Congress Is Pushing a Higher Age Requirement for Assault Rifles. Will It Matter?

“If you can’t buy a beer, you shouldn’t be able to buy a weapon of war.”

Oliver Contreras/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

On Wednesday, Sens. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) introduced a new bill that would raise the minimum age required to buy an assault weapon from 18 to 21. The bipartisan legislation came on the heels of a meeting on gun safety at the White House between President Donald Trump and members of Congress from both sides of the aisle. During the meeting Trump appeared eager to embrace a number of gun control measures. 

In the statement announcing the legislation, Feinstein referred to the ability of 18 year olds to purchase assault weapons as “dangerous” and making “absolutely no sense.” She added, “While we need to do much more to reform our gun laws, ensuring teenagers can’t legally buy weapons of war is a commonsense step forward.”

Because of a quirk in federal law, an individual has to be 21 to buy a handgun, but rifles and other long guns are readily available to 18-year-olds. According to Slate, the Gun Control Act of 1968, which raised the age to purchase handguns to 21, focused on handguns because those were routinely used in crimes and assault rifles were not yet widely available. But now that they are, they’ve been used in several mass shootings. The Parkland shooter, Nikolas Cruz, is 19 and legally obtained an AR-15 to slaughter 17 of his former classmates and teacher.

“This bipartisan fix is long overdue, and would’ve made as much sense before the tragedy in Parkland as it does after,” Flake said in the statement. “I hope we can work together to get this passed and signed into law without delay.”

But “working together,” passing a new measure, and receiving a presidential signature to make it law may not be as seamless as Sen. Flake hopes. At Wednesday’s meeting, Trump appeared to be open to a whole range of gun control measures including the idea of raising the age for the purchase of assault weapons, an idea he first floated last week. But on Thursday, he tweeted that some “not so good ideas” had come out of the gathering and mentioned no support for the age change.

While it’s becoming less clear what Trump does support, the National Rifle Association is staunchly against raising the age. “Legislative proposals that prevent law-abiding adults aged 18-20 years old from acquiring rifles and shotguns effectively prohibits them for purchasing any firearm, thus depriving them of their constitutional right to self-protection,” Jennifer Baker, the NRA’s public affairs director said in a statement last week after Trump first proposed the idea. In fact, the NRA wants to make handguns available to teenagers as well. In 2013, the NRA petitioned the US Supreme Court to lower the legal handgun purchase age to 18, arguing that the restriction denies older teens and young adults their Second Amendment right.

Feinstein counters that those same young adults the NRA wants to arm cannot legally drink alcohol, and gun laws should reflect that. “If you can’t buy a beer, you shouldn’t be able to buy a weapon of war,” she said. Raising the age could deter young shooters, but these weapons would continue to be accessible to adults. Devin Kelley was 26 years old when he used a semiautomatic rifle to kill 26 people at a church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, last November.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate