Are Retailers Breaking the Law?

[pcosmar]

Are the retailers that are refusing Gun Sales to Legal Adults violating the Law..

Should they lose their FFL License?.

Not sure of the law on this,,but it does seem a violation to refuse a legal sale.

Thoughts?
Ammo?

[kcchiefs6465]

Retailers should be able to buy from who they wish and sell to who they wish.

It could be considered discriminatory based on the refusal of service due to age but all other areas of the businesses are open to doing business with those aged 18-21.

It sets a bad precedent to badger businesses to do business with those they do not wish to and really, the progressive deciders of these anti-discrimination lawsuits are about as anti-gun as they come.

That being said, they should be boycotted for furthering authoritarian policy and practically speaking it is a stupid business decision.

[Slave Mentality]

^ what chiefs said. They should have every right to sell what they want to whoever they want. We should have every right to not support businesses for whatever reason.

The companies that go political are screwing up badly. Just sell shit FFS.

I won’t set foot in another Dick’s...

[pcosmar]

^ what chiefs said. They should have every right to sell what they want to whoever they want. We should have every right to not support businesses for whatever reason.

The companies that go political are screwing up badly. Just sell $#@! FFS.

I won’t set foot in another Dick’s...

It should be... BUT IT IS NOT...!!

It is Federal Licensed.. under Federal Law,,
It is NOT discretionary.

They are violating Federal Law by discriminating based on age.. when the legal age is Determined by Law.

[pcosmar]

I won’t set foot in another Dick’s...

it ain't just Dicks,, this $hit is viral.

[timosman]

It should be... BUT IT IS NOT...!!

It is Federal Licensed.. under Federal Law,,
It is NOT discretionary.

They are violating Federal Law by discriminating based on age.. when the legal age is Determined by Law.

There should be a class action lawsuit coming soon.

[kcchiefs6465]

It should be... BUT IT IS NOT...!!

It is Federal Licensed.. under Federal Law,,
It is NOT discretionary.

They are violating Federal Law by discriminating based on age.. when the legal age is Determined by Law.
That'd be an ironic case for those authoritarian assholes to preside over and I think they'd correctly side with the business discriminating based on whatever reasons they wish (for the wrong reason though).

On principal I would not endorse the lawsuit.

Abolish FFLs.

[pcosmar]

There should be a class action lawsuit coming soon.

I do not believe that a Prohibited Person has standing. (anywhere)

[kcchiefs6465]

it ain't just Dicks,, this $hit is viral.
Stores that barely even sell firearms are jumping on the bandwagon (Kroger). And Wal-Mart too. Despicable.

[specsaregood]

Are the retailers that are refusing Gun Sales to Legal Adults violating the Law..
Should they lose their FFL License?.
Not sure of the law on this,,but it does seem a violation to refuse a legal sale.
Thoughts?
Ammo?

I would think so, but rental car companies and hotels have been doing the same thing for a long time without any problems evidently.

[timosman]

I do not believe that a Prohibited Person has standing. (anywhere)

Maybe somebody just coming coming back from a "tour of duty"?

[Madison320]

Are the retailers that are refusing Gun Sales to Legal Adults violating the Law..

Should they lose their FFL License?.

Not sure of the law on this,,but it does seem a violation to refuse a legal sale.

Thoughts?
Ammo?

It might be considered discrimination, however as a libertarian it should be no-brainer. Discrimination laws are immoral and should not exist.

[pcosmar]

It might be considered discrimination, however as a libertarian it should be no-brainer. Discrimination laws are immoral and should not exist.

Neither should Federal Firearm Laws.. but there we are.

[specsaregood]

It might be considered discrimination, however as a libertarian it should be no-brainer. Discrimination laws are immoral and should not exist.

Agreed on all accounts, but if a baker has to make gay cakes on demand, then retailers should have to sell legal goods to people of any age.

[pcosmar]

I would think so, but rental car companies and hotels have been doing the same thing for a long time without any problems evidently.

Are car companies required to be Federally Licensed to rent cars?
Are there Federal rules in place as to age requirements/restrictions?

is there any way this can bite them in the a$$,, quickly and decisively.

[Madison320]

Neither should Federal Firearm Laws.. but there we are.

And I'm not going to get mad if either goes unenforced.

[pcosmar]

Agreed on all accounts, but if a baker has to make gay cakes on demand, then retailers should have to sell legal goods to people of any age.

Bingo !

[dannno]

On principal I would not endorse the lawsuit.


Yep, that is the problem with being on the right when it comes to discrimination.

The left makes laws that discriminate against the right, and the right opposes them. But when the left breaks those same laws to discriminate further against the right, the right is 'too principled' to defend themselves.

[TheCount]

This is presenting a convincing argument for allowing retailers to sell or not sell at their discretion. Turning that around to try to force retailers to sell is simply reinforcing the anti-liberty position.

[specsaregood]

This is presenting a convincing argument for allowing retailers to sell or not sell at their discretion. Turning that around to try to force retailers to sell is simply reinforcing the anti-liberty position.

Yes, I think that's the resounding opinion. However, one can argue that the only way to get the anti-liberty people to see the validity of that argument is to use their own tactics against them.

[pcosmar]

This is presenting a convincing argument for allowing retailers to sell or not sell at their discretion.

Is it??
A retailer can not sell to me under penalty,, not much discretion there.

I would say that is a pretty Unconvincing argument.

[kcchiefs6465]

Yep, that is the problem with being on the right when it comes to discrimination.

The left makes laws that discriminate against the right, and the right opposes them. But when the left breaks those same laws to discriminate further against the right, the right is 'too principled' to defend themselves.
The left also determines what is and is not discrimination.

Their kangaroo courts would think of the children and get a ruling right for once. Albeit for the wrong reasons.

[Sonny Tufts]

They are violating Federal Law by discriminating based on age.. when the legal age is Determined by Law.

The federal law forbidding discrimination on the basis of age protects only those who are at least 40 and applies only to employment matters. Some state laws banning age discrimination might apply, however. See https://reason.com/volokh/2018/02/28/can-gun-stores-refuse-to-sell-rifles-and

It may be a bad business decision, but it's the owner's decision to make.

[Slave Mentality]

it ain't just Dicks,, this $hit is viral.

No doubt, friend.

[Zippyjuan]

it ain't just Dicks,, this $hit is viral.

Dicks is choosing to no longer carry a certain type of merchandise. Should the government tell them what items they should have in their stores?

[kcchiefs6465]

Dicks is choosing to no longer carry a certain type of merchandise. Should the government tell them what items they should have in their stores?
Obviously not and they are not selling rifles to those under 21 (which is the subject of this thread).

[pcosmar]

Dicks is choosing to no longer carry a certain type of merchandise. Should the government tell them what items they should have in their stores?

It would be my contention that due to their policy in violation of the law,, their FFL should be revoked and no guns or ammo sold in their stores.

Federal law says 18 for long guns,, Federal Firearms License can be revoked.

They have been revoked elsewhere for less reason.

[Sonny Tufts]

It would be my contention that due to their policy in violation of the law,, their FFL should be revoked and no guns or ammo sold in their stores.

Federal law says 18 for long guns,, Federal Firearms License can be revoked.

Federal law sets the minimum age to buy a long gun at 18, but this doesn't mean the seller must sell to an 18 year old. It just means he can't sell to someone under 18.

[pcosmar]

Federal law sets the minimum age to buy a long gun at 18, but this doesn't mean the seller must sell to an 18 year old. It just means he can't sell to someone under 18.

