Can a retailer set age requirements for purchases?
- Thread starter fdcg27
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Why repeal the 26th ammendment? Who would set the minimum voting age if the 26th ammendment wasn't in place?
Simple answer to an incorrect statement.
Quote:
The Constitution sets no age limits that I know of
Why repeal it? Snowflakes.
Why repeal the 26th ammendment? Who would set the minimum voting age if the 26th ammendment wasn't in place?
Simple answer to an incorrect statement.
Quote:
The Constitution sets no age limits that I know of
Why repeal it? Snowflakes.
Probably do a better job than some adult voters.
I mean repeal it and put it back to 21 at least. 25 would be even better.
JHZR2
Staff member
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. 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.
Id suspect this is less of a PR stunt, more of a move to be safe from lawsuits.
Gunmakers get sued when people are killed by guns. As if the manufacturer did anything. Yes, guns are made for killing - the made for putting holes in paper argument is silly. But they don't kill anyone themselves.
But imagine a school shooting perp is caught, and the backpack has a bunch of Walmart receipts for ammo. Walmart has very deep pockets. No doubt some scummy lawyer looking to make a name for themself would go after that in an instant.
Retailers know people are rabid. A defensive move protects them from legal harm.
Joe NRA may get all angry when he hears that Walmart stopped selling, but next time he needs oil or his underwear has holes in it, I'll bet he goes back.
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.
Id suspect this is less of a PR stunt, more of a move to be safe from lawsuits.
Gunmakers get sued when people are killed by guns. As if the manufacturer did anything. Yes, guns are made for killing - the made for putting holes in paper argument is silly. But they don't kill anyone themselves.
But imagine a school shooting perp is caught, and the backpack has a bunch of Walmart receipts for ammo. Walmart has very deep pockets. No doubt some scummy lawyer looking to make a name for themself would go after that in an instant.
Retailers know people are rabid. A defensive move protects them from legal harm.
Joe NRA may get all angry when he hears that Walmart stopped selling, but next time he needs oil or his underwear has holes in it, I'll bet he goes back.
Age is a protected class in America. Age discrimination is frowned upon. I see this going all the way to the supreme court.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Id suspect this is less of a PR stunt, more of a move to be safe from lawsuits.
Gunmakers get sued when people are killed by guns. As if the manufacturer did anything. Yes, guns are made for killing - the made for putting holes in paper argument is silly. But they don't kill anyone themselves.
But imagine a school shooting perp is caught, and the backpack has a bunch of Walmart receipts for ammo. Walmart has very deep pockets. No doubt some scummy lawyer looking to make a name for themself would go after that in an instant.
Retailers know people are rabid. A defensive move protects them from legal harm.
Joe NRA may get all angry when he hears that Walmart stopped selling, but next time he needs oil or his underwear has holes in it, I'll bet he goes back.
I believe that why ***** decided to do it. They said they found out that they sold a shotgun to the shooter and they didn't want to be in the story if it had turned out in the future that they had sold the gun used in a mass shooting. I believe the store that sold the gun shut down.
Anyway, I think it holds up because some rental car companies won't rent to anyone under 25. But they're license to drive between 16-18. The key point may be that the law requires a buyer to be at least 18 not that all retailers sell to someone 18 and older.
Id suspect this is less of a PR stunt, more of a move to be safe from lawsuits.
Gunmakers get sued when people are killed by guns. As if the manufacturer did anything. Yes, guns are made for killing - the made for putting holes in paper argument is silly. But they don't kill anyone themselves.
But imagine a school shooting perp is caught, and the backpack has a bunch of Walmart receipts for ammo. Walmart has very deep pockets. No doubt some scummy lawyer looking to make a name for themself would go after that in an instant.
Retailers know people are rabid. A defensive move protects them from legal harm.
Joe NRA may get all angry when he hears that Walmart stopped selling, but next time he needs oil or his underwear has holes in it, I'll bet he goes back.
I believe that why ***** decided to do it. They said they found out that they sold a shotgun to the shooter and they didn't want to be in the story if it had turned out in the future that they had sold the gun used in a mass shooting. I believe the store that sold the gun shut down.
Anyway, I think it holds up because some rental car companies won't rent to anyone under 25. But they're license to drive between 16-18. The key point may be that the law requires a buyer to be at least 18 not that all retailers sell to someone 18 and older.
Originally Posted By: bubbatime
Age is a protected class in America. Age discrimination is frowned upon. I see this going all the way to the supreme court.
Age discrimination laws apply mostly to the elderly. They also apply to certain things like labor and housing. They don't seem to apply to retail, At least not on the federal level. Some states may have laws that prohibit it but that's going to be by the state.
Age is a protected class in America. Age discrimination is frowned upon. I see this going all the way to the supreme court.
Age discrimination laws apply mostly to the elderly. They also apply to certain things like labor and housing. They don't seem to apply to retail, At least not on the federal level. Some states may have laws that prohibit it but that's going to be by the state.
Originally Posted By: itguy08
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 business can't stop you from owning a firearm, but they have the right to refuse service. They don't have to sell you anything. It goes both ways, your right to bear arms does not trump private property rights. By refusing to sell to you doesn't violate your rights because you are free to go do business someplace else.
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 business can't stop you from owning a firearm, but they have the right to refuse service. They don't have to sell you anything. It goes both ways, your right to bear arms does not trump private property rights. By refusing to sell to you doesn't violate your rights because you are free to go do business someplace else.
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
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).
IBTL
I remember it well too. Juvenile morons would buy the glue and huff it to get high. By a schoolyard over here there was a handball court, and a fence, on the other side of the fence was garden apartment garages. Said morons would climb the fence jump onto the garage roofs, with baggies and Testors Model Glue, and have at it. Then they'd toss the glue and bags into the alleyway. If I were putting a model together one of my parents had to buy the glue.
I like the idea of the legal age being 21 across the board too.
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).
IBTL
I remember it well too. Juvenile morons would buy the glue and huff it to get high. By a schoolyard over here there was a handball court, and a fence, on the other side of the fence was garden apartment garages. Said morons would climb the fence jump onto the garage roofs, with baggies and Testors Model Glue, and have at it. Then they'd toss the glue and bags into the alleyway. If I were putting a model together one of my parents had to buy the glue.
I like the idea of the legal age being 21 across the board too.
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: AVB
Originally Posted By: itguy08
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 business can't stop you from owning a firearm, but they have the right to refuse service. They don't have to sell you anything. It goes both ways, your right to bear arms does not trump private property rights. By refusing to sell to you doesn't violate your rights because you are free to go do business someplace else.
As I have said before, this is really "iffy", and probably going to end up in several courts.
There are examples of sustained refusal of service based on age...
Rental car companies often have a minimum age of 25 to keep young kids from trashing their vehicles.
Hotels often have minimum age of 21 to keep kids from partying in their rooms (proms, frat parties, etc)
So examples do exist where service and products have been withheld based on age.
However, whether this is really "legal" will likely come to a point of contention regarding the 2A.
Imagine if this same approach were taken if someone was ...
Black
Sikh
Female
"I'm sorry, we don't sell to anyone who's ... you know, like you."
The right to refuse service is based on a consideration of the patron/customer acting in an untoward manner, outside of "normal" behavior. Examples:
- no shirt, no shoes, no service
- I'm sorry, but your loud and boisterous children are disrupting the expensive quality dining experience here a Morton's Steakhouse; if you don't control them you'll have to leave
- I'm sorry, but your continued pan-handling is bothering other customers; you'll have to stop or be trespassed off the property
Refusing service these days is based on your BEHAVIOR, not your protected class.
If a LAW based on age restricts a service or product, it's going to upheld. No alcohol to those under 21. No tobacco to someone under 18 (or now 21 in some states).
But restricting a product to someone based on age, where no law exists, is asking for a legal review at some point. I have always wondered how Car and Hotel places get away with it; probably because the general public has little interest in the outcome. But guns are obviously different; emotions run deep in both directions.
If a company chooses to do this, I do support the free marketplace, and it's their choice. But again, age IS a protected class. If we changed the condition (race, gender, ethnic basis, sexual orientation) would we be so inclined to tolerate this? Or would we continue to be hypocrites?
- I'm sorry Mr. Abdul Mohammad, you cannot stay in our hotel. I realize you're family is tired and it's snowy outside, but you'll have to drive to the next town.
- I'm sorry Ms. Bloom, you're a woman and we don't think you can handle this 500hp muscle car as well as a man, so you'll have to find a different dealership to buy it from.
- I'm sorry, but you cannot buy a set of customized tee-shirts from us celebrating your (insert controversial topic here) because it's against our sensibilities.
