A lot of stores have totally stop selling firearms of any kind over the last 5+ years (Walmarts included, seen it with my own eyes) as a result of gun violence and mass shootings. Some of these gun sellers are saying they won't sell an AR-15 type of rifle to anyone under 21, and some have said they won't sell any firearm or ammo to anyone under 21.
Can a retailer set age requirements for purchases?
- Thread starter fdcg27
- Start date
- Status
The Constitution sets no age limits that I know of ... so what besides Federal Law decides on who's old enough to do things (drive, vote, drink, etc) or buy things like guns? Not looking for an argument, just saying how does age play into the Constitution?
wemay
Site Donor 2023
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
The Constitution sets no age limits that I know of ... so what besides Federal Law decides on who's old enough to do things (drive, vote, drink, etc) or buy things like guns? Not looking for an argument, just saying how does age play into the Constitution?
This
The Constitution sets no age limits that I know of ... so what besides Federal Law decides on who's old enough to do things (drive, vote, drink, etc) or buy things like guns? Not looking for an argument, just saying how does age play into the Constitution?
This
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
This is of course a knee-jerk PR response to the recent tragedy in Florida.
More like a reaction to the straw that broke the camel's back. It would have happened sooner or later because people are sick and tired of just ignoring the issue and letting it happen over and over forever.
As said, it's their business so they can make their own rules on sales unless it's found to be breaking some kind of "civil rights" laws.
It's the [censored] thing, I'm pretty sure murder is already illegal.
Rather than glorifying these phsychotics, make it clear their names will not be known. They won't even be given the dignity of a grave.
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
This is of course a knee-jerk PR response to the recent tragedy in Florida.
More like a reaction to the straw that broke the camel's back. It would have happened sooner or later because people are sick and tired of just ignoring the issue and letting it happen over and over forever.
As said, it's their business so they can make their own rules on sales unless it's found to be breaking some kind of "civil rights" laws.
It's the [censored] thing, I'm pretty sure murder is already illegal.
Rather than glorifying these phsychotics, make it clear their names will not be known. They won't even be given the dignity of a grave.
I guess its far easier for people to vote with their dollars today, than to overcome the lobbying power of the NRA on their politicians in the next election... Mountain Equipment Co-op up here is actually suspending sales of camelback and other outdoor products made by companies owned by Vista Outdoors because they also make AR-15 style guns. http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-i...maker-1.4557449
Maybe if it hits companies in the pocket book then that is more effective then dealing with paid off legislators.
Maybe if it hits companies in the pocket book then that is more effective then dealing with paid off legislators.
Sycos don't do mass killings to become "famous".
"Johnny ... don't you know that nobody will mention your name anymore after you smoke 50 innocent people? Oh, OK ... guess I'll just go play more violent video games then and get prepared to be bullied at school tomorrow."
"Johnny ... don't you know that nobody will mention your name anymore after you smoke 50 innocent people? Oh, OK ... guess I'll just go play more violent video games then and get prepared to be bullied at school tomorrow."
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
I am really surprised at many of the responses in this thread.
First, we elect representatives at the local, state and national levels to set policies for what is and is not permissible. Our Constitution doesn't empower Walmart to make those decisions.
Second, does anyone really want to go down the road of allowing corporate entities to set public policy?
I find it hard to imagine that anyone does.
If we do need some changes in the legal basis for buying and owning firearms, and I think we do, then this should be something decided in a national debate and not by the actions of large retailers.
Retailers should play no role at all in establishing public policy in any free nation.
I don't think that retailers have any legal right to set minimum age requirements beyond those set in actual law and I suspect we'll see these backed off over the nest fortnight or so.
The NRA will not allow this sort of false assertion of legal authority to stand and these retailers are not about to face off against NRA in court and I also doubt that Walmart is going to stand firm against a national boycott by NRA members since they are a major part of Wally's target market, pun not intended.
In before the lock!
Anyway, found a few links that may answer the question. They may be on sold legal grounds as long as it doesn't conflict with state or local laws. Some states like Connecticut already set an age limit. The ones that don't may not have any laws that prevent age discrimination against the young. The age discrimination laws out there seem apply to the elderly, not the young. So I guess that's why movie theaters can limit who goes in to see a movie. Also the constitution applies to the government, not private businesses so they also have some leeway as to how they want to conduct business. That's why private companies can fire you if they don't like what you say, your freedom of speech is only from the government.