No it means that the person is eligible to purchase, Refusing the purchase is discrimination based on age. and also violation of that persons 2nd amendment right. It is an infringement.

Federal law sets the age.. FFL must follow the law.

[kcchiefs6465]

No it means that the person is eligible to purchase, Refusing the purchase is discrimination based on age. and also violation of that persons 2nd amendment right. It is an infringement.
The 2nd Amendment applies to Congress (lol).

You don't become an arm of Congress because you are required to apply for a license to transact in something.

Eta: As has been posted, age discrimination, maybe, depending location but all that would be argued, to a leftist court, is that the 18-20 year old is still permitted on premises to purchase any other item they wished to and that they are simply limiting their company's possible liability. The court would seem sensible in allowing this specific discrimination in the name of public safety.

[Swordsmyth]

Federal law sets the minimum age to buy a long gun at 18, but this doesn't mean the seller must sell to an 18 year old. It just means he can't sell to someone under 18.

The courts will make you sell any other product to any other eligible person, Bakers are having to resort to 1stA claims over wedding cakes, the rules must be the same for any product one way or the other, they can choose who they sell to when the rest of us get to.

[Sonny Tufts]

No it means that the person is eligible to purchase, Refusing the purchase is discrimination based on age. and also violation of that persons 2nd amendment right. It is an infringement.

The Second Amendment restricts the government, not a private citizen or company. If you think there's a federal statute prohibiting age discrimination in connection with the sale of firearms (or any other item, for that matter) by all means cite it. You'll find there aren't any.

As pointed out in the link I posted (which you should read), some state laws may ban age discrimination in connection with the sale of guns, which simply means Dick's and others will need to have different policies for different states.

[pcosmar]

The 2nd Amendment applies to Congress (lol).

You don't become an arm of Congress because you are required to apply for a license to transact in something.

The right to keep and bear arms is a Constitutionally protected right.. FACT

Federal Firearms License Is Federal Government license. Fact
Federal Government sets age for firearm ownership. Fact

Stores refusing sales is discrimination. (see Gay Cakes)

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infringe

When a retailer partners with the Federal Government it is no longer has any right to refuse.

[phill4paul]

I think there is a strong argument that a lawsuit could be brought, Pete. I think it should be initiated by a fine upstanding 20 yr. old Marine with some combat duty under his belt. Just walk into the store in dress blues and offer to purchase a semi-automatic rifle. Perhaps with his father standing next to him also offering to purchase one to show the discrimination inherent. Fully videoed and documented.

[Sonny Tufts]

The courts will make you sell any other product to any other eligible person, Bakers are having to resort to 1stA claims over wedding cakes, the rules must be the same for any product one way or the other, they can choose who they sell to when the rest of us get to.

That's because there's a specific statute or ordinance prohibiting discrimination on the basis of things like race, gender, sexual orientation, or national origin. But there's no law that says provisions like these must also include age as a type of protected class. The plain fact is that federal civil rights statutes don't prohibit age discrimination except in connection with employment.

[pcosmar]

The Second Amendment restricts the government, not a private citizen or company.

FFL Dealers are NOT private companies.

They are an arm of Government via License.. They are a Government Agent when they fill out forms.

[Madison320]

Agreed on all accounts, but if a baker has to make gay cakes on demand, then retailers should have to sell legal goods to people of any age.

I understand what you're saying, but I'm not sure the "two wrongs make a right" is the way to go.

[Swordsmyth]

I understand what you're saying, but I'm not sure the "two wrongs make a right" is the way to go.

When dealing with laws it is sometimes required to get enough people to agree to repeal the law instead of supporting it because it doesn't affect them.

[pcosmar]

I understand what you're saying, but I'm not sure the "two wrongs make a right" is the way to go.

But it goes a long way in spotlighting the Hypocrisy.

[oyarde]

Stores that barely even sell firearms are jumping on the bandwagon (Kroger). And Wal-Mart too. Despicable.
I think walmart actually sells quite a few weapons here , but the leading seller is the farm store chain , Rural King . I have an independent bait & tackle just a few miles down the road from me so I consider myself fortunate .

[oyarde]

FFL Dealers are NOT private companies.

They are an arm of Government via License.. They are a Government Agent when they fill out forms.
I think you are probably right about that . Govt agents .

[DamianTV]

When dealing with laws it is sometimes required to get enough people to agree to repeal the law instead of supporting it because it doesn't affect them.

Like laws against eating ice cream while riding a donkey backwards down Main Street on any given Sunday? Its okay to do on a Monday tho, so just sayin...

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

[]


[]



[]





Hunh. All three of them in one thread.






http://gatesofvienna.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/trilliondollars.jpg


+




https://listverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/10-3-stooges.jpg



=




https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/9a/e2/42/9ae242073716310b6631f4e1a8c97615.jpg

[timosman]

Federal law sets the minimum age to buy a long gun at 18, but this doesn't mean the seller must sell to an 18 year old. It just means he can't sell to someone under 18.

Holy crap. Even Sonny Tufts decided to chime in.:cool:

[r3volution 3.0]

Is it illegal? Not to my knowledge.

Should it be illegal? Absolutely not.

If you don't like the policies of a company, don't do business with it.

Simple

[pcosmar]

Like laws against eating ice cream while riding a donkey backwards down Main Street on any given Sunday? Its okay to do on a Monday tho, so just sayin...

The convoluted rats nest of Gun Laws can and will PHUCK you..

I Know,, it was my 4th Felony.

I have learned a lot since then,, much of it here. Though it was this issue that brought me here.

and if I am all that dangerous ,,, why am I not sitting here with a suppressed full auto weapon.
I am certainly capable of building several types from common materials. I am mechanically proficient,, and familiar with a wide range of tools.

what law prevents me?

[pcosmar]

Is it illegal? Not to my knowledge.

Should it be illegal? Absolutely not.

If you don't like the policies of a company, don't do business with it.

Simple

Not simple.. it is not the Company but the Federal Firearm License holder..
The FFL is a Government Agent...legally and lawfully.

how does the government agent refuse to sell to a legal adult of legal age??

The Government agent should not have that discretion any more that he would choosing to sell to a prohibited person.

Or are you arguing that arbitrary standards should apply?

[r3volution 3.0]

Not simple.. it is not the Company but the Federal Firearm License holder..
The FFL is a Government Agent...legally and lawfully.

how does the government agent refuse to sell to a legal adult of legal age??

The Government agent should not have that discretion any more that he would choosing to sell to a prohibited person.

Or are you arguing that arbitrary standards should apply?

If you're asking whether these companies are violating the law, I think Sonny Tufts already covered that. As for the moral question (the important question), of whether they ought to be allowed to refuse to serve whoever they want, of course they should, for reasons which shouldn't need explaining at Ron Paul Forums; and that the state forces them to obtain a special license to conduct their business doesn't change that one iota. If the state declares that apple sellers have to obtain a special federal apple selling license, would it follow that apple sellers should be stripped of their freedom of contract? I think not.

[timosman]

If you're asking whether these companies are violating the law, I think Sonny Tufts already covered that.

Quote of the month and it is only the second. :cool:

[pcosmar]

If you're asking whether these companies are violating the law, I think Sonny Tufts already covered that. As for the moral question (the important question), of whether they ought to be allowed to refuse to serve whoever they want, of course they should, for reasons which shouldn't need explaining at Ron Paul Forums; and that the state forces them to obtain a special license to conduct their business doesn't change that one iota. If the state declares that apple sellers have to obtain a special federal apple selling license, would it follow that apple sellers should be stripped of their freedom of contract? I think not.

