You can’t buy an assault rifle in California like the one authorities say a 19-year-old used in a Florida high school massacre this month. But Florida may soon block teens from buying guns at all, while California lets those over 18 purchase a powerful rifle or shotgun.
In the wake of the Feb. 14 school shooting allegedly by a 19-year-old former student that killed 17, Florida Gov. Rick Scott announced a plan to raise the minimum age to buy any firearm there to 21. Federal lawmakers and President Trump have also voiced interest in similar limits nationally.
But although California has some of the nation’s most restrictive gun laws, and a raft of new bills introduced this week would impose further limits, an 18-year-old in California still could buy a rifle, shotgun and ammunition.
Dan Reeves, chief of staff for California state Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon, said state lawmakers have “been focused on trying to make these rifles less lethal and haven’t focused so much on the age of the person.”
But some gun-control advocates say it’s time to reconsider that.
“Even if they don’t meet the definition of an assault weapon under California law, these are very lethal weapons,” said Amanda Wilcox, legislative advocate for the California Chapters for the Brady Campaign. “In California law right now, you can have a long gun that can be rapidly reloaded and is more powerful than a handgun and just as dangerous. The age limit should really be the same — 21. In my mind, there’s no reason to treat them differently.”
Critics however say upping the age for buying long guns won’t reduce gun violence while making it harder for responsible young people old enough to vote or serve in the military to hunt or target shoot with weapons seldom used in crimes.
“Legal adults have fundamental rights — including the right to acquire, possess, carry, and use modern, semi-automatic firearms,” said Brandon Combs, president of the Firearms Policy Coalition. “A ban on semi-automatic firearms for legal adults under 21 would be akin to banning people under 21 from using the Internet or some other modern tool of free speech.”
Under federal law, you have to be 18 to buy a rifle or shotgun and 21 to buy a handgun from licensed dealers. Federal law allows unlicensed sales, such as at gun shows, at any age for rifles and shotguns and at 18 for handguns. Federal law also lets anyone over 18 possess a handgun, and sets no age limit for long gun possession.
While many states including California go further than federal law in restricting handgun sales, only Hawaii and Illinois set a minimum age of 21 to buy or possess a rifle or shotgun, according to the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
But the Feb. 14 Florida shooting has brought calls for reconsidering the legal age for buying rifles even from many who have traditionally supporting gun rights.
Senators Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., are working on a bill to raise the minimum age to buy rifles to 21. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and Rep. John Faso (R-N.Y.) and even President Donald Trump voiced support for the idea since the Florida shooting.
California lawmakers this week introduced 10 new gun control bills, with proposals that would expand the definition of assault rifles and allow more people to seek gun violence restraining orders. But age limits for long guns weren’t among them.
California lawmakers say the state’s assault weapons ban already reduces access to the deadliest weapons most often used in spree shootings. Civilian versions of assault rifles cannot fire continuously with one pull of the trigger like their military counterparts. But features like pistol grips and detachable high-capacity ammunition magazines allow deadly rapid fire. By contrast, most rifles and shotguns made for hunters or competition shooters cannot fire many rounds without reloading.
“In the state of California, the AR-15 is already banned, that’s why this conversation on age limits isn’t on the table,” said Assemblyman Evan Low, D-Campbell and author of some gun control bills this week. Or as Reeves put it, “we’ve neutered long guns to where seldom used in crime.”
Still, California lawmakers haven’t ruled out a higher age limit. Assemblyman Rob Bonta, D-Oakland, who introduced one of this week’s bills, said “I’m looking at it very closely.”
“If we can take steps that would save lives, we should,” Bonta said. “We continue to have mass shootings in California, despite all our guns laws. We should do everything we can to prevent them in the future.”
Hunting-style rifles and shotguns haven’t been the weapons of choice for teen killers, who tend to favor concealable handguns they already cannot buy legally in California. And few of those who committed the mass shootings that have galvanized cries for more gun control were under 21.
It was a 64-year-old man with an assault rifle who authorities say killed 57 at a Las Vegas music festival in October. A 29-year-old with an assault rifle and pistol allegedly killed 49 in the 2016 Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando. And a 23-year-old with two pistols killed 32 at Virginia Tech in 2007, authorities said.
Even in massacres involving shooters under 21, it’s unclear whether higher age limits would have mattered. Adam Lanza, the 20-year-old who in 2012 killed 20 children and six staff at an elementary school as well as his mother and then himself in Newtown, Conn., used his mother’s assault rifle. The two students who fatally shot 12 classmates and a teacher at Colorado’s Columbine High School in 1999 before killing themselves got their guns through friends.
One thing both sides of the gun debate agree on is there are a lot of inconsistencies when it comes to youth and rights. Low, who introduced legislation to lower the voting age to 17, noted that’s the minimum age to serve in the military. But it’s not old enough to buy beer or rent a car.
“The definition of adulthood is subjective,” Low said.
But Combs asked, “what other constitutional right could be banned until age 21: The right to vote? Free speech? Protest? Assembly? Due Process? Speedy trials? Worship? Equal Protection? The answer, of course, is none.”
John Woolfolk is a Bay Area News Group reporter
