Quantcast
  1. Upgrade efforts paused for now. Thanks for your patience. More details in the thread in Tech Support for those who are interested.
    Dismiss Notice

age to buy a firearm

Discussion in 'Legal' started by johnnylaw53, Mar 2, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. johnnylaw53

    johnnylaw53 Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2007
    Messages:
    412
    Location:
    Texas
    I hope this is the place for this. I was wondering, since it is a federal law as far as what age one have to be to buy a firearm. We as citizens have a right to keep and bare arms, these companies that are stating that they won't sell firearms of any kind to anyone under 21 are they not violating the civil rights of citizens between the ages of 18 and 21? Wouldn't this be age discrimination? I was just wondering, I personally think it have merit but i think it need to be place into law if that what they want. People can't violate others rights just because they don't agree with them.
     
  2. entropy

    entropy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    14,982
    Location:
    G_d's Country, WI
    A privately owned company can sell or not sell to whom it wants, barring any legal prevention from doing so. It can also suffer any consequenses resulting from doing so. Aside from that, how many lawyers are going take the case of an 18, 19 or 20 year old who wants to sue?
     
  3. Berger.Fan222

    Berger.Fan222 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2014
    Messages:
    548
    Location:
    TX
    LGS LGS LGS

    Forget wally world
     
    Theohazard likes this.
  4. Twiki357

    Twiki357 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,040
    Location:
    Prescott Valley, AZ
    A private business can decide what they want (or don’t want) to sell and who they do or don’t want to sell too as long as they don’t refuse to sell to a protected class of people. And 18 to 20 year olds are not a protected class.
     
    entropy likes this.
  5. DoubleMag

    DoubleMag Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2011
    Messages:
    1,524
    ''Aside from that, how many lawyers are going take the case of an 18, 19 or 20 year old who wants to sue?''

    Oh there's plenty pro-2A (think pro rights) attorneys that would be interested. Sufficient $$$ to fund would be the issue.
    Also FYI it's already being thought of as Glen Beck's radio show Friday 3-2-18 was a lead off story
     
  6. danez71

    danez71 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    5,736
    Location:
    CA,AZ,CA,TX
    The somewhat overly simplified answer is that age is not a protected class in this situation.

    The age discrimination act of the early 1970s? covers programs that receive .Fed dollars but doesn't cover employment issues. That came some 20+ yrs later but I believe only protects 40+yr old from employment discrimination.

    Age is not covered in the Fair Housings 7 protected classes either; for example.

    I'm sure I'm off a little and there are some exemptions to those laws and other details I've left out but that's the jist of it. (For example, the fair housing laws don't apply to an owner occupied with 4 or less units.... but he'd be smart to follow them anyways)


    It's an interesting question though. Im not aware of provisional adulthood where only BOR (making this up as an example) 1, 3, 4,5,6,8 apply but BOR 2, 7, 9 and 10 dont when you're between the legal adult ages of X and Y.


    Hopefully someone smarter than I can shed some more light.
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2018
  7. Carl N. Brown

    Carl N. Brown Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2005
    Messages:
    10,165
    Location:
    Kingsport Tennessee
    I'll repeat myself on this subject:
    So the entire class of persons 18, 19, 20 years old have been adjudicated by Dick's and Walmart as being same as GCA/NICS Prohibited Persons (which is supposed to be a data base of persons individually adjudicated by due process as a danger to self or others).
    18, 19, 20 year olds who shop and vote ought to remember: Dick's, Walmart, and the Democrat National Party have prejudged them as all potentially the next Nickolas Cruz.



    Dicks or Walmart are not obligated to sell firearms or ammunition at all for that matter. It's their business. The local grocery markets have fought tooth and nail to get legal wine sales; but, if they decided to cave to the Dry Forces, they could decide not to sell wine or beer tomorrow, even though local option prohibition was repealed 1968.

    The DoJ OIG Report on Operation Fast and Furious is a very interesting read. ATF advice to gun dealers is that they are not legally required to sell a gun to anyone if they have any qualms about the sale. If a gun dealer subjectively suspects a girlfriend is buying a gun for her boyfriend with his money, he can refuse to complete the trans action. If a gun dealer suspects you are buying for resell, ATF supports the dealer refusing the transaction and reporting you to ATF so they can track your future purchases.

