Is it legal for stores to raise the age for buying guns?

[CarnalK]

@Siam_Sam

Car-rental agencies won’t rent to under-25s. Same difference.

Except, of course, the Constitution doesn’t provide for the right to rent cars.

[Northern_Piper]

And the Constitution doesn’t apply to gun stores or car rental agencies, so citing the Constitution in answer to the OP is irrelevant.

[Chessic_Sense]

@Do_Not_Taunt

That doesn’t really make any sense. Crafter_Man’s answer was basically, who knows if forbidding gun sales to under-21s is legal? Look at this other crazy thing liberal judges have decided! (Leaving aside how decided the refusal-to-serve-gay-couples issue actually is.) So I basically inquired why he decided that was the crazy thing courts have decided on. I’m sure there’s a reason, and it being a question currently before the court isn’t it.

It seems pretty obvious to me. Gay people have the legal right to marry, but that doesn’t compel a shop owner to make a sale in the furtherance of exercising this right. Certain people have the legal right to fireamrs, but that doesn’t compel a shop owner to make a sale in the furtherance of exercising this right. The comparison writes itself.

[drewder]

I would think that when a person has achieved the right to vote they have indisputably reached the point when they are recognized as a full citizen in our society. Laws, including state laws, which restrict the constitutional rights of some full citizens but not others without due process of law should and must be considered unconstitutional as violations of the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th amendment.

Personally I am inclined to allow businesses to discriminate on any basis they choose and allow the market to punish those businesses for their abhorrent behavior, however since we have seen fit to prohibit discrimination on some basis I can hardly see the justification for allowing states or the federal government to allow discrimination on an arbitrary characteristics such as age.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Chronos]

Should all full citizens be allowed to run for President? Because that requires you to be nearly twice the voting age.

[Lord_Feldon]

@Siam_Sam

Car-rental agencies won’t rent to under-25s. Same difference.

That’s the case in most states, but a few states do ban age discrimination by car rental agencies.

[Corry_El]

@SamuelA

So if you declare that “the people” are adults over the age of 40, when crime and firearm misuse drops off, but under the age of 65, because the elderly often have poor judgement, and you cannot possess a weapon before then unless you’re in the military, would that pass muster?

Because it frankly would be little different from a ban if laws like that were permitted.

Probably not (pass muster). But just general observation of how courts interpret laws, as non-lawyer, is that it’s not that any extreme example (such as you give) must be allowed if any reasonable example is allowed.

IOW the practical question is why courts would enforce a completely unstated age eligibility at 18 for the 2nd amendment when it’s constitutional to have a drinking age of 21. It wouldn’t be that they have to reject a gun purchase age limit of 21 because they’d reject a law saying you can only buy guns between your 52nd and 53rd birthdays. The latter example is extreme and ridiculous, only somewhat more than yours. The former is isn’t extreme and ridiculous and would have other precedents for less than absolutely full rights prior to the common law age of full majority at 21, even though other rights are explicitly granted below that age, as in the 26th amendment.

[drewder]

@Chronos

Should all full citizens be allowed to run for President? Because that requires you to be nearly twice the voting age.

Well since that is specifically stated as a requirement in the constitution I can hardly see how it could be considered unconstitutional. If the 2nd amendment said the right of the people over the age of 40 to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed it would be a different story.

[Siam_Sam]

@CarnalK

Except, of course, the Constitution doesn’t provide for the right to rent cars.

What if you’re renting one to drive in a militia?

[Lord_Feldon]

A lawsuit has been filed against Walmart and Dick’s Sporting Goods in Oregon, alleging that this policy violates the state’s discrimination statutes.

[Iggy]

@Corry_El

…
IOW the practical question is why courts would enforce a completely unstated age eligibility at 18 for the 2nd amendment when it’s constitutional to have a drinking age of 21. It wouldn’t be that they have to reject a gun purchase age limit of 21 because they’d reject a law saying you can only buy guns between your 52nd and 53rd birthdays. The latter example is extreme and ridiculous, only somewhat more than yours. The former is isn’t extreme and ridiculous and would have other precedents for less than absolutely full rights prior to the common law age of full majority at 21, even though other rights are explicitly granted below that age, as in the 26th amendment.

