I read a letter to the editor in the Spokesman-Review today that was pretty interesting.   Kayela Robertson of the Spokane Valley made the point that her twenty-year-old husband cannot legally carry a handgun in this state despite the fact that he has served in the U.S. Army.  See letter.   Kayela writes: “At 18 years old, he signed away his life to the Army, yet, due to his age, he can’t legally…carry around a pistol for protection.”  Generally speaking, under RCW 9.41.240, a person under 21 can only carry a pistol if they are in their own home, on their own property, or at their own place of business. The legislature enacted this law in 1994, and at the time their reasoning was as follows: “The legislature finds that the increasing violence in our society causes great concern for the immediate health and safety of our citizens and our social institutions. Youth violence is increasing at an alarming rate and young people between the ages of fifteen and twenty-four are at the highest risk of being perpetrators and victims of violence. Additionally, random violence, including homicide and the use of firearms, has dramatically increased over the last decade.”

The idea of younger people with firearms is always an interesting question in court.  In rural areas, firearm possession and use is looked at as part of growing up.  In more urban areas, a young person or a teenager with a firearm is looked at suspiciously, as if the youth in question might have motives related to gang membership.  I have written in the past about possession of weapons by youth in the past.  (See post).   Our society seems to be of two minds when it comes to youth and firearms.  As an attorney who has defended younger people caught with handguns, I never know how the judge or jury will react.  A lot of the perception comes from how a person is raised to look at firearms.

What do people think about Kayela’s point?  I saw that her letter was online, but did not see any comments posted on the Spokesman-Review’s site.  In Idaho, it appears that 18-year-olds can possess handguns.  Should our laws be changed?  Should an exception be made for veterans that are 19 or 2O years old?  Many veterans face adjustment issues when they return to the civilian world?  Is that a fair consideration?

One Response to “Letter Raises Question on Gun Rights for 20-Year-Old Veterans”