    I look at it practically. I needed a box of forty 7.62x39 Tula for the last modern military match of a season and paid $14.95 for it at Dick's; Walmart had the same thing for $9.95. A local gun shop had 7.62x39 in 100 round lots for $30. I decided Dick's was not my go-to store long ago.
     
  8. CapnMac

    CapnMac Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Messages:
    14,905
    Location:
    DFW (formerly Brazos County), Texas
    Because, A, This is Legal; B, I like Frank; & I try to follow rules:

    From 18 USC 922 Unlawful acts:
    The effects of this upon State law are outlined further along in the statute.

    However, these are the minimums; licensed dealers are free to set the standards to whatever they deem fit. An FFL could state that they will not sell to anyone under 3 if they cared to (the law makes no provision for committing mercantile suicide).

    Note that nothing in the statute (other than the provisions for Prohibited Persosn) bars State law from allowing the possession of arms by youth.

    Which is confusing in some ways. You can give your 15 y/o (in some jurisdictions), unless said minor is Prohibited*, a firearm to possess and use (& within State Statute, Bear). But, they can't buy one themselves. Nor purchase ammo, either (mostyl).
    ___________________________
    *Last winter, some brat children thought it would be fun, during a snowstorm, to tip over all the hives at an apiary. Which killed millions of bees and did close to a million in damages to the apiary. The sentences for the perps was handed down last fall--felony convictions for the 14 y/o and both the 13 y/o arrested for this crime.
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2018
  9. SharpDog

    SharpDog Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    Messages:
    3,165
    Location:
    Tennessee
    Yes and someone just mentioned that on Fox. Likely the federal law will get changed preempting any court cases.
     
  10. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    12,747
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    No, it would not be unlawful age discrimination.

    1. Rights protected by the Constitution are essentially irrelevant when dealing with a non-governmental actor. As explained by the United States Supreme Court (Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company, Inc, 500 U.S. 614 (U. S. Supreme Court, 1991), emphasis added):

    2. In general, discrimination is not illegal. You do it all the time. Every time you decide to shop in this store rather than that, you have discriminated. Every time you decide to buy this rather than that, you have discriminated.

    3. Businesses discriminate all the time too, and legally. Apple stores discriminate against people who want to buy a PC by only selling Apple computers. Many restaurant discriminate against Orthodox Jews or Muslims by not strictly following the dietary laws of those religions. Many restaurants also discriminate against persons not wearing shirts and/or shoes by not admitting them. Tiffany discriminates against poor people in the prices they charge. Businesses also discriminate whenever they hire one person instead of another who has applied for the job.

    4. Discrimination is merely choosing one thing over another or rejecting a possible choice. Discrimination is the very essence of freedom and private property. It is the right to choose. It is the right to exclude. It is the right to decide how you want to use your property.

    5. Discrimination is perfectly legal, unless some law makes it illegal. There are laws that make discrimination illegal on various, specifically identified and defined bases, illegal -- at least if you're a business open to the public or an employer or in some other specified category. In general, persons under the age of 40 are not a protected class under any anti-discrimination law of which I'm aware.

    More uninformed blather from Glenn Beck.
     
  11. Rule3

    Rule3 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    9,831
    Location:
    Florida
    From another forum we were having this discussion. ( I wrote this) Feel free to tear it up. as I really do not know, Just doesn't make sense

    Talking about "protected class and business have the right to refuse sales to anyone?? (based on what?)

    Discussing Florida current laws which are the same as Federal as far as a a 18 yer old can buy a rifle.

    Are not "protected classes" listed under Employment?? Does that make them apply to other things other than employment

    If they are for "employment" how does that carry over to "sales" for a seaming "arbitrary" reason?

    How did the most Expensive Cake in the World make it to the SCOTUS ?it was either religion or sexual preference or both, it was not employment. The baker did not even refuse to sell a cake only to not do some custom decoration.

    (It was mention that Theaters regulate movie viewing by age, but that is not on a individual theater basis)
    Isn't theater ratings a US mandated thing and not arbitrary per each theater?. Movies are rated by the motion picture industry and is standard.

    This all may be beyond the scope of the forum and I sure do not know the the legal ramifications. I have dealt with Florida Civil Statutes but it is beyond me if Federal and State statute allows sales to 18 year olds for rifles.??

    and

    Seems a "protected class" applies to employment. But sometimes maybe applies to elsewhere??