Oregon law specifies that age discrimination protections apply to those of majority with only three listed exceptions: purchase/possession/etc…/ of alcohol, purchase/possession/etc…/ of marijuana, and discount programs for those age 50 or older. Otherwise discrimination on the basis of age in public accommodations is prohibited by state law.

As the Oregon legislature clearly knew how to make exceptions to the general principle of a ban on age discrimination and the legislature had not made an exception related to firearms sales then I would expect a judge to uphold the state law and rule for the plaintiff in the lawsuit as mentioned by Lord Feldon.

[k9bfriender]

@Iggy

Oregon law specifies that age discrimination protections apply to those of majority with only three listed exceptions: purchase/possession/etc…/ of alcohol, purchase/possession/etc…/ of marijuana, and discount programs for those age 50 or older. Otherwise discrimination on the basis of age in public accommodations is prohibited by state law.

As the Oregon legislature clearly knew how to make exceptions to the general principle of a ban on age discrimination and the legislature had not made an exception related to firearms sales then I would expect a judge to uphold the state law and rule for the plaintiff in the lawsuit as mentioned by Lord Feldon.

Interesting. So, car insurance in Oregon doesn’t go down when you turn 25, or are actuarial tables based on age a protected form of discrimination?

Anyway, that’s just a law, and laws can be changed. And if the people in power refuse to change them, then other people that will change them can come into power.

[Chronos]

Meanwhile, though, until and unless the law is changed, the outcome of the current court case (based on the current law) looks to be a slam dunk.

[Bone]

@k9bfriender

Interesting. So, car insurance in Oregon doesn’t go down when you turn 25, or are actuarial tables based on age a protected form of discrimination?

Car insurance isn’t a public accommodation in Oregon.

ACCESS TO PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS

(Unlawful Discrimination in Public Accommodations)

  659A.400 Place of public accommodation defined. (1) A place of public accommodation, subject to the exclusions in subsection (2) of this section, means:

  (a) Any place or service offering to the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges whether in the nature of goods, services, lodgings, amusements, transportation or otherwise.

  (b) Any place that is open to the public and owned or maintained by a public body, as defined in ORS 174.109, regardless of whether the place is commercial in nature.

  (c) Any service to the public that is provided by a public body, as defined in ORS 174.109, regardless of whether the service is commercial in nature.

  (2) A place of public accommodation does not include:

  (a) A Department of Corrections institution as defined in ORS 421.005.

  (b) A state hospital as defined in ORS 162.135.

  (c) A youth correction facility as defined in ORS 420.005.

  (d) A local correction facility or lockup as defined in ORS 169.005.

  (e) An institution, bona fide club or place of accommodation that is in its nature distinctly private. [Formerly 30.675; 2013 c.429 §1; 2013 c.530 §4]



  659A.403 Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is of age, as described in this section, or older.

  (2) Subsection (1) of this section does not prohibit:

  (a) The enforcement of laws governing the consumption of alcoholic beverages by minors and the frequenting by minors of places of public accommodation where alcoholic beverages are served;

  (b) The enforcement of laws governing the use of marijuana items, as defined in ORS 475B.015, by persons under 21 years of age and the frequenting by persons under 21 years of age of places of public accommodation where marijuana items are sold; or

  (c) The offering of special rates or services to persons 50 years of age or older.

  (3) It is an unlawful practice for any person to deny full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation in violation of this section. [Formerly 30.670; 2003 c.521 §1; 2005 c.131 §1; 2007 c.100 §5; 2015 c.614 §27]

Though the summary guidelines from the state of Oregon for auto insurance states the following: (my bold)

An insurance company cannot deny, refuse to
renew, limit, or charge more for coverage because
of your race, color, religion, or national origin.
A company also cannot deny, refuse to renew,
limit, or charge more for coverage because
of your age, gender, marital status, domestic
partnership status, disability, or partial disability
unless the refusal, limitation, or higher rate
is “based on sound underwriting or actuarial
principles.”
In addition, a company cannot unfairly
discriminate between individuals of the same
(rate) class and essentially the same hazard (risk)
in its rates, policy terms, benefits, or in any other
manner unless the refusal, limitation, or higher
rate is “based on sound actuarial principles.”

