https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2025/02/10/federal-court-upholds-hawaiis-age-based-firearms-acquisition-law/

On Friday, a federal judge has upheld Hawaii’s law banning those under 21 from buying a gun.

The Hawaii’s Department of the Office of the Attorney General said the opposition comes after a national pro-gun group led a lawsuit against the state claiming Hawaii’s age-restriction violates the Second Amendment.

In a statement from Hawaii’s Attorney General’s office, U.S. District Judge Jill Otake said the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that they could succeed on their constitutional challenge and failed to show that ending the law would benefit public interests.

Deputy Solicitors General Ewan Rayner and Thomas Hughes represented the state in the case, officials said.

“Hawaii’s gun laws protect public safety and save lives,” said Rayner. “Today’s decision confirms that the state’s age limit on acquiring a firearm, which has been in effect for over 30 years, is consistent with a long history of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of our youths.”

Officials say both the state and federal government can impose age restrictions for the purchase or possession of a gun, and many have been set at 21-years-old.

but you can run for office and sue the State for climate change

Judge Karen strikes again. She's the worst.

https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2025/02/10/federal-court-upholds-hawaiis-age-based-firearms-acquisition-law/

On Friday, a federal judge has upheld Hawaii’s law banning those under 21 from buying a gun.

The Hawaii’s Department of the Office of the Attorney General said the opposition comes after a national pro-gun group led a lawsuit against the state claiming Hawaii’s age-restriction violates the Second Amendment.

In a statement from Hawaii’s Attorney General’s office, U.S. District Judge Jill Otake said the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that they could succeed on their constitutional challenge and failed to show that ending the law would benefit public interests.

Deputy Solicitors General Ewan Rayner and Thomas Hughes represented the state in the case, officials said.

“Hawaii’s gun laws protect public safety and save lives,” said Rayner. “Today’s decision confirms that the state’s age limit on acquiring a firearm, which has been in effect for over 30 years, is consistent with a long history of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of our youths.”

Officials say both the state and federal government can impose age restrictions for the purchase or possession of a gun, and many have been set at 21-years-old.

but you can run for office and sue the State for climate change

Every one of them are fucking pigs. Our young adults join the military at 18 but can’t own a gun if they choose not to join? They can vote at 18 but can’t own a gun? Ok there is an exemption for those in the military so I don’t need to hear the bullshit about this law and that law so save me the time, ok? Bottom line is these ass hats need to FOAD…….

During testmony against this law, only 1 active duty member testified against the bill.  Maybe if an entire regiment showed up, then the bill might have died. 

"maybe"

During testmony against this law, only 1 active duty member testified against the bill.  Maybe if an entire regiment showed up, then the bill might have died.

Our young adults join the military at 18 but can’t own a gun if they choose not to join? They can vote at 18 but can’t own a gun?

Maybe if more of them voted. They are not a real active voting demographic.

Every one of them are fucking pigs. Our young adults join the military at 18 but can’t own a gun if they choose not to join? They can vote at 18 but can’t own a gun? Ok there is an exemption for those in the military so I don’t need to hear the bullshit about this law and that law so save me the time, ok? Bottom line is these ass hats need to FOAD…….

Maybe if more of them voted. They are not a real active voting demographic.

The comparison between 2A rights and being able to vote or join the military at 18 is not a great one when discussing self defense. 

The minimum voting age changed relatively recently lowering it from 21 to 18 due to political pressure tied to the military draft.  Neither of those things have anything to do with being allowed to defend yourself, your property and others from threats as a civilian.

Instead of using the current voting, military service or Selective Service age to justify 2A rights, keep those things separate and apart from 2A.  None of them have anything to do with the others.  Tying them together is like saying a school bus driver should also be allowed to carry a firearm because driving kids to and from school everyday shows the same level of responsibility and maturity that carrying a concealed firearm demands.  Who should have the right to purchase, possess and carry a firearm should not be tied to any other issue.