In a Free Market I would heartily agree.

We are not talking about some fantasy land,,The real world reality is that Government and sales are at an ugly nexus.

I am talking about LAW and not philosophy.
Does an AGENT of the Government have the arbitrary choice? And the FFL Holder is an Agent of Government..

in a proper world there would be no government involvement and it would be a simple business transaction.
But that is not a reality.

[William Tell]

Are Retailers Breaking the Law? My thoughts as well. Technically they probably are. But discrimination laws aren't enforced equally, citizens under 21 are not a protected group.

[dannno]

Whether you post a sign or not, businesses never have the right to refuse or turn away customers because of their race, gender, age, nationality or religion.
Read more at https://www.business2community.com/trends-news/right-refuse-service-businesses-discrimination-0766551

Wah wahh... (sad trombone)

[pcosmar]

My thoughts as well. Technically they probably are. But discrimination laws aren't enforced equally, citizens under 21 are not a protected group.

Well It might be a point to raise..

18 is the age to vote and to enlist,, For LAWful purpose an adult.
Federal says that a legal adult can buy long guns.

The retailer ceases to be a private business and becomes a government agent.. FFL or they can't sell guns..

only FFL AGENTS,,, Federal Agents can sell guns,,,

do you see where this goes? Can Federal agents refuse the sale that meets the Legal requirements?

[Anti Federalist]

Agreed on all accounts, but if a baker has to make gay cakes on demand, then retailers should have to sell legal goods to people of any age.

Was just coming in here to say that.

Especially, when, as Pete is rightly pointing out, you are a de facto agent of government and cannot discriminate, by law.

[timosman]

My thoughts as well. Technically they probably are. But discrimination laws aren't enforced equally, citizens under 21 are not a protected group.

Why do you have to be in a minority group in order to have protection of the courts against discrimination?

[timosman]

Well It might be a point to raise..

18 is the age to vote and to enlist,, For LAWful purpose an adult.
Federal says that a legal adult can buy long guns.

The retailer ceases to be a private business and becomes a government agent.. FFL or they can't sell guns..

only FFL AGENTS,,, Federal Agents can sell guns,,,

do you see where this goes? Can Federal agents refuse the sale that meets the Legal requirements?

Wonder how long it will take them to chew on that.:cool:

[Anti Federalist]

Now, that said, I like that this is happening.

It will re-vitalize the small, independent gun shops that used to be one of the largest, in numbers, of small businesses in the country.

Something as critical as the supply of guns and ammo should never been centralized by one or two giant mega-chain stores, for the very reason we are seeing right now.

Neither should anything else, for that matter.

Which is why I have been railing against Wal Marx all these years.

[pcosmar]

All NFA rules apply.

[timosman]

Now, that said, I like that this is happening.

It will re-vitalize the small, independent gun shops that used to be one of the largest, in numbers, of small businesses in the country.

Something as critical as the supply of guns and ammo should never been centralized by one or two giant mega-chain stores, for the very reason we are seeing right now.

Neither should anything else, for that matter.

Which is why I have been railing against Wal Marx all these years.

You should have watched the latest X-Files this week. The discontent is there. It was brutal.:cool:

[pcosmar]

Now, that said, I like that this is happening.



as an interested yet detached observer,, it could be good.

I am certainly hoping some Gun Rights Lawyers could spin this into at least blowback against stupid Boycotters.

I would love to see it Blow up into pieces and those pieces bite everyone in the ass.
Need something to swing the pendulum.

[Anti Federalist]

as an interested yet detached observer,, it could be good.

I am certainly hoping some Gun Rights Lawyers could spin this into at least blowback against stupid Boycotters.

I would love to see it Blow up into pieces and those pieces bite everyone in the ass.
Need something to swing the pendulum.

I'd use the cake bakers argument:

You either have the right to conduct business (or not to) with who you want, when you want, and why you want, or you do not.

Under current law, you do not have this right.

[phill4paul]

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.”


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

There's the necessary law. Since gun sellers are acting, as Pete has pointed out, as licensed agents of the Federal government, then I believe a lawsuit could be brought on these merits.

[presence]

I think there is a strong argument that a lawsuit could be brought, Pete. I think it should be initiated by a fine upstanding 20 yr. old Marine with some combat duty under his belt. Just walk into the store in dress blues and offer to purchase a semi-automatic rifle. Perhaps with his father standing next to him also offering to purchase one to show the discrimination inherent. Fully videoed and documented.


A lawsuit would require an attempted purchase to have standing. The "Muslim Free Zone" gun shop case was thrown out because no Muslim ever tried to enter the store let alone buy a gun; not for lack of merit, but for lack of locus standi​

[Sonny Tufts]

FFL Dealers are NOT private companies.

They are an arm of Government via License.. They are a Government Agent when they fill out forms.

So by this "reasoning", plumbers, electricians, and barbers are agents of the state or city because they are licensed. So are taxi drivers, commercial truck drivers, and ordinary folks with driver's licenses. Wow, who knew there were so many government agents out there?

[pcosmar]

So by this "reasoning", plumbers, electricians, and barbers are agents of the state or city because they are licensed. So are taxi drivers, commercial truck drivers, and ordinary folks with driver's licenses. Wow, who knew there were so many government agents out there?
I knew.
Control of production by the state. Textbook fait accompli


Better question is,, why so many don't know?

[pcosmar]

A lawsuit would require an attempted purchase to have standing. The "Muslim Free Zone" gun shop case was thrown out because no Muslim ever tried to enter the store let alone buy a gun; not for lack of merit, but for lack of locus standi​

Anyone know a young serviceman? or just out of service at 20..that would be perfect.

[phill4paul]

A lawsuit would require an attempted purchase to have standing. The "Muslim Free Zone" gun shop case was thrown out because no Muslim ever tried to enter the store let alone buy a gun; not for lack of merit, but for lack of locus standi​

Absolutely. As I mentioned earlier, preferably by 18-21 yr. old member of the Armed Forces.

[Zippyjuan]

https://reason.com/volokh/2018/02/28/can-gun-stores-refuse-to-sell-rifles-and



Can Gun Stores Refuse to Sell Rifles and Shotguns to Under-21-Year-Olds?

A student asked me over lunch: Some stores have announced that they won't sell rifles and shotguns to under-21-year-olds. Is that legal, given that federal law only limits sales of handguns to under-21-year-olds, and doesn't ban sales of long guns to 18-to-20-year-olds?

[1.] Stores' own age limits don't violate the Second Amendment, because the Second Amendment limits only the government, not private companies. Likewise for the Equal Protection Clause (plus the Equal Protection Clause generally doesn't forbid even governmental age classifications).

[2.] The federal Civil Rights Act doesn't cover retail stores, and doesn't cover age, so it doesn't bar such policies, either.

[3.] But about a third of all states ban discrimination based on age in places of public accommodation, and some of those statutes may well ban refusal to sell guns to 18-to-20-year-olds. These laws vary from state to state, so I can't speak to all of them; but the one I checked -- Connecticut (the alphabetically first on the list) -- does indeed seem to ban discrimination against 18-to-20-year-olds in retail sales, with no exception for guns.

[4.] Likewise, some cities and counties have similar ordinances (even if their states don't); two I found, for instance, are Madison, Wisconsin and Broward County, Florida. (I looked them up just because I remembered from other research that they have broad antidiscrimination ordinances.) Seattle, on the other hand, bans age discrimination, but apparently only against people 21 and above, again without regard to whether the store sells guns or anything else.

