Old Enough for a Gun, Too Young for TikTok: What's Legal for Teens in Your State?

From tattoos to abortions to gender expression, a confusing mess of laws govern which Americans are considered adults.

"You can die for your country, but you can't buy a beer at a bar." This classic example of incoherence in laws surrounding adult milestones has been the subject of many a rant from teens who consider themselves ready to join the ranks of the legally mature. (Probably a few drunken rants, even.) But the age cutoffs for alcohol and military service —both functionally set at the federal level—are the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the utterly confusing mess of state laws governing teens and young adults. 

A new study from Bellwether pulls together age cutoffs in the 50 states for 36 different "adulting" variables, from work to guns to sex to school. The results are a fascinating window into the incoherence of American laws—and offer a look at our changing attitudes about maturity and individual responsibility.

Interestingly absent are any clear patterns based on partisan affiliations. While there were some correlations—on abortion, for instance—in most cases permissiveness or restrictiveness did not align with blue states or red states in a meaningful way. 

The case for coherence in laws governing teens is the same as it is for legal coherence generally: Forcing citizens to live under a complex patchwork of rules and regulations not unified by a logical or intuitive principle makes compliance more difficult and undermines respect for the law. 

With the rise of interest in restrictions on social media, for example, there may soon be states where teens could legally own a gun, get an abortion, or have a full-time job, yet not be permitted to do a little dance on TikTok or send a spicy text. 

As lawmakers become increasingly eager to play the role of parents, teachers, and bosses for teens and young adults, it's worth taking a closer look at how well they've done in those roles so far.

Check out these striking examples of incoherence around the U.S.

 

Plus, check out your state to see how it stacks up. Clicking on each state reveals the cutoffs for specific laws.

 

 

To learn more about what went into the 36 variables across six different categories, check out Bellwether's "The Edge of Seventeen":

• Sex, Porn, and Marriage: Ages of sexual consent, consent to marry, and the "floor" for marriage and exceptions, plus laws governing online porn, social media, and "sexting" among minors.
• Habits, Vices, and Expression: Minimum ages for smoking marijuana, piercings, tattoos, and gambling.
• Education, Employment, and Driving: Age of compulsory school attendance, employment including different types of jobs and rules governing parental consent, and driving from learner's permits to full driving privileges.
• Medical Issues: "Mature minor" laws governing general medical care, immunizations, sexually transmitted infection testing, and mental health, as well as abortion and laws governing medical treatment around gender identity.
• Guns: Age to possess a handgun, possess a rifle or shotgun, and carry a concealed firearm.
• Privacy and Punishment: Laws governing privacy matters, including at what age parents can no longer access the child's academic or medical records, and if the state allows corporal punishment.

Comments

[Chumby]

Click Glock > TikTok

Though Chumby prefers DA/SA hammer fired over striker fired.

[Zeb]

As god intended.

[Longtobefree]

"You can die for your country, but you can't buy a beer at a bar."

Kind of reminds of that fish and bicycle thing.
The military is probably more restrictive than anywhere else a "child" can find themselves. Not really related to buying beer.

[Zeb]

I think you are missing the point on that one. It's not that the military is a place where one is free to do what they want. It's that if you are adult enough to be a soldier, you should be adult enough to drink (when you aren't being a soldier).
A better argument would be that 18 year olds aren't drafted because they are super mature adults, but because they are in prime physical condition and young enough to be trained.

[Will Nonya]

I think you r captured the key bits here. The reason for this disconnect is the benefits of youth when it comes to moldability and the physical rigors of military training.

As a veteran who entered 'late' I'd argue that 18 year olds shouldn't be accepted into the military because they aren't ready for the responsibilities but they sure have an easier time with the PT.

[But SkyNet is a Private Company]

Tennessee just GOATing all over everybody.
Yea, kids can work outside in the fresh air to help mom and dad, and no one has to be held slave to your idiotic fantasies about what you should be called

[MWAocdoc]

Confusion and fear are tools of the oppressor. They are not confused but they want YOU to be confused so they can bully us into submission. They simply pass laws at every level whenever they can get away with it until everything not strictly forbidden by them becomes mandatory.