    EEO Terminology | National Archives

    One of them is age but again is that only employment what about sex (gender)

    Federal protected classes include:
    • Race.
    • Color.
    • Religion or creed.
    • National origin or ancestry.
    • Sex.
    • Age.
    • Physical or mental disability.
    • Veteran status.
    Age seems to 0nly apply to older folks as far as employment.
    Just for the sake of discussion can we agree that most buyers of AR 15"s are Male ?

    Without actual statistics I would say it's probably a higher percentage than female

    So I am CEO of a giant corporation that sells rifles (in Florida)

    I am making a store policy that will not sell rifles to any MALE under 21, but will sell to Females under 21.

    How is that gonna go over??

    SO can gender be a protected class there? Is that discrimination ?


    According to the "we refuse to sell to anyone" thing it should be OK right? confused.gif


    Once again, The Baker did that and didn't even refuse a sale just custom stuff
     
  12. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    12,747
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    Yes indeed, you really do not know. None of what you wrote means anything.

    And if you're really interested in that you're going to have to do some actual research.

    You might start with the underlying Colorado court of appeal decision in Craig v.. Masterpiece Cakeshop (Court of Appeals No. 14CA1351). It's this decision which was appealed to the U. S. Supreme Court, so you'd probably want to review the petition for certiorari (Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission).

    Certiorari was granted by the Supreme Court and the docket number 16-111 assigned. It has been argued but not decided. The issue in the case was summarized in the QP Report:

    So nothing you wrote in your post really has anything to do with Masterpiece Cakeshop, nor has Masterpiece Cakeshop have anything to do with the subject matter of this thread.

    Furthermore, your post well illustrates that folks often don't understand the law and how it actually works as well as they think they do. To understand the law, one needs to actually study it (whether formally or informally). Much in the law is non-intuitive or will make sense only when one has sufficient background knowledge. You can't expect to be able to figure out what the law is or how it works just by trying to "reason it out." One needs to do the research, study cases, and do the reading.
     
    entropy likes this.
  13. lemaymiami

    lemaymiami Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2010
    Messages:
    3,338
    Location:
    south Florida
    A few personal reactions to the current issues regarding gun sales... the actions by both Dick's and Walmart regarding weapon sales to me verify that they're only selling weapons from a purely profit motive (and that they probably pay more attention to their lawyers than their customers...). I won't lose a bit of sleep over what they've done since I'd never consider a firearms purchase from them.

    Lastly, thank heavens for the clear and to the point comments by Frank Ettin - We're very fortunate to have someone of his caliber to listen to about legal issues... In my own history during a career in law enforcement I frequently chafed at rulings and opinions on criminal issues that I found restricting or distasteful - but in every case I knew that our legal framework is what sets us apart from a lot of so-called civilized places (pray that you're never arrested in France, for instance....).
     
  14. Rule3

    Rule3 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    9,831
    Location:
    Florida
    Which is why I posted here so the Lawyers with the knowledge can enlighten us all.

    OK forget the whole cake thing.

    Rephrased,

    How can a Company deny 18 to 20 year olds the right to buy a rifle when it is legal on Federal and State (Florida) law?
     
  15. danez71

    danez71 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    5,736
    Location:
    CA,AZ,CA,TX


    It's been answered at least 4 times already with varying levels of detail - from a simplistic layman to detailed lawyer.

    The is no law that designates age as a protected class in this situation. Therefore, it is not illegal to discriminate based on age in this situation.

    Reread the answers.
    If you don't understand parts of the answers given, try quoting specific parts of the answers and ask for further explanation.
     
  16. entropy

    entropy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    14,982
    Location:
    G_d's Country, WI

    I put it in as plain of language as possible, only 12 minutes after you asked.

    Carl put it even more succinctly.

    As did CapnMac.

    How much more explanation do you need? Frank's post settles it with as much authority as possible.
     
  17. Rule3

    Rule3 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    9,831
    Location:
    Florida
    "How much more explanation do you need? Frank's post settles it with as much authority as possible"

    "I put it in as plain of language as possible, only 12 minutes after you asked."

    12 minutes after Who asked?? Are you absolutely sure about that??

    Who are you? Excuse the hell out of me.


    Well take me out behind the wood shed.

    The right of a store to NOT sell anything to anybody is their decision, that is not the same as refusing to sell to certain age groups, protected or not protected class.
    So you are saying they can just pick and chose who and when to sell something?