Anyway, will be interesting to see what actually happens. I think the stores have a lot of current leeway now, there are those out there that have a no shirts no shoes no service policy. And then there are others that say that they reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. I think it will probably be a state/local law thing unless something happens on the federal level. Some states may want to pass laws that require them to sell to 18 year olds so while corporate may have a national policy, it would be different for that particular state/local law.
Supreme court has yet to rule on whether the bakers can discriminate or not. That other ruling was a local court which may get overruled depending on how the supreme court rules.
http://www.wate.com/news/local-news/law-...o-21/1001671053
https://reason.com/volokh/2018/02/28/can-gun-stores-refuse-to-sell-rifles-and
I am really surprised at many of the responses in this thread.
First, we elect representatives at the local, state and national levels to set policies for what is and is not permissible. Our Constitution doesn't empower Walmart to make those decisions.
Second, does anyone really want to go down the road of allowing corporate entities to set public policy?
I find it hard to imagine that anyone does.
If we do need some changes in the legal basis for buying and owning firearms, and I think we do, then this should be something decided in a national debate and not by the actions of large retailers.
Retailers should play no role at all in establishing public policy in any free nation.
I don't think that retailers have any legal right to set minimum age requirements beyond those set in actual law and I suspect we'll see these backed off over the nest fortnight or so.
The NRA will not allow this sort of false assertion of legal authority to stand and these retailers are not about to face off against NRA in court and I also doubt that Walmart is going to stand firm against a national boycott by NRA members since they are a major part of Wally's target market, pun not intended.
In before the lock!
Anyway, found a few links that may answer the question. They may be on sold legal grounds as long as it doesn't conflict with state or local laws. Some states like Connecticut already set an age limit. The ones that don't may not have any laws that prevent age discrimination against the young. The age discrimination laws out there seem apply to the elderly, not the young. So I guess that's why movie theaters can limit who goes in to see a movie. Also the constitution applies to the government, not private businesses so they also have some leeway as to how they want to conduct business. That's why private companies can fire you if they don't like what you say, your freedom of speech is only from the government.
Anyway, will be interesting to see what actually happens. I think the stores have a lot of current leeway now, there are those out there that have a no shirts no shoes no service policy. And then there are others that say that they reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. I think it will probably be a state/local law thing unless something happens on the federal level. Some states may want to pass laws that require them to sell to 18 year olds so while corporate may have a national policy, it would be different for that particular state/local law.
Supreme court has yet to rule on whether the bakers can discriminate or not. That other ruling was a local court which may get overruled depending on how the supreme court rules.
http://www.wate.com/news/local-news/law-...o-21/1001671053
https://reason.com/volokh/2018/02/28/can-gun-stores-refuse-to-sell-rifles-and
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
........... something is broken with society. Laws are meant to try and steer society away from a trend of troubles. If society wasn't so messed up there wouldn't be as many laws as there are.
This is true.......
Unfortunate, it's also become "acceptable" to punish the 99% of the good to help stop the 1% of the bad
Whatever happened to catering to "the greater good"?
........... something is broken with society. Laws are meant to try and steer society away from a trend of troubles. If society wasn't so messed up there wouldn't be as many laws as there are.
This is true.......
Unfortunate, it's also become "acceptable" to punish the 99% of the good to help stop the 1% of the bad
Whatever happened to catering to "the greater good"?
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
The Constitution sets no age limits that I know of ... so what besides Federal Law decides on who's old enough to do things (drive, vote, drink, etc) or buy things like guns? Not looking for an argument, just saying how does age play into the Constitution?
Outside of voting, none of those are rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution. Gun ownership is and laws are made around that.
IMHO it's no difference than some state regulating your freedom of speech.
The Constitution sets no age limits that I know of ... so what besides Federal Law decides on who's old enough to do things (drive, vote, drink, etc) or buy things like guns? Not looking for an argument, just saying how does age play into the Constitution?
Outside of voting, none of those are rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution. Gun ownership is and laws are made around that.
IMHO it's no difference than some state regulating your freedom of speech.
Originally Posted By: Dyusik
Reserve the right to refuse service.
Plain, simple. Service is sale, category of 'anyone is age group. Sounds like a freedom of whatever I want to do with my business. No one argues when a 10 year old wants to buy cigarettes. Why now?
Because it's already against the law to sell cigarettes to a 10 year old. It's not against the law to sell guns or ammo to an 18 year old (at least in my state). It's similar to WalMart saying they will no longer sell cigarettes to those under 21. Same thing - they should not be able to do it.
