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.