[5.] Of course, the state and local laws will only affect the stores' policies in those jurisdictions; a store could have a general nationwide policy of not selling some products to under-21-year-olds, but a different policy in those states that require equal treatment of 18-to-20-year-olds.

[Zippyjuan]

Judge Napster: https://www.foxbusiness.com/features/dicks-sporting-goods-violating-civil-rights-laws


Dick’s Sporting Goods violating civil rights laws?


Judge Andrew Napolitano said Dick’s Sporting Goods may be within its legal rights to sell firearms to whomever it chooses to — regardless of age.

The company, one of the nation’s largest sport retailers, said Wednesday it will stop selling assault-style weapons in its stores and will no longer allow a person under the age of 21 to purchase a gun, regardless of what the local laws are.

“We have civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination on certain basis,” Napolitano told FOX Business’ Stuart Varney on “Varney & Co.” “Race, color, creed, gender, and in New Jersey, age.”

Federal law currently protects people age 40 and older, but under some state laws, for example in New Jersey where Dick’s has multiple stores, you cannot be subject to age discrimination if you are more than 18 years old.

“Can they refuse to sell a gun to a person who is immature and is going to harm themselves or others? Absolutely,” the judge said.

[Sonny Tufts]

https://reason.com/volokh/2018/02/28/can-gun-stores-refuse-to-sell-rifles-and

This is the article I linked to earlier. Professor Eugene Volokh is a libertarian law prof at UCLA who hasn't drunk the anyone-who-has-a-license-is-a-government-agent koolaid.

[pcosmar]

This is the article I linked to earlier. Professor Eugene Volokh is a libertarian law prof at UCLA who hasn't drunk the anyone-who-has-a-license-is-a-government-agent koolaid.

Again he is looking at it from a Free Market position.. (a non-existant free market)..

He does Not Address the Federal Firearms License. Makes no mention at all and it is the center of the argument.
He also accepts gun control as valid.. when every law written is in fact void.

but those are other subjects.

[Zippyjuan]

Again he is looking at it from a Free Market position.. (a non-existant free market)..

He does Not Address the Federal Firearms License. Makes no mention at all and it is the center of the argument.
He also accepts gun control as valid.. when every law written is in fact void.

but those are other subjects.

Do you have a link to what the firearms license actually says about a dealer being able to refuse a sale to a customer? I could not find anything specific on their FAQs. https://www.atf.gov/qa-category/conduct-business


https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-06-17/dealers-choice-gun-store-owners-can-deny-anyone-they-want


Ginger Colbrun, public affairs chief for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, says licensed gun dealers have broad discretion to deny sales, such as in instances where a buyer appears to exhibit erratic behavior.

“As private business owners, [Federal Firearms License holders] can and do use discretion in determining to whom they will or will not provide service,” Colbrun says.

[pcosmar]

Do you have a link to what the firearms license actually says about a dealer being able to refuse a sale to a customer?

Do you have any link that says a licensed agent of the Government in compliance with all known law can refuse sales based on political mood?


FFL holders are required to keep a registry of firearms sales in an ATF-approved Bound Book, or a computerized equivalent using ATF-approved software.[7] Licensed dealers must also maintain file copies of Form 4473 or eForm 4473 "Firearms Transaction Record" documents, for a period of not less than 20 years after the date of sale or disposition.[7] When retiring or otherwise relinquishing a license, these records are sent to the ATF's Out-of-Business Records Center.[8] Licensed collectors are not required to send their records to the ATF when relinquishing their license. The ATF is allowed to inspect, as well as request a copy of the Form 4473 from the dealer during the course of a criminal investigation. In addition, the sale of two or more handguns to a person in a five business day period must be reported to ATF on Form 3310.4.

Form 4473 (constitutional violation)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_4473

[pcosmar]

Do you have a link to what the firearms license actually says about a dealer being able to refuse a sale to a customer? I could not find anything specific on their FAQs. https://www.atf.gov/qa-category/conduct-business


https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-06-17/dealers-choice-gun-store-owners-can-deny-anyone-they-want

Individual discretion.. is quite different than politically motivated denial of service.

They should all lose their license.. Immediately.. as the ATF routinely does..

[Zippyjuan]

Do you have any link that says a licensed agent of the Government in compliance with all known law can refuse sales based on political mood?



Form 4473 (constitutional violation)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_4473

Your link says they have to file certain forms- it does not say they must sell to all customers.

[Zippyjuan]

Individual discretion.. is quite different than politically motivated denial of service.

They should all lose their license.. Immediately.. as the ATF routinely does..

So you would prefer that nobody be able to conduct business to purchase a weapon from them. Close down the gun stores.

[phill4paul]

So you would prefer that nobody be able to conduct business to purchase a weapon from them. Close down the gun stores.

LOL. That is some serious troll-fuckery in word twisting right there.

[pcosmar]

So you would prefer that nobody be able to conduct business to purchase a weapon from them. Close down the gun stores.

From them No,, there are lots of honest establishment to choose from,, These Big retailers are an insignificant % of Gun Sales.

I would be fine with removing their FFL and stock.. Just as is done with any small shot with minor clerical errors.

[pcosmar]

Your link says they have to file certain forms- it does not say they must sell to all customers.

They act as Government (ATF) Agent.. they are bound by LAW...

why do you hate the law?

[Zippyjuan]

They act as Government (ATF) Agent.. they are bound by LAW...

why do you hate the law?

What does the law say?

[Zippyjuan]

From them No,, there are lots of honest establishment to choose from,, These Big retailers are an insignificant % of Gun Sales.

I would be fine with removing their FFL and stock.. Just as is done with any small shot with minor clerical errors.

WalMart is one of the stores saying they will restrict sales from those 18-21. They are the largest gun retailer in the US. But you are right that "big box stores" are not the main gun sellers.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/02/28/dicks-sporting-goods-assault-style-weapons/381618002/


The four largest gun sellers control only 5% of the market. Compare that with cars, where the four biggest automakers sold about 59% of new vehicles in 2017, according to Autodata.

The U.S. had about 6,804 gun shops in 2017, employing 79,764 workers generating $8.6 billion in revenue, according to IBISWorld.

There are more sellers if you count all the licensed individual dealers. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms listed 56,754 federally licensed firearms dealers in 2016, as well as 8,076 pawnbrokers allowed to sell guns.

The ATF said it does not have data on gun sales by individual retailer or category.

But a 2010 survey of consumers by the National Shooting Sports Foundation found that 39% of buyers purchased their most recent "modern sporting rifle" at an independent retail store, 25% online, 10% at a gun show and only 6% at a chain or big-box retailer.

[phill4paul]

Seems we need a 28th amendment to the Constitution, based on the 26th.

The 26th amendment came about during the '60's because 18 yrs-21 year old's were being conscripted without a vote. The same argument could be used today.

28th amendment: "The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to bear arms shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age."

[r3volution 3.0]

Seems we need a 28th amendment to the Constitution, based on the 26th.

The 26th amendment came about during the '60's because 18 yrs-21 year old's were being conscripted without a vote. The same argument could be used today.

28th amendment: "The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to bear arms shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age."

That wouldn't prevent a private enterprise from choosing not to sell to them though.

To achieve that, you'd need an amendment like this:

"Freedom of contract being silly, the right of the people to force private enterprises to sell them stuff shall be enforced by the United States."

Course, we don't really need a constitutional amendment for this.

The SCOTUS has already "interpreted" the constitution to grant the United States similar powers to combat the evils of discrimination...

[pcosmar]

What does the law say?

that they are an agent of government.