[n00bdragon]

In Idaho, you can drive without supervision at 15, but your parents must be notified in advance if you are being asked to take a survey about sex or sexuality-related areas in a public K-12 school.

All of the restrictions have an age attached to them except this one. Is a 99-year-old who happens to be in a Jr High School required to get parental consent for such a survey?

[Gaear Grimsrud]

My personal take is that too many states, and the culture at large, are infantilizing kids way beyond their due date. But we still live in a republic and the idea that some sort of uniformity is desirable doesn't strike me as particularly libertarian. The alternative I suppose is to have the federal government impose age restrictions like they cynically did in the case of alcohol with absolutely no constitutional authority. Also have to say that the examples cited aren't particularly compelling. Age of consent determines whether or not someone can be prosecuted for statutory rape. And that compares to gambling in a casino how exactly? And recognizing that kids work in agriculture like they have...forever, is somehow related to forcing people to use imaginary pronouns in a public school? By what metric? If you want to compare individual states on a specific matter okay. But this is a big basket of apples and oranges. Also have to point out that if abortion at any age, forced pronouns, and sex surveys are deemed permissive to children, they explicitly deny the right of parents to grant or deny their permission.

[mad.casual]

But this is a big basket of apples and oranges.

20 yr. old Delmonte Mixed Fruit Mystery Cup

There's overt and deliberate conflation of bullshit that Reasontards wish for, things that have nothing to do with age, and age restrictions consent along several dimensions.

Kids can't get gender mutilation surgery without parental consent not because of anything to do with age but because of laws against the parents. Even married spouses frequently need partner consent to have a tubal ligation/vasectomy or forego prophylactics during sex. Just because Reason really, really wants to sex up effeminate, underage boys doesn't mean laws against sexually abusing children are destroying children's liberty.

[JeremyR]

If a kid goes hunting, what's the big deal? On the other hand, if a kid gets pregnant, the state is likely on the hook for an abortion or welfare for the next 18 years.

Yeah, obviously some kids will shoot someone, but that's at a much lower rate than getting pregnant

[jimc5499]

I enlisted in the Navy and went too Boot Camp while I was 17. At that time my parents had to sign paperwork that relinquished their claim on my paycheck, because State Law said that it technically belonged to them until I was 21. That law was changed since 1982.
I was promoted to a Second Class Petty Officer (E-5) seven months before my 21st birthday. I was responsible for 8 guys and 6 helicopters but, the State of Pennsylvania said that I wasn’t responsible enough to drink a beer when I came home on leave, even though I was of legal age where I was stationed.
My personal favorite is that couple in Michigan that were convicted of allowing their child access to a pistol, yet their child was charged as an ADULT.

[Eeyore]

Being charged as an adult for doing something while underage.

[Deep Lurker]

Being charged as an adult for forcible rape but considered too young & immature to consent to sex.

Even more crazy-stupid-evil: There have been a few cases where two teens were caught screwing and both were charged as adults with statutory rape.

[hokey]

I think it's hilarious the editor of Reason is calling for more collectivist control over individual state actions.

[JohnSteed]

There's no constitutional right to Tik Tok, piercings, genital mutilation, tattoos, etc. (And, yeah, there are First Amendment flavors to Tik Tok, but also to Pornhub).

[Quicktown Brix]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

[operagost]

THIS ^^^^

[Incunabulum]

There are no constitutional rights to anything. That's not how rights work.

Your rights are inherent to being a person, not derived from the Constitution

The Constitution doesn't list your rights, it lists duties and limits of government.

[mad.casual]

In Florida, you can start work in agriculture during school hours at 12, but you cannot change your pronouns at a public K-12 school

I can't change my pronouns at a public K-12 school anywhere and I'm an adult!

Fucking dumbasses.

