Another Wal-Mart story.....

[itgoesboom]

Magknight has the right answer in my opinion. If someone is of legal age to purchase ammo, then they should be able to purchase the ammo.

Doesn't mean you have to be comfortable that they are armed.

I.G.B.

 

[BHPshooter]

This thread is quite the rough awakening.

Yeah, maybe he was a gangbanger. Or maybe he was just like you or me, and just like you or me, sometimes is scared. Maybe he wanted to feel a little safer. Maybe he had a reason to need that ammo.

I'm 20. I have 2 handguns. I buy ammunition for them, even though I'm "not of 'legal age'." Yeah? And? I'm here on The High Road just like the rest of you -- I'm a good guy.

So because I'm not a year older, my life's worthless? In essence, that's what you're saying if I can't buy ammunition for my gun. That's also what they're saying when I can't carry a gun, but I can vote, move out, get married, have kids, be drafted, etc. at 18, but have to spend 3 years in limbo before life has meaning.

You know, I try not to get into the "deeper politics" on here, talking about only guns is like talking about one thread in a woven rug.

The role of the Government is NOT to prevent gangbangers from buying ammo, or drugs, or anything. The role of the government is to punish the gangbangers if they misuse their .25 ACP or marijuana and hurt someone. The difference is that the "proper" government action is after-the-fact.
The rest is up to you and I.

Of course, this assumes that the entire system is working as it should, but I digress.

Wes

 

[Treylis]

Thefumegator:

I completely agree.

(And I'm 20 too, by the way. If you're going to tell me I'm going to have to register for the draft and yet not be able to own effective tools of self-defense, you have another thing coming.)

 

[MagKnightX]

I agree, it's a completely stupid and worthless law, to prevent people from owning handguns at 18.

But you've got to remember, stupid and worthless, yes, but it is the law, and if I'm a dealer, I'm D**N sure not gonna give them reason to pull my license.

 

[Balog]

The problem is not letting "felons" own guns; it's letting people who can't be trusted with a weapon back into society.

 

[Treylis]

MagKnightX:

I own my pistol, and I can still legally buy pistols from private sellers, I just can't buy straight from an FFL until I'm 21.

The basic trick is to have your parents 'gift' it to you. As long as you're not prohibited from posession for some reason and 18, it's kosher in Arizona.

 

[BHPshooter]

The problem is not letting "felons" own guns; it's letting people who can't be trusted with a weapon back into society.

Bingo.

They should be pushing up daisies. That way we don't have to worry about them running wild in society, nor do we have to support them watching cable TV in a federal pen.

Wes

 

[c_yeager]

Interesting thing, according to this page http://www.firearmslawcenter.org/content/oregon.asp#MinimumAgetoPurchasePossess It is in fact perfectly legal for someone over the age of 18 to own a gun. One would imagine that they could also purchase ammunition for said firearm. In other words the counter person over at Walmart unlawfully violated the constitutional rights of a citizen of the United States. How many times have we been all up in arms because someone behind the counter at a store like this didnt know the rules? If this had happened to one of our upstanding younger members we would be all over it. But, because it wasnt a member of the "approved gun owner class" then we dont need to worry about it, right?

What i think is particularly interesting is how many of the responces here coulod have been found on the HCI site. I have heard it all from people claiming that persons who believe that everyone should own a gun are "dangerous" to someone ACTUALLY claiming that because the .25 acp isnt a "sporting cartridge" that he doesnt have a good reason to buy it. Amazing, how about we all just form one line on the right to turn in our ARs and AKs and one line on the left to turn in all our holsters and carry permits. Sounds like a wonderful solution to this problem to me.

 

[BluesBear]

One would imagine that they could also purchase ammunition for said firearm.

One could imagine that but a Federall Licensed Firearms dealer cannot sell ammunition for use in a handgun to anyone under the age of 21. They are further forbidden from selling ammo than can be used in both rifles and handguns to persons under 21 if they "believe" that it will be used in a handgun.

Since rifles firing .25acp ammunition are about as common as chicken lips, the Wally World clerk had no choice in the matter.

In other words the counter person over at Walmart unlawfully violated the constitutional rights of a citizen of the United States.

Constitutional rights? Discuss this with the friendly folks at F-Troop. Because if they catch you selling to underage customers they will discuss it with you sternly in terms you really don't want to hear. This is one of the reasons why you can't buy these products in many of the Kaleefornya WalMart stores.

How many times have we been all up in arms because someone behind the counter at a store like this didnt know the rules?

In this case the person behind the counter DID know the "rules".

 

[sch40]

Because of our natural rights (enumerated in the "Bill of Rights"), the kid should be able to legally purchase any firearm or ammunition.
Because WallMart is a private business, it should be able to choose whether to do business with certain individuals, with no federal government interference.

--just my opinion

 

[CAPTAIN MIKE]

..MAYBE IT'S JUST ME..

But I have found over time that my B.S. Detector and my Instinct are VERY WELL LUBRICATED by my Experience.

Funny but people and men in particular tend to dress in a way that conveys what they stand for. Especially today when one's clothing is so much of a message. Combine that with certain speech patterns and sayings and you can easily 'peg' somebody.

Your instinct was correct.

 

[Treylis]

There's the obvious solution of buying from someone who isn't an FFL, as well.

 

[Nick1911]

I'm way too tired to get into the really deep core meaning's being brough up in this post, so for now, all I have to say is i totally agree with the following point said by itgoesboom:

I also hope that Hillary doesn't ever get elected President.