Classic Socialism. State control of sales.

[phill4paul]

That wouldn't prevent a private enterprise from choosing not to sell to them though.

To achieve that, you'd need an amendment like this:

"Freedom of contract being silly, the right of the people to force private enterprises to sell them stuff shall be enforced by the United States."

Course, we don't really need a constitutional amendment for this.

The SCOTUS has already "interpreted" the constitution to grant the United States similar powers to combat the evils of discrimination...

Sure it would. Name one private enterprise that sells guns to civilians that doesn't require them having a Federal license. Just one.

[r3volution 3.0]

Sure it would. Name one private enterprise that sells guns to civilians that doesn't require them having a Federal license. Just one.

So what if they have a federal license?

[dannno]

That wouldn't prevent a private enterprise from choosing not to sell to them though.

To achieve that, you'd need an amendment like this:

"Freedom of contract being silly, the right of the people to force private enterprises to sell them stuff shall be enforced by the United States."

Course, we don't really need a constitutional amendment for this.

The SCOTUS has already "interpreted" the constitution to grant the United States similar powers to combat the evils of discrimination...




Whether you post a sign or not, businesses never have the right to refuse or turn away customers because of their race, gender, age, nationality or religion.
Read more at https://www.business2community.com/trends-news/right-refuse-service-businesses-discrimination-0766551

Wah wahh... (sad trombone)

[DamianTV]

Are the retailers that are refusing Gun Sales to Legal Adults violating the Law..

Should they lose their FFL License?.

Not sure of the law on this,,but it does seem a violation to refuse a legal sale.

Thoughts?
Ammo?

Lets try to answer from the Liberty point of view.

First: License is bullshit. I understand why people want certain practices to be licensed, and yes, there are criminals out there, but sales in and of itself is not a crime.

Next: Legal Adults. Does that mean there are Illegal Adults? Again, the need is understood. Some people are definitely not responsible with firearms *cough* Dick Cheney. Trouble is that no determined criminal will ever bother with a background check. They will steal the gun, then commit other crimes with it. Other problem is "Legal Adults" (and I get what you mean) is a slippery slope, and their grounds for turning someone into an "Illegal Adult" is so ambiguous that anything can be defined as a probable cause to "remove ones Gun Rights". Rights can not be removed, period. If it can be removed, it is NOT a Right to begin with and is in fact a Permission. The conversion of Rights to Permissions is one of the Communist Planks. If an example is needed, look at Hawaii. If you are a "registered pot smoker" in the state of Hawaii, Gun Rights are revoked. Again, its not a Right if it can be simply revoked. I am not comfortable with the outcome of my own statement however, where there are zero restrictions, but I think thats more on be not thinking properly too. I have to lean on the side that disarming the public because of specific incidents destroying the ability of the people to resist government tyranny is the most dangerous outcome.

Next "violation to refuse a legal sale". I think this might be best approached by Equal Rights. The Rights of men are only limited by the Equal Rights of others. My Rights END where yours BEGIN. When two men of Equal Rights both agree to extend actions beyond those Rights, its more Contract law than a Rights issue. That is important because both men must agree to the terms of the exchange, otherwise the Legal Sale is invalid. Its no different than demanding one person become a teacher (or any profession) to service another men. Or to deprive them of their property or prosperity. Give me welfare or I will demand the government take your money and give me welfare. It just doesnt work. If both parties agree to a sale, great. If one or the other dont agree, then no sale, simple as that.

One of the methods of destroying Rights is to impose restrictions on when those Rights can be applied. For example, a bartender refusing to serve a drink to a drunk. The Rights of the bartender must be so that they can refuse to serve a drink to anyone at any time. The customer has no Right to impose on the Rights of the bartender. Again, Contract Law. The way our current system works would be to limit the Rights of the bartender so they can ONLY refuse to serve a drink under certain conditions, such as suspicion of inability to pay, or if the customer is already drunk. Reading between the lines, it is implied that the bartender has NO Right to refuse service UNLESS those conditions are met. This is government force that ultimately infringes on the Equal Rights of the bartender by setting up a scenario where only ONE of both parties agree to the terms of the exchange.

The opposite here is also true, when the seller wants more than the customer is willing to agree to. So instead of the customer being a dick, in this scenario the bartender is a dick. You must purchase at least ten drinks and consume them. Not gonna happen anywhere but in Bizarro World. However this kind of shit happens all the time with Cell Phones. You must agree to the Terms of Service. Two year contract, purchase a new phone every two years, agree to have all communications monitored and submitted to Law Enforcement and Advertisers and Trackers and the NSA and Credit Monitoring Services and that fat kid in the fifth grade that would kick you in the balls repeatedly until you gave him all your lunch money. I give you a dollar and you give me an apple. Thats how its supposed to work. By corporate interference today, it would be I give you a dollar, you give me an apple, but, I would also have to agree to purchase one apple per day at what ever price is demanded every day for the rest of your life, and agree to buy other goods from "friends", and agree to let others monitor the consumption of the apple as well as anything else that is related to the apple and might as well extend to just total surveillance and any refusal to comply with the terms and conditions of the contract will result in your Credit Score being knocked down by fifty points.

In short, if BOTH parties dont agree to the sale, then the sale is Invalid and no exchange can be made.

[phill4paul]

So what if they have a federal license?

If the federal law is that firearms should be sold to those 18yrs. of age or older, then the Federal license holder would be forced to sell then to those from the age of 18 forward. If they didn't and discriminated then there license would be revoked. If you are a Federal licensed firearm dealer and refuse to sell to Blacks, or women, how fast do you think it would take to get your chain yanked?

[r3volution 3.0]

Wah wahh... (sad trombone)

That article doesn't cite any law which prohibits discrimination by retailers against <21 year olds.

The only federal anti-discrimination law relating to age, AFAIK, is the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (limited to employment, obviously).

As was mentioned in one of the articles cited by somebody above, there may be relevant anti-discrimination law at the state level, I don't know.

In any event, I'm much less interested in what the law is than in what the law ought to be.

Are you opposed to freedom of contract, dannno? You think people ought to be forced to makes sales that they don't want to make?

...in general, regardless of whether the "discrimination" is based on age, race, gender, left-handeded, dickheadedness, etc.

[Zippyjuan]

that they are an agent of government.

Classic Socialism. State control of sales.

So this socialist state should order them to sell guns to 18- 21 year olds even if they would rather not and you want this socialist state to punish them if they don't by taking away their ability to sell to anybody else. Or should they be allowed to decide?

Is there a law saying they must sell to 18- 21 year old customers?

[phill4paul]

Lets try to answer from the Liberty point of view.

First: License is bullshit. I understand why people want certain practices to be licensed, and yes, there are criminals out there, but sales in and of itself is not a crime.

Next: Legal Adults. Does that mean there are Illegal Adults? Again, the need is understood. Some people are definitely not responsible with firearms *cough* Dick Cheney. Trouble is that no determined criminal will ever bother with a background check. They will steal the gun, then commit other crimes with it. Other problem is "Legal Adults" (and I get what you mean) is a slippery slope, and their grounds for turning someone into an "Illegal Adult" is so ambiguous that anything can be defined as a probable cause to "remove ones Gun Rights". Rights can not be removed, period. If it can be removed, it is NOT a Right to begin with and is in fact a Permission. The conversion of Rights to Permissions is one of the Communist Planks. If an example is needed, look at Hawaii. If you are a "registered pot smoker" in the state of Hawaii, Gun Rights are revoked. Again, its not a Right if it can be simply revoked. I am not comfortable with the outcome of my own statement however, where there are zero restrictions, but I think thats more on be not thinking properly too. I have to lean on the side that disarming the public because of specific incidents destroying the ability of the people to resist government tyranny is the most dangerous outcome.