[Quicktown Brix]

To me it seems ridiculous to have a law about pronouns ever.

You can tell me what pronouns you want to use at any age at any place and I'm free to honor your request or not.

[mad.casual]

You can tell me what pronouns you want to use at any age at any place and I’m free to honor your request or not.

Except Canada, or the UK, large parts of Europe, some of whom are backpedaling.

You are free to continue to play retarded, eat your own shit on the internet, and act like you’re being clever or winning respect or being tolerant or something. Dumbass. Even Disney and others have realized that nobody’s buying your particular brand of stupidity.

[Zeb]

What are you complaining about here? Does it not seem ridiculous to you that we are in a situation where anyone even needs to consider the need for a law about pronouns in schools?
If schools are having kids change their pronouns (whatever the fuck that means) without parents knowledge, then sadly a law probably is needed. But it's still sad and aggravating that we even need to talk about this.

[mad.casual]

I know this is tough for you Zeb, but imagine if Quicktown Brix had said, “To me it seems ridiculous to have a law about speech ever.”

Because, as has been repeatedly pointed out, the issue isn’t about pronouns, the issue is about schools doing things without parent’s consent, about forcing people to adopt speech they don’t agree with, about violating Title IX, women’s agency, and personal spaces and forcing people to go along with it, about co-opting public spaces for purposes that the major benefactors and proprietors of those spaces don’t approve of.

Again, the “What’s the problem with pronouns?” is the same retarded “It’s not happening.” stalking horse that Reason originally propagated when Raleigh-Durham passed a bill forcing private businesses to accommodate trans people in non-gendered bathrooms and Reason asserted that anyone opposed was clearly some morally panicking hyper-religious bigot.

FFS, this is rather specifically referencing the bill that Reason continues to refer to as "Don't Say Gay".

[Quicktown Brix]

I know this is tough for you Zeb

Such a useless, pompous, conceited and condescending intro. Do you think we read this and think, "Oh he's clearly much smarter than me," or do you just want people to dislike you?

the issue is about schools doing things without parent’s consent, about forcing people to adopt speech they don’t agree with, about violating Title IX, women’s agency, and personal spaces and forcing people to go along with it, about co-opting public spaces for purposes that the major benefactors and proprietors of those spaces don’t approve of.

Which Zeb correctly interpreted is included in my statement: To me it seems ridiculous to have a law about pronouns ever.

I'll clarify in case you're interested in how those you look down on may think. To me, it's ridiculous for there to be a law (or rule, in the case of schools?) that I have to honor anyone's preferred pronoun and it ridiculous that there's a law that a kid can't request their preferred pronoun.

[mad.casual]

Such a useless, pompous, conceited and condescending intro. Do you think we read this and think, “Oh he’s clearly much smarter than me,” or do you just want people to dislike you?

Why, is that what you presume Zeb is thinking?

Because I presume Zeb knows that he used to be better and I used to think better of him as I've said that even though we didn't always agree, he didn't generally fall for the "MUH PRIVUT INSTITUTIONS/PRONOUNS"-style idiocy every third post.

To me it seems ridiculous to have a law about pronouns ever.

To me the law is exceedingly inconsequential and its far worse that society has degenerated to the point that such a law is even necessary. Much more critical or relevant and apparent that Reason itself has contributed in both advocacy of the schools and the anti-speech policy in a selective Mott-and-Bailey fashion. Parents having to litigate and kick teachers' and administrators' asses after kids have been brainwashed and/or sterilized without the law isn't a better situation.

Now, go ahead and tell me it's not/wasn't happening like SPB2 or Jeffy or sarc or whomever.

[Quicktown Brix]

To me the law is exceedingly inconsequential and its far worse that society has degenerated to the point that such a law is even necessary. Much more critical or relevant and apparent that Reason itself has contributed in both advocacy of the schools and the anti-speech policy in a selective Mott-and-Bailey fashion. Parents having to litigate and kick teachers’ and administrators’ asses after kids have been brainwashed and/or sterilized without the law isn’t a better situation.

I do not agree it is "exceedingly inconsequential," but I agree with all the rest. I don't think the solution for compelled speech in one state is to make that speech illegal in another state however. It's useless virtue signaling at best and a dangerous slippery slope at worst.

[mad.casual]

I do not agree it is “exceedingly inconsequential,”

People get accidentally shot for typos. Are you under the impression the law is going to be used to intentionally shoot schoolteachers for accidentally misgendering people? Even just fired for accidental misgenderings? Does that make the law more/less consequential than a typo?

Presuming you think no one is going to get terminated for accidentally using the wrong gender while on school grounds (presumably the bottom of your slippery slope), your “I do not agree…” is that there is a substantial difference between “exceedingly inconsequential” and “useless virtue signaling”.

And this is setting aside your stupidity about “Sure, we indoctrinated kids as policy on private landowners tax dime in accordance with the Governor and the DOE, and sure we’ve banned and mandated all other kinds of religious and non-religious education but *this* ‘pronoun law’ is where the real slipper slope is.”

You really are coming across a lot like Jeff, SPBP2, and sarc about this.

[Quicktown Brix]

And this is setting aside your stupidity about “Sure, we indoctrinated kids as policy on private landowners tax dime in accordance with the Governor and the DOE, and sure we’ve banned and mandated all other kinds of religious and non-religious education but *this* ‘pronoun law’ is where the real slipper slope is.”

So if I point out 1 thing I have a problem with, you assume I'm fine with everything else? You can have this argument without me.

[mad.casual]

So if I point out 1 thing I have a problem with, you assume I’m fine with everything else? You can have this argument without me.

So the guy who derides me for my inability to perform linguistic calculus via the internet faults me for assuming the things he did highlight as a problem were more important than the related things that he didn't point out as a problem.

Do you think anyone anywhere is going to read "To me it seems ridiculous to have a law about pronouns ever." and think "Oh, he must really have a problem with the public school system, compulsory schooling, the DOE, and the culture that produced the need for a pronoun law. Not the law itself."?

[Quicktown Brix]

Do you think anyone anywhere is going to read “To me it seems ridiculous to have a law about pronouns ever.” and think “Oh, he must really have a problem with the public school system, compulsory schooling, the DOE, and the culture that produced the need for a pronoun law. Not the law itself.”?

No, but I sure don't expect them to assume I'm in favor of those things either.

[mad.casual]

Does it not seem ridiculous to you that we are in a situation

So the problem isn't the law, it's the situation.

Moreover, Reason is specifically arguing against the law in support of the situation. Which they've done since the beginning.

Again, this whole disjunction-style, "Don't believe your lying eyes. X has nothing to do with Y because we're only talking about Y." fallacy is getting tiresome. Large swaths of the general public have stopped falling for it and were tired of hearing it from lame, sellout, science-ist, spokesholes like NDGT and Bill Nye several years ago.

[Incunabulum]

That's the thing - in places that push pronouns you're not allowed to refuse.

In CA it's considered harassment to not use them.

[Quicktown Brix]

Yes. And that's ridiculous.

[mad.casual]

So, then it's not actually a law about pronouns, but a law about using public schools as a vehicle for compulsory speech. And, per your own statement, you think it ridiculous to have a law preventing such based on pronouns.

[Quicktown Brix]

Posts online are not equations where you can extrapolate remote meaning using such language calculus. Think what you want, but I'm extremely opposed to compulsory speech which you could have inferred by my statement I’m free to honor your request or not.

[mad.casual]

Posts online are not equations where you can extrapolate remote meaning using such language calculus.

It would make sense that you would think that. Otherwise it would be clear that the law you think is ridiculous is specifically defending the "or not" portion of your statement for others.

You, Reason, don’t get to have it both ways. Either words and the motivations and principles behind them mean something or they don’t. Pretending the words and principles and motivations behind them are pointless or made up doesn’t get or you or support the principled freedoms you assert/desire.

