Too young to be protected – Digby's Hullabaloo

Too young to be protected

by digby

Following up on my post about the odd fact that the gun lobby isn’t arguing as they usually do that the tragedy wouldn’t have happened if Trayvon Martin had been carrying a gun, I received numerous explanations from gun rights supporters saying that this is because Trayvon was too young to have a gun. Yes, there is a bit of a tautology there, since my argument was that normally they would have been saying that the laws needed to be changed so that a victim of gun violence could have protected himself. After all, there’s a whole movement to allow people to carry guns on college campuses, so the idea that young people should be legally armed for self-protection is not exactly novel.

Still, it’s true that in Florida, the legal age to buy a gun is 18 and Trayvon was about 8 months too young. So, too bad for him, apparently. However, it’s not entirely clear that he couldn’t have been carrying if he’d had his father’s permission:

The minimum legal age requirement in Florida is 18 years old to purchase and possess any firearm.

Florida Statute 790.17 says: Furnishing weapons to minors under 18 years of age or persons of unsound mind and furnishing firearms to minors under 18 years of age prohibited.-
(1) A person who sells, hires, barters, lends, transfers, or gives any minor under 18 years of age any dirk, electric weapon or device, or other weapon, other than an ordinary pocketknife, without permission of the minor’s parent or guardian, or sells, hires, barters, lends, transfers, or gives to any person of unsound mind an electric weapon or device or any dangerous weapon, other than an ordinary pocketknife, commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

(2)(a) A person may not knowingly or willfully sell or transfer a firearm to a minor under 18 years of age, except that a person may transfer ownership of a firearm to a minor with permission of the parent or guardian. A person who violates this paragraph commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

Florida law does not prohibit an 18 year old from purchasing a handgun, however, many FFL dealers will not sell a handgun to an 18 yr. old for a variety of reasons.

I don’t know if it would have been legal for Trayvon to carry a gun to the 7-11 down the street with his father’s permission. But it is clear that he could have legally owned one. So, once again, does the gun lobby think that Trayvon should be allowed to own a gun with his father’s permission but not be allowed to carry it to use in self-defense? Or is there some other reason they aren’t arguing that this particular crime victim should have been allowed to defend himself with his own gun — the argument they have used after every other famous case of gun violence of the past few years?

Maybe they do believe that 17 year olds shouldn’t carry guns, even to defend themselves from stalkers who attack them. That makes sense to me. But then I think people generally shouldn’t carry deadly weapons around in public, no matter what their age. And we all know very well that if Trayvon had been armed, there would be no controversy today about whether or not Zimmerman was within his rights to stalk him and attack him. Indeed, Zimmerman would be hailed a a hero for killing him, regardless of whether or not Trayvon was minding his own business on his way home. So this is an academic argument.

But if those who always argue that more guns not fewer are the answer to gun violence don’t believe that 17 year olds should carry guns, how can they be protected from self-appointed neighborhood “watchmen” like George Zimmerman who are legally carrying a gun and decide to attack them? The only answer the gun lobby has ever had for problems like this has been for more people to carry guns. But that won’t work here. So, what will?

Update: On the other hand, you have Larry Pratt, president of Gun Owners of America with this:

I don’t honestly know if this country can survive this Po-Mo conservatism. That argument turns everything we know about the law and the circumstances upside down and inside out — and I’m sure vast numbers of people are happy to believe it.