Next "violation to refuse a legal sale". I think this might be best approached by Equal Rights. The Rights of men are only limited by the Equal Rights of others. My Rights END where yours BEGIN. When two men of Equal Rights both agree to extend actions beyond those Rights, its more Contract law than a Rights issue. That is important because both men must agree to the terms of the exchange, otherwise the Legal Sale is invalid. Its no different than demanding one person become a teacher (or any profession) to service another men. Or to deprive them of their property or prosperity. Give me welfare or I will demand the government take your money and give me welfare. It just doesnt work. If both parties agree to a sale, great. If one or the other dont agree, then no sale, simple as that.

One of the methods of destroying Rights is to impose restrictions on when those Rights can be applied. For example, a bartender refusing to serve a drink to a drunk. The Rights of the bartender must be so that they can refuse to serve a drink to anyone at any time. The customer has no Right to impose on the Rights of the bartender. Again, Contract Law. The way our current system works would be to limit the Rights of the bartender so they can ONLY refuse to serve a drink under certain conditions, such as suspicion of inability to pay, or if the customer is already drunk. Reading between the lines, it is implied that the bartender has NO Right to refuse service UNLESS those conditions are met. This is government force that ultimately infringes on the Equal Rights of the bartender by setting up a scenario where only ONE of both parties agree to the terms of the exchange.

The opposite here is also true, when the seller wants more than the customer is willing to agree to. So instead of the customer being a dick, in this scenario the bartender is a dick. You must purchase at least ten drinks and consume them. Not gonna happen anywhere but in Bizarro World. However this kind of shit happens all the time with Cell Phones. You must agree to the Terms of Service. Two year contract, purchase a new phone every two years, agree to have all communications monitored and submitted to Law Enforcement and Advertisers and Trackers and the NSA and Credit Monitoring Services and that fat kid in the fifth grade that would kick you in the balls repeatedly until you gave him all your lunch money. I give you a dollar and you give me an apple. Thats how its supposed to work. By corporate interference today, it would be I give you a dollar, you give me an apple, but, I would also have to agree to purchase one apple per day at what ever price is demanded every day for the rest of your life, and agree to buy other goods from "friends", and agree to let others monitor the consumption of the apple as well as anything else that is related to the apple and might as well extend to just total surveillance and any refusal to comply with the terms and conditions of the contract will result in your Credit Score being knocked down by fifty points.

In short, if BOTH parties dont agree to the sale, then the sale is Invalid and no exchange can be made.

Brother, I think we all, pcosmar included, understand the way it ought to be. And the system we live under.

[r3volution 3.0]

If the federal law is that firearms should be sold to those 18yrs. of age or older, then the Federal license holder would be forced to sell then to those from the age of 18 forward.

A law saying that they're allowed to sell to 18 years olds =/= a law saying they are required to sell to 18 year olds


If they didn't and discriminated then there license would be revoked.

Not on the basis of any law of which I'm aware


If you are a Federal licensed firearm dealer and refuse to sell to Blacks, or women, how fast do you think it would take to get your chain yanked?

I surely don't know. There are several federal anti-discrimination laws each dealing with specific forms of discrimination (e.g. race, gender, or age) in a specific area (e.g. employment or housing). Just because something is discriminatory in a colloquial sense doesn't mean it's a violation of any of those specific federal anti-discrimination laws.

Anyway, as I've said, I'm more interested in the ethical issue.

Do you think that it's ethical for the state to force people to makes sales (of guns or anything else) that they don't want to make?

[dannno]

That article doesn't cite any law which prohibits discrimination by retailers against <21 year olds.

The only federal anti-discrimination law relating to age, AFAIK, is the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (limited to employment, obviously).

As was mentioned in one of the articles cited by somebody above, there may be relevant anti-discrimination law at the state level, I don't know.

In any event, I'm much less interested in what the law is than in what the law ought to be.

Are you opposed to freedom of contract, dannno? You think people ought to be forced to makes sales that they don't want to make?

...in general, regardless of whether the "discrimination" is based on age, race, gender, left-handeded, dickheadedness, etc.


Both state and federal laws prohibit discrimination based on age, disability, sex, race, religion, and nationality in any capacity.

https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/right-to-refuse-service/

The exception being a night club that caters to 21+ for drinking, but that is due to drinking laws.

And stop asking dumb questions, I don't think these laws should exist, but as long as they do, it is wrong to enforce them against people on the right but not enforce them against people on the left. People should be treated equally under the law no matter their political beliefs.

[DamianTV]

Brother, I think we all, pcosmar included, understand the way it ought to be. And the system we live under.

Agreed. I also agree with pcosmar too, I know he is well and good on the side of Liberty, so it wasnt an attack or anything like that.

One of the problems is that more people read this than just us. In order for those other readers to understand the difference between the way it should be and what we have today is to explain it. He is right to ask the liberty oriented question, which does need an answer. Those that have never heard those questions before will only think the world is supposed to be the way it is right now, and will never think to question the official narrative.

This gets into Censorship. Censorship is dangerous because it IS Mind Control. When we debate or answer each others questions, the way we think is altered, to include a collection of arguments against the way the current system is. Those that are just waking up are very susceptible to the consequences of censorship as they find no legitimate answers to the liberty minded questions they may ask, if they even ask at all. Censorship is a weapon of generational magnitude and control.

[phill4paul]

A law saying that they're allowed to sell to 18 years olds =/= a law saying they are required to sell to 18 year olds



Not on the basis of any law of which I'm aware



I surely don't know. There are several federal anti-discrimination laws each dealing with specific forms of discrimination (e.g. race, gender, or age) in a specific area (e.g. employment or housing). Just because something is discriminatory in a colloquial sense doesn't mean it's a violation of any of those specific federal anti-discrimination laws.

Anyway, as I've said, I'm more interested in the ethical issue.

Do you think that it's ethical for the state to force people to makes sales (of guns or anything else) that they don't want to make?

Christ. Read the whole thread instead of cherry picking and talking past each other.

I stated earlier...


28th amendment: "The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to bear arms shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age."

[phill4paul]

Agreed. I also agree with pcosmar too, I know he is well and good on the side of Liberty, so it wasnt an attack or anything like that.

One of the problems is that more people read this than just us. In order for those other readers to understand the difference between the way it should be and what we have today is to explain it. He is right to ask the liberty oriented question, which does need an answer. Those that have never heard those questions before will only think the world is supposed to be the way it is right now, and will never think to question the official narrative.

This gets into Censorship. Censorship is dangerous because it IS Mind Control. When we debate or answer each others questions, the way we think is altered, to include a collection of arguments against the way the current system is. Those that are just waking up are very susceptible to the consequences of censorship as they find no legitimate answers to the liberty minded questions they may ask, if they even ask at all. Censorship is a weapon of generational magnitude and control.

Once upon a time. Once upon a time.

[Sonny Tufts]

If the federal law is that firearms should be sold to those 18yrs. of age or older, then the Federal license holder would be forced to sell then to those from the age of 18 forward.

That's not what the law says. It says that long guns can't be sold to anyone under 18, and handguns can't be sold to anyone under 21. By no stretch of the imagination does it or any other federal statute prohibit a dealer from discriminating on the basis of age, unlike the situation involving blacks and women, where there are statutes specifically banning such discrimination.

