You have to be 21 to buy a handgun from a federally licensed dealer. But if you’re 18, you can buy the same gun from a seller who doesn’t have a license. This has the perverse effect of forcing young people to buy handguns from sellers who — because they aren’t licensed — don’t have to conduct background checks.
So the author thinks 18 to 20 year olds are skirting background checks that might reveal them to be ineligible to purchase a gun.
To be ineligible to purchase a gun you have to have a pretty heavy life history, i.e. conviction of a felony or have a restraining order for domestic violence. I'll hazard a guess that of the 2 a felony conviction would be the most likely for that age group, though I'm not sure how likely it is in the population as a whole.
Would the author (or those who advance his argument) care to discuss what might lead someone 20-years old or younger to have not only a felony conviction but also to have gained such a conviction and served their prison sentence in time to still be back on the streets in order to be seeking out a gun before they are 21.
If someone has committed a felony and subsequently served their time prior to turning 21 it was probably for a drug offense and that betrays the farcical nature of the article --
Law Enforcement, with all its prohibition laws, agencies dedicated to enforcing those laws, inter-agency cooperation and even international coordination couldn't keep a teenager from possessing enough drugs to commit a felony and that teenager was resourceful enough to commit that felony but will somehow be magically thwarted from buying a gun if only the age limit were raised.
By the way -- what's with the month-old op-ed? As thoroughly as you scour the innerwebz for post fodder I find it hard to believe you missed this one for an entire month. Do you maintain a library to trickle out over time to maintain an incessant, on-going drip-drip-drip of articles?
= new reply since forum marked as read