Firearms should not be treated like a privilege appropriate only for those over an arbitrary age.  Unless someone abuses the right or demonstrates an identifiable risk, anyone who is no longer the responsibility of their parents should be afforded all rights protected under the Constitution.  Currently, the age of majority is 18.

Age of Majority

The age of majority is the threshold of legal adulthood as
recognized or declared in law. It is the moment when a person
ceases to be considered a minor, and assumes legal control
over their person, actions, and decisions, thus terminating the
control and legal responsibilities of their parents or guardian
over them.

i predict if the argument that 18 year olds can join the military ever gets traction in DC, they'll make it so 18 year olds can purchase or possess any firearms IF AND ONLY IF they are active military.  Careful what you preach.

The comparison between 2A rights and being able to vote or join the military at 18 is not a great one when discussing self defense. 

The minimum voting age changed relatively recently lowering it from 21 to 18 due to political pressure tied to the military draft.  Neither of those things have anything to do with being allowed to defend yourself, your property and others from threats as a civilian.

Instead of using the current voting, military service or Selective Service age to justify 2A rights, keep those things separate and apart from 2A.  None of them have anything to do with the others.  Tying them together is like saying a school bus driver should also be allowed to carry a firearm because driving kids to and from school everyday shows the same level of responsibility and maturity that carrying a concealed firearm demands.  Who should have the right to purchase, possess and carry a firearm should not be tied to any other issue.

Firearms should not be treated like a privilege appropriate only for those over an arbitrary age.  Unless someone abuses the right or demonstrates an identifiable risk, anyone who is no longer the responsibility of their parents should be afforded all rights protected under the Constitution.  Currently, the age of majority is 18.

Age of Majority

i predict if the argument that 18 year olds can join the military ever gets traction in DC, they'll make it so 18 year olds can purchase or possess any firearms IF AND ONLY IF they are active military.  Careful what you preach.

That’s your opinion and like assholes, everybody’s got one. Maybe we should not let anyone join the military until they’re 21, same with voting. As for preaching practice what you preach, Sonny boy!

That’s your opinion and like assholes, everybody’s got one. Maybe we should not let anyone join the military until they’re 21, same with voting. As for preaching practice what you preach, Sonny boy!

At least I spent a good amount of time and words explaining my opinion.  You, on the other hand, did not state an opinion on 2A rights. in fact, I can't find an actual opinion in your post at all -- just a regurgitated saying that implies that opinions are all the same, which they aren't.

What did I say that you disagree with?  I stated plainly that 2A rights need to be treated apart from other minimum age standards because it has to do with the bill of rights -- natural rights that should be protected for all adults.  And the definition of adult in today's law is 18 years old. 

Just as a reminder, the voting rights are not part of the Bill of Rights.  The Bill of Rights consists of Amendments 1-10.  Voting rights are contained in the 15th, 19th, 24th and 25th Amendments.  That alone tells me 2nd Amendment Rights should be treated apart from anything to do with voting because it's more important.

Maybe go back and reread my post.  I don't think there's anything in it that ought to have gotten your panties in such a twist, sonny boy.

Military age can be brought up due to it's similarity to the 2nd amendment.  During revolutionary war times the minimum age to join a militia was commonly 16.  And you had to provide your own rifle and be proficient with it.

One huge problem I see with the 2A movement is avoiding the military aspects of the 2A.  The primary reason for having the 2A is for military reasons, to protect the nation against foreign and domestic threats.

Military age can be brought up due to it's similarity to the 2nd amendment.  During revolutionary war times the minimum age to join a militia was commonly 16.  And you had to provide your own rifle and be proficient with it.

One huge problem I see with the 2A movement is avoiding the military aspects of the 2A.  The primary reason for having the 2A is for military reasons, to protect the nation against foreign and domestic threats.

Nope.

