arbitrary? Shouldn't 16-year-olds have a right to bear arms under his analysis?
Also, *why* does the age of militia service at the Founding dictate the age at which people can buy guns today? If the Second Amendment is now totally detached from military service, why does the age of 1791's militiamen bear on when modern people can guy guns for self-defense?
Put differently, if the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, why does the age at which boys were forced into the militia matter? Doesn't this analysis conflate a collective right (to maintain state militias) with an individual right?
https://twitter.com/AnthonyMKreis/status/1415314604662693889
Richardson simply cannot show that people age 18-20 had a right to buy firearms *for individual self-defense* in the 1790s, so he conflates mandatory militia service with an individual right to bear arms. It's a sleight of hand that cannot withstand serious scrutiny.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