So try this on for size:
I'm sorry. I realize you're an adult, legally. You are subject to conscription; our government requires you register for military service and you can be forced to risk death for your country. And, you're old enough to enter into a legally binding contract for car insurance. And you can be sued for actions of misfortune if you harm another person or destroy property. You can be arrested and put into prison for Felonies, with no reservation of obscuring your criminal record from potential employers. Further, you're old enough to vote; choosing the course of your future and that of your nation. But you cannot buy a gun because we don't think you're mature enough, even though we don't know you at all personally; we're just generalizing on a stereotype.
Herein lies the danger of not supporting someone's rights that you otherwise don't care about. Eventually, the shoe will be on the other foot, and you'll care a whole lot about it albeit in a different topic. Eventually, someone will come after your "rights"; the ones you actually have an interest in and are not against. I don't care what the topic is; there is danger in being a hypocrite when it comes to "rights". The law of unintended consequences will rear it's ugly head, and then you'll likely be sorry some day. Support one; support them all.
This age-based topic will likely end up in court.
Originally Posted By: itguy08
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 business can't stop you from owning a firearm, but they have the right to refuse service. They don't have to sell you anything. It goes both ways, your right to bear arms does not trump private property rights. By refusing to sell to you doesn't violate your rights because you are free to go do business someplace else.
As I have said before, this is really "iffy", and probably going to end up in several courts.
There are examples of sustained refusal of service based on age...
Rental car companies often have a minimum age of 25 to keep young kids from trashing their vehicles.
Hotels often have minimum age of 21 to keep kids from partying in their rooms (proms, frat parties, etc)
So examples do exist where service and products have been withheld based on age.
However, whether this is really "legal" will likely come to a point of contention regarding the 2A.
Imagine if this same approach were taken if someone was ...
Black
Sikh
Female
"I'm sorry, we don't sell to anyone who's ... you know, like you."
The right to refuse service is based on a consideration of the patron/customer acting in an untoward manner, outside of "normal" behavior. Examples:
- no shirt, no shoes, no service
- I'm sorry, but your loud and boisterous children are disrupting the expensive quality dining experience here a Morton's Steakhouse; if you don't control them you'll have to leave
- I'm sorry, but your continued pan-handling is bothering other customers; you'll have to stop or be trespassed off the property
Refusing service these days is based on your BEHAVIOR, not your protected class.
If a LAW based on age restricts a service or product, it's going to upheld. No alcohol to those under 21. No tobacco to someone under 18 (or now 21 in some states).
But restricting a product to someone based on age, where no law exists, is asking for a legal review at some point. I have always wondered how Car and Hotel places get away with it; probably because the general public has little interest in the outcome. But guns are obviously different; emotions run deep in both directions.
If a company chooses to do this, I do support the free marketplace, and it's their choice. But again, age IS a protected class. If we changed the condition (race, gender, ethnic basis, sexual orientation) would we be so inclined to tolerate this? Or would we continue to be hypocrites?
- I'm sorry Mr. Abdul Mohammad, you cannot stay in our hotel. I realize you're family is tired and it's snowy outside, but you'll have to drive to the next town.
- I'm sorry Ms. Bloom, you're a woman and we don't think you can handle this 500hp muscle car as well as a man, so you'll have to find a different dealership to buy it from.
- I'm sorry, but you cannot buy a set of customized tee-shirts from us celebrating your (insert controversial topic here) because it's against our sensibilities.
So try this on for size:
I'm sorry. I realize you're an adult, legally. You are subject to conscription; our government requires you register for military service and you can be forced to risk death for your country. And, you're old enough to enter into a legally binding contract for car insurance. And you can be sued for actions of misfortune if you harm another person or destroy property. You can be arrested and put into prison for Felonies, with no reservation of obscuring your criminal record from potential employers. Further, you're old enough to vote; choosing the course of your future and that of your nation. But you cannot buy a gun because we don't think you're mature enough, even though we don't know you at all personally; we're just generalizing on a stereotype.
Herein lies the danger of not supporting someone's rights that you otherwise don't care about. Eventually, the shoe will be on the other foot, and you'll care a whole lot about it albeit in a different topic. Eventually, someone will come after your "rights"; the ones you actually have an interest in and are not against. I don't care what the topic is; there is danger in being a hypocrite when it comes to "rights". The law of unintended consequences will rear it's ugly head, and then you'll likely be sorry some day. Support one; support them all.
This age-based topic will likely end up in court.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I like the idea of the legal age being 21 across the board too.