The first legislation on the subject was the Militia Act of 1792 which
provided, in part:

That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the
respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of
eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five
years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and
respectively be enrolled in the militia,... every citizen, so enrolled
and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself
with a good musket or firelock.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/militia-act-establishes-conscription-under-federal-law

I don't think you can prove a "commonly" accepted minimum age before it was officially defined in US law.  If you happen to have that evidence, I'd be curious to see.  But, what I have always read or heard when gun control peeps cart out "2A only applies to the militia" argument, they fail to refute the fact that the militia includes every adult citizen between ages 18-45.  Hard to limit a right to such a massive group via the militia argument.

The age of adulthood at the time the constitution was passed was generally considered to be 21 so under text, history, and tradition, it would seem that restricting firearms to those under 21 could pass constitutional muster. 

We can try to tie gun rights to being in the military or voting to argue it should be 18 but as Flapp pointed out there could be some downsides there. It does make sense though that someone who can carry a gun to war should generally be trustworthy to own a gun as a private citizen. The simplest argument may be that someone should have the right to protect themselves as an adult when they can own a home.

Nope.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/militia-act-establishes-conscription-under-federal-law

I don't think you can prove a "commonly" accepted minimum age before it was officially defined in US law.  If you happen to have that evidence, I'd be curious to see.  But, what I have always read or heard when gun control peeps cart out "2A only applies to the militia" argument, they fail to refute the fact that the militia includes every adult citizen between ages 18-45.  Hard to limit a right to such a massive group via the militia argument.

State militia's were commonly 16 years, some 18, before the Militia Act.  But still nothing to show 21 either way.

The age of adulthood at the time the constitution was passed was generally considered to be 21 so under text, history, and tradition, it would seem that restricting firearms to those under 21 could pass constitutional muster. 

We can try to tie gun rights to being in the military or voting to argue it should be 18 but as Flapp pointed out there could be some downsides there. It does make sense though that someone who can carry a gun to war should generally be trustworthy to own a gun as a private citizen. The simplest argument may be that someone should have the right to protect themselves as an adult when they can own a home.

Is there anything other than voting showing age of adulthood at 21?

State militia's were commonly 16 years, some 18, before the Militia Act.  But still nothing to show 21 either way.

i never said anything like that.

Is there anything other than voting showing age of adulthood at 21?

I am not sure. I got that information from a show that discusses court cases but they didn't go into great detail.

Is there anything other than voting showing age of adulthood at 21?

The minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) used to be 21 in all states to coincide with the minimum voting age.

When the voting age was lowered in 1971 to 18 years old, "29 states lowered their MLDA to either 18, 19 or 20 between 1970 and 1975. The reason some states acted before 1971 is that Nixon signed a law passed by Congress to lower the voting age, but it took a couple of years to get the SCOTUS to rule that, while a federal law can affect federal elections, it could not force states to lower the voting age for any state or local elections.  The Constitution had to be amended.  That change was ratified in 1971.

"In 1978, after reports began showing an increase in alcohol-related car accidents
involving drivers 18-20 years old, Michigan became the first state to reverse course
by raising its MLDA back up to 21; 17 states followed suit between 1980 and 1985.
The federal government enacted the National Minimum Legal Drinking Act in 1984;
this act required states to prohibit anyone under the age of 21 from buying or publicly
possessing alcohol. If a state failed to comply with these regulations after 1988, the
federal government would have the right to withhold 10 percent of the state's federal
highway funds. Unsurprisingly, all states had a MLDA of 21 by the end of 1988..."
https://www.ranker.com/list/us-age-restrictions/tracey-graham

NC raised our MLDA for beer & wine from 18 to 21 between 1981-1983 -- one year added annually to let those already legally able to buy alcohol continue to be legal.  Hard liquor was always restricted to 21 year olds and had to be sold through ABC (Alcoholic Beverage Control Board) stores.  Beer and wine was available in grocery and other retail stores.

I remember on a flight from NC to Texas in 1982, the stewardess (what's called a flight attendant now  ) told us ROTC cadets we could buy any alcohol onboard while they were in the air as long as we were "on orders".  The federal drinking age then was 18 for everything, so they followed federal law as long as we were under federal jurisdiction. 

The federal MLDA was raised to 21 in 1984.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_Act