I want to take Glenn's point a little further into the policy spectrum... I'm not too well versed in the legal spectrum, but I'll try here.
It is oft said that criminals are criminals because they break the law, and thus laws preventing people from doing things only inhibit non-criminals to do them.
Many of these age laws are very ineffective at preventing young people from owning firearms (look at the gang wars of inner cities) because many young people are, as Glenn alluded to, criminals.
Here is where I will attempt to venture into this land of the legal mumbo jumbo. This idea that many gun control laws only prevent otherwise law abiding citizens from exercising a now fundamental right is an issue of scrutiny is it not? One of the basis of strict scrutiny is that a law is the least restrictive means possible of attaining a goal.
It would seem to me that these age laws (and many other laws, like PFZs, but staying on topic) are far from the least restrictive means possible because remember, they only seem to restrict otherwise law abiding citizens and not criminals that are breaking the law anyways.
I can hear one opposition to my thesis here in that "well howabout we just make arson legal, because otherwise law abiding people don't commit arson because it's against the law, so you just want to make arson legal?". The obvious counter point to that is that arson is not a fundamental right.
Am I too far off base here? Does this make sense? I'm trying to get into the court side of this issue here so I'm not only familiar with the policy side.
gtalk:renfes steamID: Sefner