    What is the answer to this, if age is not a protected class then is sex?
    So I am CEO of a giant corporation that sells rifles (in Florida)
    I am making a store policy that will not sell rifles to any MALE under 21, but will sell to Females under 21.

    Based on what you say, then this would be OK?


    So sorry.

    No wonder Lawyers are held in such esteem.
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2018
  18. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    12,747
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    Actually it pretty much is -- unless it involves refusing to deal with a protected class.

    Unless someone can identify a specific law doing so violates. So a McDonalds could not refuse to sell cheeseburgers to an Orthodox Jew because various civil rights statutes, federal and state, prohibit a merchant from discriminating on the basis of religion. However there is no law which requires that a producer of food comply with kashrut (Jewish dietary laws); and, for those who might not know, a cheeseburger, by mixing meat and dairy, is not kosher.

    No, it wouldn't, because under various civil rights statutes, federal and state, sex is, in most cases, a protected class.
     
  19. Jenrick

    Jenrick Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Messages:
    2,067
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    To possibly help clarify a bit for Rule3:

    Also McDonalds could refuse to sell him a cheeseburger, so long as it's not based on whatever attribute makes him a protected class. If he walks up to the drive through window, the store is absolutely allowed to refuse him service for not being in a vehicle. He is a member of a protected class, but the "discrimination" of not selling to him a cheeseburger is not based on him being a member of that class.

    -Jenrick
     
  20. jrmiddleton425

    jrmiddleton425 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2011
    Messages:
    612
    My two cents (which I hope makes "sense" by the time I'm done):

    Laws are written so that you either MUST do something, or MAY NOT do something.

    There *is a law* that retailers MAY NOT sell handguns to anyone under 21, and long guns to anyone under 18.

    There *is no law* that says retailers MUST sell a long gun to an 18 year old.
     
    MedWheeler likes this.
  21. Rule3

    Rule3 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    9,831
    Location:
    Florida
    First it is said that protected classes do not apply?

    So from all of the above it appears that "protected classes" are only protected some of the time and for so cases and not others.??

    A male in the AGE class of 18-20 is not protected due to age, BUT apparently is protected due to sex?

    But what the heck it all really doesn't matter, as the big box stores that sell guns need a FFL and as a FFL it seems they can deny sales to anyone anytime regardless of age race or sex. Several examples can be found. Even here.

    https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/refuse-to-sell.598443/

    So I will be done with this thread, as I really do not need to be insulted, demeaned and spoken (written) to in a condescending manner.


    All so very High Road
     
  22. entropy

    entropy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    14,982
    Location:
    G_d's Country, WI
    Don't know why you're so offended, Rule 3, we've tried to answer the OP's question both succinctly and comprehensively. I do apologize for confusion you with the OP, johnnylaw53. I think Frank explained why selling to females under 21 but not males would be considered discrimination, but not selling to both females and males would not be. I think he did so in plain language.

    Why is this a hard concept for you to understand? If a gundealer will sell a long gun to an 18 year-old female, but not to an 18 year-old male, solely on the basis of the person's sex, it is a civil rights violation. Both transactions are legal, barring any other disqualifiers. (Felon, etc.) It would not be based on the person's age, because the age protections are employment based, and are geared towards protecting the other edge of the age spectrum.

    To put it practical terms, you can refuse to sell to whomever you please; it cannot be based on a person being a member of a protected class. I had a person accuse me of not selling her a gun because of her race. That had nothing to do with it. It was the fact that she had a handwritten 'shopping list' written in a man's handwriting, and a check signed by that man to pay for it with. I knew without a doubt in my mind it was an attempted straw purchase, called her on it, and refuse to sell her any guns. She threatened to have the ACLU 'all up in your face' etc, etc., I wasn't worried, and nothing ever happened.
     
  23. CapnMac

    CapnMac Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Messages:
    14,905
    Location:
    DFW (formerly Brazos County), Texas
    As Frank has said so eloquently, one cannot merely use simple reason to interpret laws. Laws are a system of interconnected actors requiring skill and experience to keep track of.

    Since that will scan as gobbledygook, let us posit the following.

    ADA defines a number of protected classes of people. Among that list are persons of lessened ability. To include persons with addictions, persons with mental iissues, and the like.

    18 USC 922 clearly prohibits firearm sales to several of those groups, blatantly and aforethought. Which is an explicit discrimination. They can "get away" with that, under a presumption that the public safety good far outweighs that discrimination.