Reserve the right to refuse service.
Plain, simple. Service is sale, category of 'anyone is age group. Sounds like a freedom of whatever I want to do with my business. No one argues when a 10 year old wants to buy cigarettes. Why now?
Because it's already against the law to sell cigarettes to a 10 year old. It's not against the law to sell guns or ammo to an 18 year old (at least in my state). It's similar to WalMart saying they will no longer sell cigarettes to those under 21. Same thing - they should not be able to do it.
Originally Posted By: Linctex
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Second, does anyone really want to go down the road of allowing corporate entities to set public policy?
I find it hard to imagine that anyone does.
They already do...........
via "lobbyists"
That's where we, the politician's employers need to get involved. Get out and vote. Vote them out if you don't agree. Get your friends and family to. Make it unprofitable to follow the lobbyist's money.
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Second, does anyone really want to go down the road of allowing corporate entities to set public policy?
I find it hard to imagine that anyone does.
They already do...........
via "lobbyists"
That's where we, the politician's employers need to get involved. Get out and vote. Vote them out if you don't agree. Get your friends and family to. Make it unprofitable to follow the lobbyist's money.
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
There's already regulations on some huffable substances like solvents and paints. Some on OTC drugs too. Certain media, etc.
When I was a kid I built models all the time. My parents had to buy the model glue for me (this was the mid 1970s).
There's already regulations on some huffable substances like solvents and paints. Some on OTC drugs too. Certain media, etc.
When I was a kid I built models all the time. My parents had to buy the model glue for me (this was the mid 1970s).
AZjeff
$50 Site Donor 2023
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
A lot of stores have totally stop selling firearms of any kind over the last 5+ years (Walmarts included, seen it with my own eyes) as a result of gun violence and mass shootings.
The local wallyworld stopped selling black guns and black accessories but have every kind of gun they ever did in stock as well as lots of ammo and reloading supplies. Must be a regional thing.
There are millions of AR-15s in the US, to stop selling them right now isn't going to make any difference. Only making them illegal to own by citizens will reduce their availability. The Florida shooting was a total failure of existing procedures and laws from beginning to end. Fix and enforce what's on the books and go from there.
Spray paint is controlled by age for instance.
A lot of stores have totally stop selling firearms of any kind over the last 5+ years (Walmarts included, seen it with my own eyes) as a result of gun violence and mass shootings.
The local wallyworld stopped selling black guns and black accessories but have every kind of gun they ever did in stock as well as lots of ammo and reloading supplies. Must be a regional thing.
There are millions of AR-15s in the US, to stop selling them right now isn't going to make any difference. Only making them illegal to own by citizens will reduce their availability. The Florida shooting was a total failure of existing procedures and laws from beginning to end. Fix and enforce what's on the books and go from there.
Spray paint is controlled by age for instance.
My house, my rules.
They are willing to loose a demographic and take monetary loss here. It's like asking a privately owned vending machine service to only have rice cakes and chewing gum because you don't like peanuts.
I do not buy farmed salmon because they use dye to make white fish red. I'm not gonna go whining about garbage they sell, I will simply not partake in practices I don't agree with. Definition of freedom.
They are willing to loose a demographic and take monetary loss here. It's like asking a privately owned vending machine service to only have rice cakes and chewing gum because you don't like peanuts.
I do not buy farmed salmon because they use dye to make white fish red. I'm not gonna go whining about garbage they sell, I will simply not partake in practices I don't agree with. Definition of freedom.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
The Constitution sets no age limits that I know of ... so what besides Federal Law decides on who's old enough to do things (drive, vote, drink, etc) or buy things like guns? Not looking for an argument, just saying how does age play into the Constitution?
Look at the 26 amendment. Which should be repealed IMO.
The Constitution sets no age limits that I know of ... so what besides Federal Law decides on who's old enough to do things (drive, vote, drink, etc) or buy things like guns? Not looking for an argument, just saying how does age play into the Constitution?
Look at the 26 amendment. Which should be repealed IMO.
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Point me to that part of the Constitution that guarantees my right to buy a bottle of Techron.
There is no National Techron Association.
There is a National Rifle Association and while I may disagree with them on almost every point with regard to gun purchase and ownership, they are big and well funded and are not about to allow some retailer to infringe the legal rights of prospective gun purchasers.
Whether I think that gun purchase and ownership should be far more tightly regulated or not isn't an issue, although I do.