 

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

bfason wrote:

Do you think that a convicted violent felon should be allowed to walk into a gunstore and buy an MP5-SD cash-and-carry? Should *any* attempt be made to prevent such a transaction, even if it meant that the rest of us had to show ID and pass a quick background check proving that we were law-abiding citizens, i.e., members in good standing of the unorganized militia?

Non-Violent felons should be allowed to purchase firearms. There's a question of whether the Constitution permits the Government to restrict felons from purchasing firearms. It doesn't look like it does by a plain language reading.

There are numerous exceptions to the First Amendment that all reasonable people agree upon. For example, the First Amendment does not protect slander, libel, fraud, the publication of the names of secret agents, the publication of troop movements, obscenity (however vaguely that is defined), child pornography, incitement to riot, falsely shouting "fire"in a crowded theatre, invasion of privacy, etc. All these exceptions can peacefully coexist with the First Amendment, and the US still has perhaps the most robust overall freedom of expression.

There's no prior restraint allowed under the constitution for a lot of the types of speech you've mentioned. Under the first amendment they are only actionable "after the fact." Preventing non-violent felons from purchasing firearms is a type of prior restraint that should be impermissable.

Restrictions on fundamental Constitutional rights ought to be looked at with "strict scrutiny" i.e., the Government should have to demonstrate a compelling need for the restriction. I don't see any "compelling need" for the Government to prohibit non-violent felons from purchasing firearms. or to prohibit Civil War re-enactors from owning cannons, etc.

The US has less in the way of freedom of speech now as a result of what the thick-headed amongst us (GWB, John McCain, Russ Feingold) consider "reasonable restrictions" on Campaign Finance. The SCOTUS found preventing "the appearance" of corruption to be a compelling need that passes strict scrutiny.

Likewise, I dont see how the security of a free state is served by allowing anyone to walk into Wally World, plop down a fist full of cash, and walk out with a dozen surface-to-air missiles and rocket-propelled grenades.

If only the line were drawn there. Unfortunately we have the sick minded amongst us, such as those in the Brady Campaign, VPC, NJ Legislature, etc..., who would draw the line at single shot bolt action 22 cal rifles, no handguns, and only break action shotguns.

 

[greyhound]

but there are millions of irresponsible idiots out there that dont take care of their kids and have screwed things up for the rest of us.

100% right. Unfortunately, the "Leave It To Beaver" type society is long since gone.*


* before I get slammed, I realize that life was never exactly like that - I'm really referring to the pre-60s/cultural revolution in general.

 

[Don Gwinn]

I used to work with a "thug"--shaved head, tattoos (not just any tattoos, either--those really tasteful dice-and-pit-bulls kind) wore a goatee but was generally unshaven. Walked around with a cigarette hanging out of his mouth like he owned the city. Drove two lowriders. Had a girlfriend, but the love of his life was his Pit Bull/Boxer mix. Speech was L.A. latino gangster, although he had moved to Mason City, Illinois, population about 300.

Only he wasn't a drug dealer or a gang member. It was worse.


He was a used car salesman. He was also a good kid, but you had to get to know him to realize that. I pointed out to him one day that most people would have to assume, on seeing him for the first time, that their wallets and lives were in danger. He just grinned.

In other words, he liked the thug image. He talked about being a thug. He wasn't being oppressed by society; he was getting the reaction he wanted for whatever reason.

Now, Big Ken at the same place was the opposite. I swear, I think selling cars saved Ken's life. Ken's speech made it clear that he was uneducated and had grown up somewhere rough, but he was smart and he could talk your ear off. His customers took whatever he offered and liked it. They left happy about buying more stuff or paying one point more. Ken looked like your typical young black professional guy; short hair, colorful but tasteful shirts and slacks, stylish ties, expensive shoes.

But if you "tried" Ken in the impromptu sparring matches that crop up when a bunch of young men work long hours together without much supervision, it was pretty clear he could have put out the lights of anybody in the place. And if you worked there long enough, you would eventually hear the story of how Ken once let something slip about prison and Josh (the thug mentioned above) looked up his prison record on the internet. Ken, you see, had served prison time for firing a handgun at someone (but missing) years before. Ken said he was only firing in self-defense, as his tormentor had five others with him and they'd made it clear that they wanted to kill him. I have no way of really knowing. What I did know was that if the worst happened and I had two guns, I'd have given the other one to Ken before anyone else in that place. I trusted Ken. He was a good man. Life is not so black and white when you meet a man whose best friend was one of two people shot to death at his homecoming football game--thirty miles from here.

One interesting point about Ken that has nothing to do with this thread is that he always maintained that he had never been in a gang except when he was actually incarcerated. In prison, he said, it was a practical necessity. He rose to the rank of block captain and held it for over a year before he was released. The absolutely businesslike, Corporate America spirit of the gang was the strangest part. I don't know why, but it's hard to think of a gang as a business. I suppose maybe that's why that gang was so firmly in charge.

 

[iapetus]

The absolutely businesslike, Corporate America spirit of the gang was the strangest part. I don't know why, but it's hard to think of a gang as a business. I suppose maybe that's why that gang was so firmly in charge.

I heard a story once (could be urban myth, but could be true) about a reformed drug-dealer who applied for a legitimate job after release from jail.

He put down "drug dealer" on his CV, emphasising the need to manage finances, deal with aggressive customers and suppliers, employ other people (pushers, bodyguards, etc).

And got the job as a result.

 

[bfason]

I heard a story once (could be urban myth, but could be true) about a reformed drug-dealer who applied for a legitimate job after release from jail.

It's true. In his resume he emphasized his skills in sales, marketing, customer due diligence, logistics, etc, that he developed while running his mutlinational enterprise. I believe The Wall Street Journal ran a story about it.