Posted on 03/02/2018 8:41:36 AM PST by Behind Liberal Lines
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. ...Likewise, some cities and counties have similar ordinances (even if their states don't)
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
Growing up, most establishments had
"We Reserve The Right to Refuse Service to Anyone".
Prominently posted. That was their RIGHT. When LBJ instituted his "Great (socialistic) Society", this right was pretty much taken away, but I think store owners STILL have that right. Keep in mind, a store owner that sells a gun to a nutjob that shoots up a bunch of people, will later be criticized and likely hounded out of business for doing so.
If you want to debate the Constitutionality of the law, that’s legit, and a whole new discussion on its own.
All I can tell you is that from my personal experience I was happy I had the option to say no.
If they can refuse to sell a rifle to an 18 year old they can refuse to bake a wedding cake for fags. End of story.
Why does any given person HAVE to sell to anyone else? That’s absurd. Violates the 4th Amend.
If you can’t get it from one get it from another.
K
Sad. I worked, bought and paid for my first gun when I was 12 years old. A Marlin lever action .22 rifle. Still have it.
I was speaking of the constitutionality of that law. I wasn’t talking about a person’s right to refuse to sell to someone. Two separate issues.
Agreed.
We are so screwed up, not allowing discrimination....association.
??
But that doesn’t address the fact we have natural rights to refuse to associate...buy...sell...sit next to...with anyone.
You are saying the right to refuse to sell a gun to a buyer is a violation of 2A. That simply does not follow.
I'm warming to this idea as well.
Anyone under 21 would be considered a minor. As it stands, can't even legally buy a beer until 21.
On the voting part, imagine all the support & votes the (D)'s would loose!
The only major issue with this scenario is that someone 20 years old (for example), couldn't get married then w/o a court order/parent consent.
However, perhaps a few things such as marriage and being able to rent/buy an apartment/house could be exempted.
But yeah, if guns go to 21, then at a minimum voting and military service age must be raised to 21 as well. If there is a declaration of war by congress, then the service age could be temporarily lowered to an age and duration as defined by congress at the time.
Some 20 year old is going to walk into Walmart and try to buy a rifle when they say we "won't" sell to you because of your age they are going to get sued for violation of civil rights. They will lose before the case even gets going.
Walmart and other dealers choice is to sell according to law which means they can't discriminate because of age, etc. or get out of the gun business.
Going to have a real chuckle when these leftist business retards get there own discrimination laws crammed up their cram holes.
It would be even better if a 2nd amendment movement had 20k 20 year olds go into walmart and try to buy that way it could be a class action suit for 2.5 billion or so. lol !!
Can bakers refuse to bake a cake for someone?
No. I am saying that the law that specifies the FFL right to refuse without cause is a violation of the constitution.
Without that law, the person who sells firearms retains his/her rights to refuse to do business with anyone. If those right run up against someone else’s rights, then that is a different issue.
That is why as a property manager you run the credit report. Then you have a chance to knock out people who have made it a habit to not pay bills. (Many in the lower age group will fit in this category.)
Ok, let’s raise the age of statutory rape to 18 as well. That should shake things up.
RFR - Rule 4: Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules...
Does the Gay Wedding cake cases establish legal precedents to remove DICK’S Sporting Goods business licenses or fine the business for discrimination?
Maybe someone in Oregon can press this issue..
Raising the age to which the Second Amendment is allowed to apply to 21 will be followed by raising it to 22, then 23, then 24, then 25, and so on.
Interesting, and taking the premise though to other more extreme conclusions illuminates a “slippery slope”. Can Google say “we will refuse” to give an account to anyone over 35? Currently, they feasibly could under the premise of “I’m a public company, I can REFUSE to serve ANYONE for ANY reason”. (Unless you’re a cake maker)
Can a movie theater REFUSE service to someone because they are OLD? Or Young? (yes, currently for certain movies) Or Wearing a MAGA hat? Or happen to be of a “color” they don’t prefer?
And under the same reasoning, if Google said “We refuse to grant an account to anyone that is Catholic? or Black? or Jewish?” Is this still feasible under the same premise? Que the ACLU.... Perhaps It is time for the entities that represent the foundation and underpinnings of the internet to be declared “public accommodations” and as such, they can not infringe on our basic rights.
I am not a big fan of government regulation, but I do believe that he “basic” structure of the internet SHOULD be declared a Public Utility. I don’t believe for example that Google, or Youtube or Twitter should be declared public entities. If we don’t like how they “censor” us, then BUILD an alternative - but I do think that ALL ISP’s and International Internet Exchange Points and the like should.
As examples, there should never be a time when an ISP or Local Service provider can LIMIT our Freedom to conduct commerce or compete in the arena of ideas by “refusing” to HOST our alternative to Youtube, or Google, or Twitter or provide a company competing with Instagram or Amazon with an IP address, etc.
The “internet” at it’s most basic level, MUST Always be open to everyone, just like the Power Grid, Road, Water and Sewer system - and just as we wouldn’t let Kentucky Utilities “refuse” service and provide power to someone under the age of 21 or provide electrical service the Kentucky GOP Headquarters, we should never let the basic “backbone” of the internet be “soft” regulated by the companies who essentially hold the “keys to the kingdom” but REFUSE to open the door just because they decide to conduct commercial warfare on their “political” enemies.
Just one man’s opinion...
There is a bigger threat of death from cell phones and texting for the under 21 then guns.
While they are banning guns from them ban cell phones or at least texting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.