Rather, that regulation should be done under law and as interpreted under administrative code allowed by law and subject to review, not by the actions of any retailer.
I don't disagree.
I used Techron as an example because WM's stance on that mirrors their philosophy on guns and ammo. Why is there age limit on Techron? Because Kids huff it? Why don't they put an age limit on pump gas out in front of their Supercenters? Don't kids huff gas too? Does the federal government put age limits on buying fuel injection cleaner? No there isn't a national Techron Association, but who appointed WM as the Techron police?
For me to say what I would like to say in regard to this conundrum would get me banned here. Thus, I'll refrain from being direct.
There are a lot of factions that are getting away with a multitude of things because they can.
Until laws, policies, and procedures are followed instead of subverted to achieve a variety of ends, these types of situations will arise and some will potentially put this country in jeopardy.
For now, the only way I see to deal with this is to administer pain compliance financially to businesses that think that their role is activism, and to vigorously oppose such intrusions utilizing every means possible.
This is merely one thing on the laundry list.
Point me to that part of the Constitution that guarantees my right to buy a bottle of Techron.
There is no National Techron Association.
There is a National Rifle Association and while I may disagree with them on almost every point with regard to gun purchase and ownership, they are big and well funded and are not about to allow some retailer to infringe the legal rights of prospective gun purchasers.
Whether I think that gun purchase and ownership should be far more tightly regulated or not isn't an issue, although I do.
Rather, that regulation should be done under law and as interpreted under administrative code allowed by law and subject to review, not by the actions of any retailer.
I don't disagree.
I used Techron as an example because WM's stance on that mirrors their philosophy on guns and ammo. Why is there age limit on Techron? Because Kids huff it? Why don't they put an age limit on pump gas out in front of their Supercenters? Don't kids huff gas too? Does the federal government put age limits on buying fuel injection cleaner? No there isn't a national Techron Association, but who appointed WM as the Techron police?
For me to say what I would like to say in regard to this conundrum would get me banned here. Thus, I'll refrain from being direct.
There are a lot of factions that are getting away with a multitude of things because they can.
Until laws, policies, and procedures are followed instead of subverted to achieve a variety of ends, these types of situations will arise and some will potentially put this country in jeopardy.
For now, the only way I see to deal with this is to administer pain compliance financially to businesses that think that their role is activism, and to vigorously oppose such intrusions utilizing every means possible.
This is merely one thing on the laundry list.
Originally Posted By: itguy08
Originally Posted By: Dyusik
Reserve the right to refuse service.
Plain, simple. Service is sale, category of 'anyone is age group. Sounds like a freedom of whatever I want to do with my business. No one argues when a 10 year old wants to buy cigarettes. Why now?
Because it's already against the law to sell cigarettes to a 10 year old. It's not against the law to sell guns or ammo to an 18 year old (at least in my state). It's similar to WalMart saying they will no longer sell cigarettes to those under 21. Same thing - they should not be able to do it.
Not sure why you think they shouldn't be able to do it. It's just company policy. That gets played around a lot. As the law currently stands age discrimination only applies to the elderly so there's actually no law that says they can't do that. Unless there's some specific state law that says otherwise. All these companies also have strong in house legal counsel. I think they probably feel they have some solid legal ground to do what they were doing, otherwise they wouldn't do it.
So far no one has actually brought a strong legal basis for what they are doing as being illegal. Just a sentiment that they shouldn't be able to.
Originally Posted By: Dyusik
Reserve the right to refuse service.
Plain, simple. Service is sale, category of 'anyone is age group. Sounds like a freedom of whatever I want to do with my business. No one argues when a 10 year old wants to buy cigarettes. Why now?
Because it's already against the law to sell cigarettes to a 10 year old. It's not against the law to sell guns or ammo to an 18 year old (at least in my state). It's similar to WalMart saying they will no longer sell cigarettes to those under 21. Same thing - they should not be able to do it.
Not sure why you think they shouldn't be able to do it. It's just company policy. That gets played around a lot. As the law currently stands age discrimination only applies to the elderly so there's actually no law that says they can't do that. Unless there's some specific state law that says otherwise. All these companies also have strong in house legal counsel. I think they probably feel they have some solid legal ground to do what they were doing, otherwise they wouldn't do it.
So far no one has actually brought a strong legal basis for what they are doing as being illegal. Just a sentiment that they shouldn't be able to.
- Status
Similar threads