[Quicktown Brix]

Otherwise it would be clear that the law you think is ridiculous is specifically defending the “or not” portion of your statement for others.

It is clear it defends my preference, but not freedom. You want the government to impose your preference on everyone. I don't want the government involved, just allow me and other individuals to decide for ourselves.

[mad.casual]

I don’t want the government involved, just allow me and other individuals to decide for ourselves.

Which, again, despite deriding me for my inability to perform linguistic calculus, isn't what you said.

Again, for all the ways you could've said "End funding for public schooling." or "Dissolve the (FL)DOE." or even just "More private schooling." and addressed the whole salami, you chose the salami slice, merited impossibility tactic that's been pushing back against free speech and transparency laws like this from the beginning.

The whole "Heads I win, tales you lose. How can you say that's not fair? I didn't say you couldn't win." idiocy stopped playing a long time ago.

[David Perry]

So I noted it said Texas has zero age restrictions on handguns, which seemed a little inaccurate:
First federal law makes it illegal for a FFL to sell a handgun to someone less than 21.
Section 46.06 of the Texas Penal Code makes it illegal for a person to sell or give a firearm to any child younger than 18. Subsection (c) of that law says it is an affirmative defense if the child's parent or legal custodian gave written permission for the sale.
So is the whole parental consent thing what they are basing it on? And ignoring federal law?

[jimc5499]

Federal law prevents someone from PURCHASING a handgun if they are under 21. As bullshit as that is, there is no FEDERAL law preventing possession of a handgun by somebody who is under 21.

[Squirrelloid]

Sounds like, if a toddler can finish an 80% receiver and assemble a firearm themself, they may legally own it.

[Zeb]

To the extent that minors can legally own anything.

[Incunabulum]

Federal law only applies to an FFL selling one.

Private sale or gifting to someone under 21 is legal in most states.

[Quicktown Brix]

In general it seems that the minimum age is lower for things that were available earlier (driving, long gun ownership, working, marriage) compared to things that only more recently became legal (going to a casino, consuming cannabis). Exceptions to prove the rule seem to be handgun ownership and alcohol/tobacco.

Come back in 10 years to see where states stack up for minimum age of kids allowed out of their bubble.

[mad.casual]

In general it seems that the minimum age is lower for things that were available earlier (driving, long gun ownership, working, marriage) compared to things that only more recently became legal (going to a casino, consuming cannabis)

When exactly do you think firearms, automobiles, and gambling were invented? You're as retarded as Reason about this bullshit.

[Quicktown Brix]

Why always "mad" but never "casual"?

I think firearms became common in or before the 1700's, automobiles became common in the 1920's and 30's (relatively long ago) and casinos became common around the 2000's (relatively recently).

[VinniUSMC]

casinos became common around the 2000’s (relatively recently).

Say what?

[Quicktown Brix]

It seems that way to me here on the east coast.

Also: Nevada was the first state to legalize casino operations in 1931, followed by New Jersey in 1976. South Dakota and Iowa were the next two states to legalize casinos in 1989. Another nine states legalized casinos between 1990 and 2007. Finally, six more states legalized casino operations since 2008

https://rockinst.org/issue-area/state-revenues-gambling-short-term-relief-long-term-disappointment/

[mad.casual]

Why always “mad” but never “casual”?

Why the assumption that I'm mad rather than casually, factually pointing out that your statement doesn't make any sense unless you have a cognitively impaired version or selective interpretation of history?

I, as a teenager, learned of hemp consumption by the FF from people who were themselves college students and HS dropouts (and may've been mentally handicapped). Presumably, anyone saying (e.g.) legal cannabis consumption in this country is a fairly recent phenomenon (especially relative to guns, cars, casinos, etc.) is either cognitively or selectively biased as to their interpretation of history, cognitively or selectively biased as to their regurgitation of it, or is just being dishonest.

Would you think I was less "mad" if I had said "You're as fundamentally dishonest as Reason is about this bullshit?"

