http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/20-year-old-sues-dick-walmart-raising-gun-sales-age-article-1.3858290

I suppose though you really do not have to be a Nostradomus to figure this all out. But you do have to have the ability to put forth your thinking in an understandable and reasonable format and structure and make the call. I thought it would take a bit longer.

http://dailycaller.com/2018/03/02/dicks-sporting-goods-employee-quits/

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/1/kill-climate-deniers-play-launches-theatrical-run/

Be disturbed, that is exactly how they think and act.

S.O.M all day long for the Left to further the agenda at any cost.

Long story short, your position makes sense I think. Seems to me that if an individual at age 18 can vote, and more relevant, can use a gun on the field of battle in defense of the nation, they should darn well be able to buy a firearm to protect their home, hunt, etc at age 18.

https://nypost.com/2018/03/02/its-time-to-stand-up-to-the-nras-bullying/

“Is that the country we want to be? A land in which our children cannot learn math or reading without the presence of heavily armed guards? Do we desire to be the first country in the world in which K-through-12 schools become fortresses?”

Does it really matter what anyone wants as opposed to what the reality of our current situation is in reality in America? We have for some reason created soft targets for nuts with guns, some would say as a function of S.O.M. and the long term erosion that the effects of keeping those targets soft and constantly pressuring the gun lobby to surrender, as disturbing as that may seem to some. That in the end will be the effect. We all understand how diabolical the Left can be and I am certain that their “Never miss an opportunity in a disaster” mentality to manipulate.

Harden what needs hardening based on common sense and not what may be desired in some alternate reality that some people wish we all lived in. Someday we can all create an alternate universe that we can inhabit, we can down load our entire soul into it and live our imagined reality to the hilt. But for the present time lets all calm down and live where we find ourselves, in America, warts and all.

Want to stop being robbed? Just take the sign out of your window that says “We are humble pacifists, need money? Come in and take all you like, we will not resist”. That is the analogy of the sign that exists on the front of every school that promotes the “Gun free zone” mantra, because it “feels” good. Low standards is no standards, as a matter of fact its down right stupid and it may be by choice related to a larger agenda or the effects of the stupidity just happen to serve a larger agenda.

Which ever it is, stop it, your embarrassing yourself and you are pissing me off.

If jimmyjohns sporting goods sells a rifle used on one of these attacks, then they’re subject to massive litigation. Regardless of the success of the defense, they are out massive legal bills for a product which, in the case of wal mart or Dicks, is an infinitesimally small part of their cash flow. It might be called virtue signalling, but the harsh reality is that it’s risk avoidance. Better to lose the cash flow from the product line than be subject to litigation in the future.

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/376517-corporate-america-throws-weight-behind-gun-controls

And we wait to see if someone will challenge their move.

Steven Crowder wants to buy an automatic weapon
January 2016
https://youtu.be/UEihkjKNhN8
10:37

My point once again, beating this damn horse, is that for a business that operates as a public entity open to the public and selling their products to that public to just tell someone who is 18 and has the lawful right to make a purchase, in this scenario a firearm, to tell them that they are being refused solely because the store has set an arbitrary minimum age of 21, or 25, or 35 for that purchase, that is a potential legal problem for the store.

Now I have pointed out in much earlier conversations, to the moral consternation of many ( I think “Molten Carpet” specifically) that the person on the other side of the counter with the responsibility of vetting the sale can have certain amorphous concerns about various conditions or documentation that can be leveraged into a refusal. I have done it myself many, many times when I thought it necessary. But the setting as store policy over and above the law related to the sale purely based on an age that the store, the corporation, the company does “not like”, that is in my humble and sometimes not so humble opinion has the potential to become a legal litigation situation. What would limit the store from setting an age minimum of 25? Or 35 for that matter? We might all agree that those would be “better” ages for such transactions and rights to exist. If you do, then pass a law.

And I will look further / deeper into the legal implications of the issue of age discrimination and it usually being focused on 50 and over individuals, but legal is legal. The test will be if the company’s in question do what they say they are going to do and someone has a problem with it and has the wherewithal and determination to pursue it. If I am correct then it will appear in the media in time, if not then this was just an interesting discussion about life in America today and me being dogmatic.

The first scenario is a straw purchase, which are specifically prohibited by law.

The second isn’t actually illegal, you’re buying it for yourself with the intention of transferring it to your son when he reaches majority, which is perfectly legal.

If I walk in and say I want to buy a gift for my brother he is actually not allowed to sell to be because my brother is the one who needs the background check. I can pay but my brother needs to be there.
If I say I am buying it as a gift for my underage son the same thing applies.

If he even smells dope smoke on me thats eneough to satisfy the law.

All he has to say is that he had a funny fealing about someone and he is allowed to refuse the sale.

BJS nailed it with his 7:23am comment, as well, on Bakers.

(Despite what SCOTUS proclaims, forcing someone to work for you against their will, is Slavery, and we had a whole War to settle that issue.)