I agree, by across the board it should mean guns alcohol and voting. If you are not mature enough for firearms, alcohol, you are not mature enough to vote.
I like the idea of the legal age being 21 across the board too.
I agree, by across the board it should mean guns alcohol and voting. If you are not mature enough for firearms, alcohol, you are not mature enough to vote.
Car rental is a good analogy. Have to be 21 but to get a license just 18 or permit 15-16
Originally Posted By: spasm3
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I like the idea of the legal age being 21 across the board too.
I agree, by across the board it should mean guns alcohol and voting. If you are not mature enough for firearms, alcohol, you are not mature enough to vote.
I agree 100%, you can toss driving in there too if you want.
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I like the idea of the legal age being 21 across the board too.
I agree, by across the board it should mean guns alcohol and voting. If you are not mature enough for firearms, alcohol, you are not mature enough to vote.
I agree 100%, you can toss driving in there too if you want.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Herein lies the danger of not supporting someone's rights that you otherwise don't care about. Eventually, the shoe will be on the other foot, and you'll care a whole lot about it albeit in a different topic. Eventually, someone will come after your "rights"; the ones you actually have an interest in and are not against. I don't care what the topic is; there is danger in being a hypocrite when it comes to "rights". The law of unintended consequences will rear it's ugly head, and then you'll likely be sorry some day. Support one; support them all.
This age-based topic will likely end up in court.
I agree with most of what you said, I am just standing up for private property rights. I support businesses discriminating against anyone for any reason. I also support gun ownership for anyone not in prison.
Herein lies the danger of not supporting someone's rights that you otherwise don't care about. Eventually, the shoe will be on the other foot, and you'll care a whole lot about it albeit in a different topic. Eventually, someone will come after your "rights"; the ones you actually have an interest in and are not against. I don't care what the topic is; there is danger in being a hypocrite when it comes to "rights". The law of unintended consequences will rear it's ugly head, and then you'll likely be sorry some day. Support one; support them all.
This age-based topic will likely end up in court.
I agree with most of what you said, I am just standing up for private property rights. I support businesses discriminating against anyone for any reason. I also support gun ownership for anyone not in prison.
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: spasm3
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I like the idea of the legal age being 21 across the board too.
I agree, by across the board it should mean guns alcohol and voting. If you are not mature enough for firearms, alcohol, you are not mature enough to vote.
I agree 100%, you can toss driving in there too if you want.
Might as well back the military age off to 21 too while you all are at it.
Originally Posted By: spasm3
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I like the idea of the legal age being 21 across the board too.
I agree, by across the board it should mean guns alcohol and voting. If you are not mature enough for firearms, alcohol, you are not mature enough to vote.
I agree 100%, you can toss driving in there too if you want.
Might as well back the military age off to 21 too while you all are at it.
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: spasm3
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I like the idea of the legal age being 21 across the board too.
I agree, by across the board it should mean guns alcohol and voting. If you are not mature enough for firearms, alcohol, you are not mature enough to vote.
I agree 100%, you can toss driving in there too if you want.
Might as well back the military age off to 21 too while you all are at it.
You can do that too.
Then bump the max age limit you can join by 3 years, and add three more years to the age you can retire from the Military.
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: spasm3
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I like the idea of the legal age being 21 across the board too.
I agree, by across the board it should mean guns alcohol and voting. If you are not mature enough for firearms, alcohol, you are not mature enough to vote.
I agree 100%, you can toss driving in there too if you want.
Might as well back the military age off to 21 too while you all are at it.
You can do that too.
Originally Posted By: AVB
The business can't stop you from owning a firearm, but they have the right to refuse service. They don't have to sell you anything. It goes both ways, your right to bear arms does not trump private property rights. By refusing to sell to you doesn't violate your rights because you are free to go do business someplace else.
We opened that can of worms with the case against the bakery refusing to bake the cake for the gay couple a year or so ago. IMHO it's really no different - if you have to bake a cake you have to sell the firearm.
The business can't stop you from owning a firearm, but they have the right to refuse service. They don't have to sell you anything. It goes both ways, your right to bear arms does not trump private property rights. By refusing to sell to you doesn't violate your rights because you are free to go do business someplace else.
We opened that can of worms with the case against the bakery refusing to bake the cake for the gay couple a year or so ago. IMHO it's really no different - if you have to bake a cake you have to sell the firearm.
- Status
Similar threads