[Dag_Otto]

I’m going to open a gun and cake shop and hire only pharmacists to run it. All of my customers can fuck off. Or not.

[k9bfriender]

@Bone

Car insurance isn’t a public accommodation in Oregon.

I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you here, but I don’t know how that list declares it not to be. It’s not a service?

Though the summary guidelines from the state of Oregon for auto insurance states the following: (my bold)

So, discrimination in insurance is okay, so long as it is “based on sound underwriting or actuarial principles.” Even if those principles do not have anything to do with the individual driver. For instance, I was paying higher rates when I was 18 for insurance, even though I, personally never had a claim.

Seems if insurance companies can determine that people under 21 and 25 are less responsible, and therefore, should have to pay a higher rate, then we should respect that when it comes to firearms as well.

But, point is, it would just take a small change in the state law to make it legal to not sell guns to 18-20 year olds, right?

[Bone]

@k9bfriender

So, discrimination in insurance is okay, so long as it is “based on sound underwriting or actuarial principles.” Even if those principles do not have anything to do with the individual driver. For instance, I was paying higher rates when I was 18 for insurance, even though I, personally never had a claim.

Seems if insurance companies can determine that people under 21 and 25 are less responsible, and therefore, should have to pay a higher rate, then we should respect that when it comes to firearms as well.

But, point is, it would just take a small change in the state law to make it legal to not sell guns to 18-20 year olds, right?

You’re mixing terms here in a way that makes what you are saying difficult to understand. There is no “discrimination in insurance” as you state. Drivers are rated and based on the rating belong to various risk pools. People with the same characteristic in the same risk pool can’t be priced differently because that would be discrimination. Putting people in different risk pools based on approved criteria is not discrimination in the way that term is typically used.

Sound underwriting or actuarial principles do have to do with the individual driver, to the extent they are members of the established risk pools.

Insurance companies are not determining that people under 21 and 25 are less responsible. They are actuarily determining the ultimate loss the company will incur as a result of insuring individuals in various risk pools. The rate is then set to recover those losses over the risk pool. Not only does the rate need to be approved by the state regulatory body, but often the rates are set such that the insurance company will lose money on the business it writes for P&C lines of business.

In addition, if due to any particular risks that an individual may present they cannot acquire insurance, then the State of Oregon becomes the insurer of last resort and assigns this risk to the other insurers in the state through its mandatory risk pools.

In no way is this analogous to firearm sales. But yes, this individual lawsuit could be mooted with a change in state law.

[Iggy]

@Bone

…
In no way is this analogous to firearm sales. But yes, this individual lawsuit could be mooted with a change in state law.

I can certainly see that a change in state law might moot future similar cases. But these particular cases, no, as the law at the time of the incident would apply. At least that is my IANAL understanding.

[Bricker]

UPDATE:

The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries issued a memo this week suggesting that it is illegal for retailers to restrict gun and ammunition sales based on the buyers age.

Hannah Brumbles, an 18-year-old from Deer Island in unincorporated Columbia County, filed a complaint with the state after a Walmart store in St. Helen’s refused to sell her a rifle or ammunition last February because she was younger than 21.

.
.
.
BOLI found that Brumbles did have grounds for the discrimination complaint, and has scheduled a hearing in November where it will hear Walmart’s response and formally rule on the matter.
.
.
.
Walmart will defend its policy. “In February of this year, we reviewed our policy on firearm and ammunition sales and as a result, we raised the age restriction for the purchase of those items to 21,” said Randy Hargrove, a company spokesman. “We stand behind our decision and plan to defend it. We are preparing for the November hearing before the administrative law judge.”

[Bricker]

So far as I can determine, Walmart is not claiming that their exercise of religion is the reason they don’t want to sell firearms to 18, 19, or 20 year old customers. This is a factor that makes their grounds different from bakeries seeking to avoid designing cakes for same-sex weddings.