    Now, to the present question, we do have a dearth of enscribed legislative intent which describes the "why" various actors are presumed to be prohibited de facto. By the benefit of the doubt, we might conclude that, the intent of the prohibition could be "cured" by rather simple means. Become older; commit no crimes; be cured of addictions, and the like. Unfortunately, all we have is the text of the statute itself to inform us.

    So, no, "Discrimination!" cannot be invoked here.

    Further, that a parent or guardian might give a 15 y/o a firearm is also not discrimination, as the parent /guardian is expected to be a rational and reasoned actor, and best informed as to their child's maturity and rationality. Schools and such similar collections of minor children, may, acting en loco parentitus, to further discriminate agains the minors in their care. And for any number of reasons. Which is why patently absurd policies, like "zero tollerance" are allowed to stand.
     
  24. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    12,747
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    Yes, it can be confusing. There are a slew of civil rights laws, federal and state. They define classes of persons from being discriminated against on certain bases, and they also address discrimination only in certain specified activities or transactions.

    Most such laws prohibit discrimination on the bases of race, religion, and national origin. Most also protect one from being discriminated against on the basis of sex and, in many cases, sexual orientation. Certain civil rights laws also prohibit certain types of discrimination on the basis of age, if one is between age 40 and 70, or on the basis of disability. Sometimes there are overlaps and sometimes there aren't.

    So a state law might prohibit discrimination in employment of the basis of age, but there might be no state law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of age in the renting of residential property.

    And there are usually exceptions. While an employer might be prohibited from discriminatory hiring on the basis sex, a health club can refuse to hire a man to hand out towels in the women's locker room.

    One thing to remember about civil rights laws is that protecting someone's right to something results in diminishing someone else's right. So by protecting someone's right to buy a house free from discrimination because of his religion, we've reduced the homeowner's property right to dispose of his property as he sees fit. When rights rub against each other in that sort of way the legislature needs to decide priorities, and those priorities need to be politically palatable.

    Here's the way all that works. I can't discriminate against you on a prohibited basis, but I can decline to deal with you if I have another, non-prohibited basis for doing so.

    So I can't refuse to sell my house to someone because he's black, but I can refuse to sell my house to him because he can't show me evidence of adequate financing to meet the price. The prohibition on discrimination in the sale of residential property on the basis of race doesn't relieve the buyer, no matter what his race might be, of the obligation to satisfy whatever contingencies are part of the deal.

    If I'm sued by X for not selling my house to him because he's black, he might have stated a prima facie (on its face) case of discrimination. But I defend that suit by showing that he could not meet the contingencies, and his failure to do so relieved me, as a matter of contract, of an obligation to sell him the house.

    Similarly, in the FFL situation, as entropy outlined in post 22, race would be a prohibited basis for an FFL to refuse a sale. But the FFL would have no obligation to complete the sale if he could state a non-prohibited basis, i. e., if under the circumstances he had reasonable cause to believe that the transaction would in some way violate the GCA.
     
    entropy likes this.
  25. Rule3

    Rule3 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    9,831
    Location:
    Florida


    You don't?
    Guess you need to re read some lines written in the classic "quote" and dissect, above. and I am not really a "simplistic layman". Even though I do not have a PhD I do have a MS

    Sounds like a damn lecture from grade school.

    But heck, I have been spoken to in worse ways , it is all irrelevant anyway know. The Big Box stores most probably do not sell many deadly rifles to the 18-20 age group to make a dent in their bottom line.and earned lots of good will points form the anti gun crowd
    I could calculate that for you on another forum,

    Since you asked, here are some of the noteworthy quotes. All very High Road.

    "Yes indeed, you really do not know. None of what you wrote means anything.
    So nothing you wrote in your post really has anything to do with Masterpiece Cakeshop, nor has Masterpiece Cakeshop have anything to do with the subject matter of this thread.
    Furthermore, your post well illustrates that folks often don't understand the law and how it actually works as well as they think they do.
    +++++++++++++++++++
    It's been answered at least 4 times already with varying levels of detail - from a simplistic layman to detailed lawyer.
    I put it in as plain of language as possible, only 12 minutes after you asked. (WRONG)
    Carl put it even more succinctly.
    As did CapnMac
    How much more explanation do you need? Frank's post settles it with as much authority as possible.?

    Carry On
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice