The Age of Responsibility

I recently discovered that until my child is 7 years old, he may not be left in the car by himself. Unless, of course, someone at least 12 years old is there with him, or unless there is nothing to harm him present. Also, if I take my keys with me...  Or, maybe not. The law is not very specific on just exactly what all of this means. It is fairly specific on how I can be punished and how the allocation of funds from my fine would happen... Well, you and your lawyer can read it here for yourself, Kaitlyn's Law. 

I'm not here to debate the merits of this law, I just use this as one example. How can an adult be deemed not responsible enough to determine the safety of their own child in any given situation where he might leave the child for a moment, but a 12 year old is, by law, deemed responsible enough to handle the situation in his absence? What makes 12 years of age the magic number of responsibility? I contend, nothing. It is a purely arbitrary number decided upon because, well, some number had to be decided upon. Also, what makes a 6 year old child unable to care for himself in a way that a 7 year old child all of a sudden can? Do most children, at 7 years old become to heavy for the average would-be abductor? Is a 7 year old more likely to be able to discern the need to roll down the window if it becomes too hot all of a sudden? Maybe. Is a 7 year old more more apt to behave himself outside the presence of an adult than a 6 year old? This all depends on the situation, the child, the parent and probably unforeseen outside influences as well. You could just have well made the magic age 7 or 9 or 15. It is purely arbitrary. If not, why then is a 7 year old able to be left alone, but not able to oversee another, younger child. For the record, the impetus of this bill was a six month old child that died from heat after being left in a car alone. I get it... For the record, I believe an adult should behave in a responsible manner that puts the safety of his children above the need to "just run in and get a quick mocha".

Another example of age based responsibility is the 26th Amendment to the United States Constitution. That gave 18 year old people the right to vote. Apparently, a lot of 18-20 year old people were protesting a lot in and around 1971. You may have heard about this... The amendment of the Voting Rights Act by Nixon and a couple of court cases, one which reached the Supreme Court in the name of Oregon v Mitchell, would precede the 26th Amendment in 1971, an amendment which still has not been ratified by 8 states. 

If this law were based on the responsibility of the potential voter and not just protests and the need to "feel like we are doing the right thing" it probably would not be law. I know that you can serve in our military and do some pretty amazing things as an 18 year old. I also know that as a 50 year old, you can be wholly irresponsible in practically everything you do. So again, I ask, what makes this age the age of responsibility in this realm?  President Nixon, who may or may not have shown a great deal of responsibility in his time as president, had this to say about it:

As I meet with this group today, I sense that we can have confidence that America’s new voters, America’s young generation, will provide what America needs as we approach our 200th birthday, not just strength and not just wealth but the “Spirit of ‘76’ a spirit of moral courage, a spirit of high idealism in which we believe in the American dream, but in which we realize that the American dream can never be fulfilled until every American has an equal chance to fulfill it in his own life.

I'm not sure I agree with everything he said there or even that it has any bearing on the ability of the young generation to vote responsibly, but there it is. In recent years, I contend that the dumbing down of the American voter has hit the youthful especially hard. They have most definitely been targeted as a vast audience, ripe for the picking. I kind of doubt that Congress, Nixon or the Supreme court of 1971 ever envisioned the need to "Rock the Vote". I'm not saying young people are dumb, I'm saying the concept of voting responsibly has been largely pushed to the side and they are unfortunate pawns in this game. 

One final example of age based responsibility in our laws has to do with the age at which a person is determined to be an adult fit to consume alcohol. That age at which it becomes legal to purchase it for one's self was set by the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984. Anyone under 21 may not do so, legally or the state will suffer the consequence of the federal government withholding funds, thus, they comply. But, only 15 states ban the consumption of alcohol by minors, the remaining either have no ban at all or require family member "supervision" or have location restrictions. 

Yes, I understand what prohibition caused. Yes, I understand that adults are basically free do do as they please. Yes, I understand that there are other laws that govern other aspects of what you may or may not do while under the influence. I also understand that roughly 30% of all vehicle crash related deaths are associated with drunk drivers.

There are a whole bunch of disturbing statistics on the M.A.D.D. website. One references 17 million people who have admitted to driving drunk. I suspect the number that have not admitted to it is probably at least triple that. Another states that the rate of drunk driving is highest in the 21-25 year old range. 21, the age at which it has been determined by law that one is responsible enough to purchase alcohol. 21, the age at which most people prove themselves to be completely irresponsible when it comes to alcohol. 

Is there a solution to this? Education and the self-imposed level of responsibility it takes not to do something stupid. Alcohol is a strange demon. The most responsible person in the world can become the exact opposite with about a 0.05 blood alcohol content. Probably less for most people. 

What do these three examples have in common? Not much on the surface, just an observation about the  varying ages of responsibility. One thing that is a constant, though, it is up to the individual to BE responsible. Without that, all kinds of things can go wrong. Things that can affect your life, the lives of your children, the lives of your fellow Americans. Responsibility is not determined by age, it is determined by maturity. We have some very responsible, mature young people in this country and we have some bery immature, irresponsible older people in this country. You can't choose your age, but you can choose how to behave. Be responsible. Teach your kids to be responsible. Encourage your friends to be responsible. Behave in a manner that demonstrates to others the power of responsibility.