Age discrimination happens all the time, and it's not necessarily illegal. Eighteen-year-olds are legal adults for some purposes (voting, writing a will) but not for others (drinking, gambling in a casino). Maybe the law should treat them as adults for all purposes, but the fact is, it doesn't. Maybe the law should ban age discrimination in all areas, but the fact is, it doesn't. And there's absolutely nothing unconstitutional about it.

[r3volution 3.0]

Christ. Read the whole thread instead of cherry picking and talking past each other.

I stated earlier...

Yea, I read it; I actually quoted it back to you in a response, just a few posts back...

I still don't know what your position is on the fundamental ethical issue.

You do or don't think it's wrong for the state to force people to make sales against their will?

[phill4paul]

That's not what the law says. It says that long guns can't be sold to anyone under 18, and handguns can't be sold to anyone under 21. By no stretch of the imagination does it or any other federal statute prohibit a dealer from discriminating on the basis of age, unlike the situation involving blacks and women, where there are statutes specifically banning such discrimination.

Age discrimination happens all the time, and it's not necessarily illegal. Eighteen-year-olds are legal adults for some purposes (voting, writing a will) but not for others (drinking, gambling in a casino). Maybe the law should treat them as adults for all purposes, but the fact is, it doesn't. Maybe the law should ban age discrimination in all areas, but the fact is, it doesn't. And there's absolutely nothing unconstitutional about it.

Not disagreeing with you. But, laws don't get changed by not challenging them. I've already pointed out the relevant law that could provide for a lawsuit to the supreme and change the discourse to actually creating an amendment to secure the second amendment rights to those 18 and older. Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 was the ruling that was used to challenge the notion that those that were under the age 21 had the right to vote. Lawsuits are needed. I've already provided the relevant law that could be used.

[phill4paul]

Yea, I read it; I actually quoted it back to you in a response, just a few posts back...

I still don't know what your position is on the fundamental ethical issue.

You do or don't think it's wrong for the state to force people to make sales against their will?

Didn't read much.


Brother, I think we all, pcosmar included, understand the way it ought to be. And the system we live under.

[Zippyjuan]

Not disagreeing with you. But, laws don't get changed by not challenging them. I've already pointed out the relevant law that could provide for a lawsuit to the supreme and change the discourse to actually creating an amendment to secure the second amendment rights to those 18 and older. Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 was the ruling that was used to challenge the notion that those that were under the age 21 had the right to vote. Lawsuits are needed. I've already provided the relevant law that could be used.

Some states may have different laws, but according to Judge Napster, age discrimination at the Federal Law level applies to those over 40. He said the companies have the right to decide not to sell to the 18- 21 age group if they choose to. That group is not protected by federal discrimination laws.

Oregon vs Mitchell said the US Government could decide the age for voting in Federal Elections but not for state and local elections. https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Oregon_v._Mitchell.html


Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970) is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that Congress could set voter age requirements for federal elections but not for state elections. The case also upheld Congress's nationwide prohibition on literacy tests and similar "tests or devices" used as voting qualifications as defined in the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Petitioner Oregon was the U.S. state of that name. Respondent Mitchell was John Mitchell in his role as United States Attorney General. Congress had passed an act requiring all states to register citizens between the ages of 18 and 21 as voters. Oregon did not desire to lower its voting age to 18, and filed suit on the grounds that the act was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled in favor for Oregon by a 5-4 vote, in that it found that while Congress could set requirements for voting in federal elections that it did not have the power to set the voting age for state elections.

That ruling would not likely apply to the actions of a private business since it excluded even state elections from setting a different voting age.

[phill4paul]

Some states may have different laws, but according to Judge Napster, age discrimination at the Federal Law level applies to those over 40. He said the companies have the right to decide not to sell to the 18- 21 age group if they choose to. That group is not protected by federal discrimination laws.

You've not read a thing I have said. Or more likely in the reading it was dismissed. So, don't even bother anymore.

[oyarde]

I really see no difference in refusing to sell a 20 yr old a Fed Duck Stamp or refusing to sell a shotgun or rifle . You are a govt agent and should follow the law ? instead of those you dream up ?

[r3volution 3.0]

Didn't read much.

What I read was unclear, as you conflate legal and moral issues (federal firearms licensing having no bearing on the latter).

That okay though. It's fairly clear from your general approach that you're not in favor of freedom of contract when it comes to firearms.

I was just trying to give you an opportunity to deny that before assuming that was the case.

[pcosmar]

Do you think that it's ethical for the state to force people to makes sales (of guns or anything else) that they don't want to make?

Do you think it is ethical for retailers to be forced to be Government Agents to sell goods?
Do you think that is in any way justified?

Do you think Zippy is overly invested in an argument he does not remotely understand?

[Zippyjuan]

I really see no difference in refusing to sell a 20 yr old a Fed Duck Stamp or refusing to sell a shotgun or rifle . You are a govt agent and should follow the law ? instead of those you dream up ?

I am still waiting for somebody to find what the law says about selling guns to people of particular ages. Some claiming it could be illegal but can't find the law the private business may be violating.

[r3volution 3.0]

Do you think it is ethical for retailers to be forced to be Government Agents to sell goods?

Of course not

Now, why do you seem to think that two wrongs make a right?

i.e. that, having forced a retailer to get a license, the state should further force him to make sales he doesn't want to make?


Do you think Zippy is overly invested in an argument he does not remotely understand?

Probably

[euphemia]

You see where you all are going to get with this, right? Before you know it the government wil raise the legal age of adulthood to age 25.

[pcosmar]

Some states may have different laws,

irrelevant.. ATF trumps state laws

and ALL gun Laws in current existence are imposed on the stated by the Federal Gun Law. States mirror,,by force.

FFL is the same in every state,, it is FEDERAL. and it is blatantly unconstitutional,,and yet established law.

Phuck them with their own law.

[r3volution 3.0]

irrelevant.. ATF trumps state laws

and ALL gun Laws in current existence are imposed on the stated by the Federal Gun Law. States mirror,,by force.

FFL is the same in every state,, it is FEDERAL. and it is blatantly unconstitutional,,and yet established law.

Phuck them with their own law.

You realize that the people you're trying to phuck are business owners, not the government, right?

[phill4paul]

r3volution 3.0 and Zippyjuan, just take a break. Great "good cop," "bad cop" duo. r3volution 3.0 accuses me of not being libertarian enough. Zippyjuan says that the law can't be challenged because it is his, and Judge Naps, view that law is the law.
I'm done with both of you in this thread. Any response will be a neg. rep and no response.

[oyarde]

You see where you all are going to get with this, right? Before you know it the government wil raise the legal age of adulthood to age 25.
Or 29 and require you pay 1k a month for a health ins policy on them with a 10k deductible

[Zippyjuan]

irrelevant.. ATF trumps state laws

and ALL gun Laws in current existence are imposed on the stated by the Federal Gun Law. States mirror,,by force.

FFL is the same in every state,, it is FEDERAL. and it is blatantly unconstitutional,,and yet established law.

Phuck them with their own law.

Actually states can set more restrictive laws concerning guns. The Federal Law is the minimum standard. States can raise it if they choose.


http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/who-can-have-a-gun/minimum-age/




Several states and the District of Columbia impose minimum age requirements that extend beyond those contained in federal law. Those laws generally fall into four categories:

Laws imposing a stricter minimum age for handgun purchases than federal law;

Laws imposing a minimum age for all long gun purchases, from licensed or unlicensed sellers;

Laws imposing age requirements for possession of handguns that are stricter than federal law; and

Laws imposing a minimum age for possession of long guns.