If we extend your logic, we do end up forcing the Baker to bake. That’s why that ruling was so insidious.

“Civil Rights,” should not to be confused with Constitutional Rights. (Although this is partially a semantic problem with the ordinary vs. specific legal definition)

-There were good reason to oppose the various “civil rights acts” of the 1960’s on grounds of Federalism and the right to free-association, but that would be a discussion for a different thread. Barry Goldwater did not vote for (most/all?) 1960’s era civil rights Acts, if I recall correctly, on just these grounds. )

I can’t affirmatively discriminate against specific protected classes, in the course of conducting specific transactions with those persons.
(Housing, transportation, accommodation’s, (hotels/motels) and education, being the biggies we all associate with “civil rights” legislation of the 1960’s.)
–If I wanted to discriminate against my customers (as a stupid capitalist,) I’ll find a more nuanced way to do it that doesn’t involve getting entangled with protected classes & transactions. But my competitors will eat my lunch for me and service those customers.

We are talking specifically about the sale of firearms to a person that legally has the right to purchase one, in this case in a public retail setting because they have attained the age of 18 or more. And this is an individuals right under the Second Amendment to the Constitution and any local or federal law that might govern it. If and when this law suit comes about IMO it will not be based in retail law but in civil rights law.

“Civil Rights protect individuals from unwarranted government action, without discrimination or repression. If that right is interfered with by another person or agency (including the government), it gives rise to an action for injury. Civil rights include freedom of speech, press, and assembly; the right to vote; freedom from involuntary servitude; and the right to equality in public places. Human rights are international norms that help to protect everyone from severe political, legal, and social abuses. Examples of human rights are the right to freedom of religion, the right to a fair trial when charged with a crime, the right not to be tortured, and the right to engage in political activity.”

I will continue to research and “Think deeper” and consider this issue keeping in mind the key few words in the above paragraph, “the right to equality in public places”. Q: Who here thinks “Public places” means open to the public places including businesses that serve and sell to the public or people in public parks or on the street?

this deserves a repeat:
“I can refuse to sell to anyone for any reason as long as the reason doesn’t infringe on a protected class. (race, religion, sex, ad nauseum, the age in the case of protected classes refers to those over 50 and is intended to be protection for the elderly)”

Cotour– think about it just a little deeper, and the light will turn on.

Unlike the case of liquor laws, I haven’t heard of any law that stipulates these conditions, yet car rental companies and hotels discriminate against youth all the time.

Do you think the youth should get together and file a class action lawsuit?

Your challenge to the reasonableness of this is truly an extension of the argument to and beyond the absurd.

I can join the military (and did) at 17 and not have the right to vote, purchase alcohol, or enter legally into many binding contracts, and when you join the military you self-limit your Constitutional rights as you are now subject to the UCMJ as opposed to civilian law.

The “No shoes, no shirt, no service is I would assume is related to universal, local health department regulations. Age is no issue.

This is the sign that you are promoting ” If we do not like your age we reserve the right to refuse a sale”.

I can join the military and die protecting the Constitution at the age of 18 for you but you reserve the right to not sell me something that I am well qualified related to age and law to buy? Really?

Does that sound reasonable to you? Does it really matter if I can just go to another open to the public store? What if that person needed that firearm to protect his new wife and baby from the real potential of bad actors and you were the only place he could buy what he desperately needed? How about if that was you or your son? Or your daughter?

There are laws which are a direct function of the Constitution, some are reasonable and set reasonable minimums for a reasonable reason related to an individuals rights. We may see this played out in the courts at some point in time and it will be interesting to see how it is represented.

A store refusing to sell an item to an individual (think about “No shoes, no shirt, no service” signs) which does so across the board and not due to one of the special cases enshrined in law, is doing nothing to infringe on anyone’s rights.

Where you and many others miss the boat is that the Constitution puts limits on the rights of GOVERNMENT to protect the rights of individuals. The government is doing nothing to infringe on anyone’s rights if jimmyjohns sporting goods refuses to sell them something, hence, no one’s rights are being infringed on unless the sporting goods store holds absolute monopoly on the sale of the item in question.

I can think of any number of transactions which are subject to restrictions placed on the sale by the seller, dogs, alcoholic beverages, the list is long, and in no case has anyone been sued unless their refusal to sell trips over the bounds of a protected class.

Do you believe in what is contained in the Constitution? Do you believe in the rule of law?

Do you believe that someone should be able to arbitrarily deny an adult their right to a firearm because THEY do not like someones age? Do you believe that you or they are defending the Constitution by doing so? Who the HELL is anyone to arbitrarily deny someone else who is of age their Constitutional rights under the law? If they want the age of majority related to the purchase of a firearm to be 21 then let the law be specifically changed.

Remember, we are talking very narrowly about age as being the prime issue of whether someone is ALLOWED to exert their rights under the Constitution.

No Il Duce, No Marx, as a matter of fact you have it exactly backwards.

Protectionist Command economies never work. Never! What makes you think Il Duce has figured out a better way?