Our liberty is being taken away in many ways. Don't let the failure to act responsibly be the catalyst for more of them to be taken away.

California Gun Grabbing

Two recent stories that caught my attention should send chills down your spine. The first talks about a recent session inside the Public Safety Committee of the California State Legislature. In that meeting, a total of six bills were advanced out of committee. All six bills are gun-grabbing measures advanced by the usual suspects in war on the second amendment. As part of the process, the committee heard testimony from both sides of the argument. One exchange featured Leland Yee, state senator and Sam Paredes, Executive Director of Gun Owners of California. During this exchange, Paderes called Yee out and corrected the fallacy that because of some "loophole" in a previous gun ban, there were now illegal guns on the street. Yee confronted Paderes and let his anger over being called out over his misrepresentations be known. You can read the story for yourself here, Inside the Committee. You can also watch just the video exchange between Yee and Paredes.

If Yee put half as much energy into getting criminals off of the streets as he does into creating new criminals out of law-abiding citizens, he might actually do some good for the state. His misguided progressive vision of Californian Utopia prevents him from doing anything that actually advances the cause of freedom and upholds our constitutional rights. 

What troubles me, among many things, is illustrated by Yee every time he speaks on the subject. He has no idea what he is talking about. He ignores facts, makes up his own version of reality and uses this erroneous information to demolish the constitution which he is paid to and swore to uphold. He and his ilk are absolutely relentless in the pursuit of this end. Why do people continue to vote for people like Yee? I believe that there is a large chunk of society, that is otherwise smart enough to see the truth, that don't necessarily believe what these people say, but they want for it to be true. If they desire a thing to be true hard enough, maybe it will magically transform into truth. I don't know about you, but I don't like my liberties being decided by fairy tales. 

Another story highlights the recent resolution passed by the Los Angeles Community College board of trustees to ban all firearms on all nine of its campuses. This effectively put an end to gun safety courses that had been taught here for the past six years. These courses were co-sponsered by the National Rifle Association and taught by Gerry Koehler, an  NRA certified pistol instructor who is also certified by the California Dept of Justice for Handgun Safety training[1]. Koehler asked for an exception to use plastic toy guns in the classes, but they are specifically banned as well. No word on whether he could use Pop Tarts or not. The resolution goes so far as to ban use of the word "gun" in campus literature. That should make you feel safe. 

The lunacy of this is far reaching. Board of Trustees Vice President Scott Svonkin had some very interesting things to say regarding this decision. Among them, this:

“I believe that the NRA’s goal is to promote gun ownership, and that guns lead to deaths,” he said. “So, not having the NRA teach classes, not having the NRA classes on our campuses, is a good thing. I’m much happier with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department protecting our students and our staff and our faculty than having some random person who took a three-hour class and thinks that they’re Dirty Harry.”

The implication that the NRA's goal is the cause of death by gun violence is pathetic. No one on that side of this debate ever seems to take into account personal responsibility. It is always the fault of the gun or an organization or something other that the person perpetrating the crime. 

He is also happier with law enforcement protecting his campus. How happy was he when John Zawhari killed three people on campus before police could respond and kill him? This was after killing his father and brother then setting the house on fire. The same John Zawhari who several years earlier had threatened students and been found to have bomb-making materials in his possession. That infraction cost him the ability to own a firearm for 5 years. The killings took place seven years later. Maybe Leland Yee should think about a law where someone so demented should be locked away instead of counseled for a bit and then set free to do what he ultimately did. 

Svonkin didn't mention how well he thought law enforcement protected his students, he just took the opportunity to equate students taking a gun safety course to legally armed citizens who could have protected themselves and others and possibly saved lives in that incident. Oh, but they couldn't have done that, right? Because they are just "Dirty Harrys". No, because that campus was already a "gun free zone" at the time of the rampage. That rampage was part of the reason they widened the "gun free zone" to all nine campuses. Great plan, allowing a killer to come unchallenged onto the campus and take three lives worked so well, that they have extended the plan to create the same scenario in eight other places ripe with defenseless targets. It boggles the mind...

Koehler is the only one who had anything sensible to say regarding this:

“Don’t expect the police or the government to protect you. YOU are the only one that can protect you and your family. Learn how to do it right. Learn how to do it safely.”

Why should you not expect them to protect you? Isn't that their job, to serve and protect? Not according to the supreme court, who spoke to the matter in Castle Rock v Gonzalez in 2005. Its not just an opinion of some NRA approved Dirty Harry, it's the law. 

This is what I find scary. The law says, you are responsible for your own safety, yet the lawmakers are increasingly saying you are not responsible enough to defend yourself and are systematically taking your means to do so out of your hands. We can only hope that Sam Paderes and those like-minded individuals will ride this wave all the way to the supreme court and once there that the supreme court will uphold our second amendment rights as they have in the Heller decision. 

Is hope enough? Don't rely on it. Don't rely on others to speak up for your rights. Don't become dependent on someone who is not responsible for your safety and freedom. You are responsible. Be so.