Nothing prevents a business from choosing to not sell to 18- 21 year old customers. More at link including a chart showing age minimums varying by state.


Federal Law: Licensed firearms dealers

Handguns:

Dealers may not sell or deliver a handgun or ammunition for a handgun to any person the dealer has reasonable cause to believe is under age 21

Long Guns (Rifles and Shotguns)

Dealers may not sell or deliver a long gun, or ammunition for a long gun, to any person the dealer knows or has reasonable cause to believe is under age 18.8

[phill4paul]

You see where you all are going to get with this, right? Before you know it the government wil raise the legal age of adulthood to age 25.

Or shrink it to 18.

[r3volution 3.0]

r3volution 3.0 and Zippyjuan, just take a break. Great "good cop," "bad cop" duo. r3volution 3.0 accuses me of not being libertarian enough. Zippyjuan says that the law can't be challenged because it is his, and Judge Naps, view that law is the law.
I'm done with both of you in this thread. Any response will be a neg. rep and no response.

:rolleyes:

[pcosmar]

You see where you all are going to get with this, right? Before you know it the government wil raise the legal age of adulthood to age 25.

Cool by me..
I'm old and have no kids.

I have little hope this will swing my way at all,,, but I will still speak my mind.


I have nothing to lose... and such a slim chance of ever being a legal human that it should be considered non existent.

[pcosmar]

You realize that the people you're trying to phuck are business owners, not the government, right?

Phuck those cowardly bastards. They earn it...by being it.
Phuck them and their investors,,,and may their stocks all crash.

Traitorous scum for even promoting this anti-gun agenda.

[oyarde]

In the end , Fed govt should not be setting any age laws for weapons purchases or licensing those that sell and all of that is UnConstitutional . Personally this newest retard shit will have no effect on me . I will not purchase goods at those stores . Here , there will continue to be places that will sell and it will hurt those who do not , who will then lobby for a law to support the retard rule they self imposed . All of my children , Grand Children and Great Grand Children are armed

[pcosmar]

Actually states can set more restrictive laws concerning guns.


http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/who-can-have-a-gun/minimum-age/



States do.. A business is not a State..

Why are you so invested.? Why do you want to justify this atrocity?

Are you truly that much of empty worthless shell of flesh,, or are you something worse?

[euphemia]

Cool by me..
I'm old and have no kids.

I have little hope this will swing my way at all,,, but I will still speak my mind.


I have nothing to lose... and such a slim chance of ever being a legal human that it should be considered non existent.

Indeed, this would change a lot of things. No draft of anyone under age 25. That might be a good thing. However, it would also mean no alcohol, no voting, no tobacco, no guns, no credit cards, no bank accounts, no rental agreements, no mortgage or anything else until age 25. Which incidentally, is the minimum age to be eligible to be serve in Congress.

[r3volution 3.0]

Phuck those cowardly bastards. They earn it...by being it.
Phuck them and their investors,,,and may their stocks all crash.

Traitorous scum for even promoting this anti-gun agenda.

Suffice it to say, I believe in private property, so I'll have to disagree.

I hope all the people attacking it (both those trying to ban guns and those trying to force stores to sell guns) fail.

[pcosmar]

Do you think that it's ethical for the state to force people to makes sales (of guns or anything else) that they don't want to make?
I do not think it is ethical for the state to be involved at all..

And that was never an issue.
The retailer is in partnership and licensed by GOVERNMENT.

Ethically, a man that knew me from childhood,,and knew my life,, could have sold me any gun in his inventory.
Showed me a couple and talked old times while the NICS ran (we both knew the outcome),, and he gave me some forms for contesting that. Let me put up so Ron Paul signs too.

The ATF seized his shop and inventory,, over minor paperwork and an employee theft (started investigation)
A German immigrant with barely an accent,, and a full understanding of the second amendment. Forced out of business.

I take it personal.. but do you think that shit is "ethical"?

Tony couldn't sell a gun to me,, because of the Government. is that ethical?

Phuck a bunch of Corporatist agencies. They are not private when they are Government.

[r3volution 3.0]

I do not think it is ethical for the state to be involved at all..

And that was never an issue.
The retailer is in partnership and licensed by GOVERNMENT.

Ethically, a man that knew me from childhood,,and knew my life,, could have sold me any gun in his inventory.
Showed me a couple and talked old times while the NICS ran (we both knew the outcome),, and he gave me some forms for contesting that. Let me put up so Ron Paul signs too.

The ATF seized his shop and inventory,, over minor paperwork and an employee theft (started investigation)
A German immigrant with barely an accent,, and a full understanding of the second amendment. Forced out of business.

I take it personal.. but do you think that shit is "ethical"?

Tony couldn't sell a gun to me,, because of the Government. is that ethical?

Phuck a bunch of Corporatist agencies. They are not private when they are Government.

As I've said, it's wrong to force retailers to get a license.

It's also wrong to force retailers to make sales they don't want to make.

[pcosmar]

As I've said, it's wrong to force retailers to get a license.

It's also wrong to force retailers to make sales they don't want to make.

Wrong all around,, and it should cost them..

In a free market ,,,,,, we don't have anything close to a free market,,Phuck a bunch of corporate bastards.

[specsaregood]

Ignoring whether it is legal for them to discriminate to a <21 yr old or not. I guarantee you that every single one of these businesses will reverse their decision if there is an orchestrated effort to have active military members <21 go to the stores to try to buy firearms or ammo. They will not want that negative publicity. and if they do that: sell to some <21 but not others? then I'd say you have grounds for a lawsuit.

[r3volution 3.0]

Ignoring whether it is legal for them to discriminate to a <21 yr old or not. I guarantee you that every single one of these businesses will reverse their decision if there is an orchestrated effort to have active military members <21 go to the stores to try to buy firearms or ammo. They will not want that negative publicity. and if they do that: sell to some <21 but not others? then I'd say you have grounds for a lawsuit.

I doubt any of them care one way or another about the political issue.

Businessmen are almost always in business to (wait for it) make money.

So, yea, some kind action like you describe, or a boycott, etc, would definitely work, if big enough.

...which ought to be the focus of anti-gun-control people, rather than trying to expand Leviathan's anti-discrimination laws.

[kcchiefs6465]

An Oregon man filed a lawsuit on Monday against Walmart and Dick’s Sporting Goods for “unlawful age discrimination” after he claimed both retailers refused to sell him a rifle.

Tyler Watson alleged that he attempted to purchase the weapon at Field and Stream, a store owned by Dick’s Sporting Goods on Feb. 24 and the 20-year-old made another attempt to purchase the weapon at a Walmart store on March 3.

This was only days before Dick’s Sporting Goods announced on Feb. 28, it would end the sale of all assault-style rifles and high capacity magazines -- in addition to raising the gun purchase age limit to 21 years old.

Walmart quickly followed with similar policy changes, raising its age limit and removing items from its website resembling assault-style rifles, like airsoft guns and toys.

This lawsuit comes a month after the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High school in Parkland, Florida, foreshadowing what may be a new wave of legal battles as more companies impose tighter restrictions on gun sales across the nation.

A Walmart spokesperson told ABC News that this is the first complaint of its kind that he’s aware of and the company will stand behind their decision and “plan to defend it” in court.

hxxp://abcnews.go.com/US/20-year-oregon-man-sues-dicks-sporting-goods/story?id=53554207

[pcosmar]

hxxp://abcnews.go.com/US/20-year-oregon-man-sues-dicks-sporting-goods/story?id=53554207

That is the first one, and they have a case.