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ll-bean-gun-purchases-21_us_5a9912a2e4b0479c02513486

I say they should remove what ever items that they have an issue with selling to anyone under 21 years old or prepare for litigation at some point in the near future.

To my point about blame and who’s job it is to attempt to resolve what has so long been invested in.

http://www.wnd.com/2018/03/fatal-delusions-of-western-man/

We created these “Monsters”, and we in many ways created the modern economy and specifically modern China that now breaths down our necks and threatens an agenda of world domination. Pay attention Andrew W, the Chinese are coming.

I never said it would be pretty, as a matter of fact I have asked for it to be very messy and disruptive if you recall. That is the only real way that we can tell that what needs to happen is indeed happening. IMO I believe that Trump is once again creating leverage and an economic sledge hammer in order to in the long run change the “New World Order” status quo in the world which has been fashioned over the last 30 years by American leaders. Thank / blame G.H.W. Bush and all following presidents for the things that Trump has got to be undertaking today. The short term may be bumpy for some, maybe all, but it will pass.

On the subject of “The cake”, my initial position was that from the STATES point of view, an open to the public business as a general rule although owned by individuals is an entity that is structured within the state (Consumer laws, corporations, LLC’s, tax collection, etc) respect for individuals in the open to the general public business could not arbitrarily deny someone service or a product based on their personal whim or subjective judgment / likes / dislikes.

There must be some reasonable cause for someone to be refused. Like, the person was drunk, the person was not clean and smelled and was not wearing pants etc. Or, I only provide my services to women and a man demanded that I give him a “Brazillian” (Yikes!). In other words the customer would have to be unreasonable or disruptive or threatening to reasonably be refused. This is how business in general is conducted in America when we are discussing people walking into a retail entity and desire to purchase what they please.

I can however see the argument where someone who is in business and open to the general public and sells to the general public their daily production / products, in that case a bakery, to whom ever comes in the door but reserves the right to refuse to participate in religious or subject matter that they are opposed to. Their “custom” artistic production is a function of their First Amendment right to expression. Someone can not come in and demand a baker produce a NAZI themed cake, or an ISIS themed cake, or a human genitals themed cake. That is not reasonable because it violates the proprietors First Amendment rights.

Wayne: If you are talking about law related to retail walk in business, both State and Federal and even Local, this statement below is generally an inaccurate statement:

“Commodude is correct again; free association in commerce.
As a customer, You can’t force a gun-seller, to sell you a gun, even if you meet all the requirements under law, it’s still a business transaction subject to mutual agreement.”

As individuals trading between themselves you can pretty much do as you please and trade with whom ever you like, but as far as Federal, State or Local laws concerning actual structured entities called businesses, Corporations, LLC’s, DBA’s etc. there are certain reasonable laws that are required to be adhered to.

You can not arbitrarily refuse an 18 or 19 year old who reasonably meets the criteria to buy a firearm that they qualify to purchase their purchase. If you do you can be sued for denying them their rights, company’s that do so are open to the consequences of problems of their own creation. And I would expect some form of legal suit to be brought in the near future related to the issue for whom ever does such.

Cotour, were you in favor of, or against, letting bakers refuse to sell cakes to certain peoples?

Can’t really believe I’m going to say this! Do you really want to have your cake and eat it too?

He threatens to take my guns and other Rights on one day and then destroys my job the very next.

I work for an industrial valve manufacturer. We make stuff out of, you guessed it, steel. Not rinky-dink plumbing fixtures. We do high end, extreme service, valves. If you’ve worked on a Nuke Sub or Aircraft carrier, you’ve been near our products. The Hadron Collider uses our stuff. Petro-chemical too. But I digress…

Since the oil price crash we’ve been hanging on by our fingernails trying to stay in business. Waiting for market conditions to improve. No profits for the last two years! Orders have just started to pick up and they’ve even re-instated some limited overtime.

And now our material costs are going to go up by a minimum of 25%! Yeah, like we can just wait 10 years for all those US steel plants to get back on line. Right, like that’s going to happen.

Our overseas and even Canadian competitors are going to CRUSH us with their price advantage!!!

And you call this winning? Thanks man, I’m looking forward to when things get really great again.

Well if Mike Borgelt’s wife agrees it must be true. /sarc

When comparing how NZ is doing compared to other countries, rather than consulting Mike Borgelt’s wife I go see what people who actually make such comparisons say:
The CATO institute says NZ(#3) is more free that Australia(#5) or the US(#17),
The Heritage Foundation says, NZers(#3) have more economic freedom than Australian’s(#5) or American’s(#18),
Transparency International says NZ(#1) is less corrupt that Australia(#13) or America(#16),
Reporters without Borders say NZ(#13) has greater press freedom than Australia(#19) or America(#43),
The World Bank Group says there’s greater ease of doing business in NZ(#1) than America(#6) or Australia(#14)

But what would those organizations know compared to Mike Borgelt and his wife?