[Quicktown Brix]

I, as a teenager, learned of hemp consumption by the FF from people who were themselves college students and HS dropouts (and may’ve been mentally handicapped). Presumably, anyone saying (e.g.) legal cannabis consumption in this country is a fairly recent phenomenon (especially relative to guns, cars, casinos, etc.) is either cognitively or selectively biased as to their interpretation of history, cognitively or selectively biased as to their regurgitation of it, or is just being dishonest.

So cannabis legalization is not recent because the founding fathers' generation raised hemp for ropes and fabric? AND that's consumption</b??

Why the assumption that I’m mad rather than casually, factually pointing out that your statement doesn’t make any sense

Because of this:
Fucking dumbasses
I know this is tough for you
play retarded
eat your own shit on the internet
Dumbass
You’re as retarded as Reason about this bullshit
nobody’s buying your particular brand of stupidity
same retarded “It’s not happening.” stalking horse

[mad.casual]

So cannabis legalization is not recent because the founding fathers’ generation raised hemp for ropes and fabric?

Yeah, I’m pretty sure I said you were retarded about understanding this. Rather specifically referring to how bouncing back and forth between legal and illegal over the last several hundred years while other things perform the same bouncing action in-and-out of phase is rather obviously spurious rather than well-defined and reasoned.

AND that’s consumption?

Smoking hemp seeds and otherwise chewing the plant/seeds has been known independently in several populations dating back into prehistory. The idea that collecting oil from the ropes and consuming it is recent just because it’s just recently legal is dumb. Especially considering hashish oil has been entirely legal in other parts of the world, consistently… parts that Presidents both modern and old have visited, for decades.

You were plainly wrong about casinos and pettifogged/gish galloped when someone called you out on it. You’re doing the same for this. You’ve generated an obviously spurious ‘association’ that you yourself can’t even rectify without several very large exceptions….

Because of this:

That doesn’t clarify why you think I’m mad rather than stating the obvious. Above, you say I can’t perform linguistic calculus from words on the internet despite the fact that linguistics, extrapolating meaning from words, is specifically how the internet and writing work. So the real question is if that’s true, then how exactly, are you calculating my feelings from my words over the internet, which neither one may actually contain or capture?

Such apparent questioning would/could lead to the obvious conclusion that you’re just a dumbass who's full of shit.

[Quicktown Brix]

OK. You got me. I thought you were serious until I read this Poe-post. Well done.

[John F. Carr]

In Massachusetts sex is legal at 16 but teens have to wait to turn 18 before being allowed to fire a machine gun.

[tekcoyote]

I must have missed the TikTok part.

I don't think anyone cares about TikTok, per se. What we care about is that it seems to be intimately connected to the Chinese Communist Party, which has not been playing nice with us. I really don't care how old someone in America is. Until and unless that cord gets cut, TikTok needs to be cut. Along with every other espionage software marketed as "social media."

[Heywood]

I can only speak to my state, but there's a mistake there. I live in CT, and can confirm that you must be 21 to purchase a handgun, and only if you have a permit to carry.

[mad.casual]

Old Enough for a Gun, Too Young for TikTok: What’s Legal for Teens in Your State?

“Teens are less free in states that ban transorbital lobotomies because of minimum age laws.” – A *feature* story from the EIC at Reason Magazine

[mad.casual]

Sure, plenty of states ban transorbital lobotomies for anyone of any age because they're a brutal medical practice with no demonstrable value to which even the Soviets said "Are you fucking crazy? That's inhumane!". Some other states merely banned them for certain people or based on the likelihood that they would be subject to them. And still other states never banned them at all because *indistinguishably* they were either on board with lobotomizing people or because nobody in their state was performing them or subject to them... but let's obliterate all that context and simply assign a green, orange, yellow, or red box based on our interpretation in the modern era.

Because, obviously, a state that would ban teens from getting transorbital lobotomies is an enemy of liberty greater than even the Soviets.