Bill Overview
Title: Age 21 Act
Description: This bill raises the minimum age to purchase a large capacity ammunition feeding device or semiautomatic assault weapon from 18 to 21 years of age.
Sponsors: Sen. Feinstein, Dianne [D-CA]
Target Audience
Population: People aged 18 to 21 interested in purchasing semiautomatic assault weapons or large capacity ammunition feeding devices
Estimated Size: 350000
- The bill impacts individuals who are between the ages of 18 and 21, as it changes the legal requirements for them to purchase certain firearms and ammunition.
- In the U.S., there are approximately 14.6 million adolescents and young adults in the age range of 18 to 21.
- The target population must be limited to those interested or potentially interested in purchasing such weapons, not all individuals aged 18 to 21.
- Not all countries globally have such regulations or the same definitions of semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices, so global numbers may vary significantly.
Reasoning
- The Age 21 Act affects a very specific sub-demographic within the broader 18-21 age group. This includes individuals who are interested in purchasing semiautomatic assault weapons or large capacity ammunition feeding devices. Given the total U.S. budget for the policy, its reach is limited, hence not all potential buyers will be directly impacted, although the policy may influence market behaviors and individual decision-making indirectly over time.
- We prioritize a diverse set of perspectives for the interviews by ensuring the included individuals span different geographies, socioeconomic backgrounds, and affiliations, such as those in affected age brackets who might be enthusiastically supportive, oppositional, or neutral about the policy.
- The cost constraints also suggest that ongoing monitoring and comprehensive enforcement will not be perfect, thereby suggesting some potential gaps in overall policy efficacy.
- Additionally, since not all impacted individuals will have the same level of impact felt, the interviews focus on different degrees of personal interest and need.
Simulated Interviews
College student (Texas)
Age: 19 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this policy restricts my rights and my ability to participate in shooting sports.
- It's inconvenient because now I have to wait until I'm 21 to make certain purchases.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Retail worker (California)
Age: 18 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think the policy is a reasonable step given the number of incidents involving young adults and gun violence.
- This won't majorly affect me, I'll still engage in hunting with my family.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Part-time security guard (Ohio)
Age: 20 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think if you can be drafted or vote at 18, you should be able to purchase these firearms too.
- The policy doesn't make sense to me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Unemployed (New York)
Age: 21 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy probably does more harm than good by making it hard for young adults to engage in a shooting hobby safely before 21.
- It's frustrating that what was accessible before isn't anymore.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 9 |
High school graduate (Virginia)
Age: 18 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The new age restriction could help reduce some of the misuse of these firearms among my peers.
- It's a positive shift if it makes communities safer.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Delivery driver (Florida)
Age: 19 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm disappointed this policy limits my immediate options for self-defense.
- For now, it looks like waiting until 21 to purchase is still best.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Ranch hand (Wyoming)
Age: 18 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think it's important to balance individual rights with public safety concerns.
- I can see how this policy might help but it doesn't impact me much.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Student (Illinois)
Age: 20 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support this policy because it may reduce impulsive crimes by individuals under 21.
- As a future criminal justice professional, I see it as a preventive measure.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Vocational school student (Kentucky)
Age: 19 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This interrupts some family traditions but we can adapt.
- If this helps enhance community safety, it's worth it.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Full-time worker (Missouri)
Age: 21 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I understand the intention, but I think 18 is when people should decide for themselves.
- This feels more like an unnecessary restriction.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $10000000)
Year 2: $5000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $10000000)
Year 3: $5000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $10000000)
Year 5: $5000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $10000000)
Year 10: $5000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $10000000)
Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $10000000)
Key Considerations
- The bill aims to address concerns about public safety and firearm access among young adults.
- Implementation costs might include enhanced age verification measures and associated administrative systems.
- Potential legal challenges could arise, which might entail further government expenditure.
- Estimating the policy impact on public safety and corresponding savings involves considerable uncertainty.