Walmart sets age of 21 to buy firearms, ammunition

Walmart sets age of 21 to buy firearms, ammunition

https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/_g...613.png.cf.jpg
Anne d'Innocenzio, AP Retail Writer
,Associated Press•February 28, 2018

Walmart adds change to gun sales policy after move by Dick's Sporting Goods


NEW YORK (AP) -- Walmart announced Wednesday that it will no longer sell firearms and ammunition to people younger than 21 and would also remove items resembling assault-style rifles from its website.

The move comes after Dick's Sporting Goods announced earlier in the day that it would restrict the sale of firearms to those under 21 years old. It didn't mention ammunition.

Dick's also said it would immediately stop selling assault-style rifles, and its CEO took on the National Rifle Association by demanding tougher gun laws.

Walmart said its decision came after the company reviewed its firearm sales policy in light of the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, that killed 17 people. The teenage gunman used an AR-15 rifle. It said it takes "seriously our obligation to be a responsible seller of firearms" and also emphasized its background of serving "serving sportsmen and hunters."

Several major corporations, including MetLife, Hertz and Delta Air Lines, have cut ties with the NRA since the Florida tragedy, but none were retailers that sold guns. The NRA has pushed back aggressively against calls for raising age limits for guns or restricting the sale of assault-style weapons.

Walmart Inc. stopped selling AR-15 guns and other semi-automatic weapons in 2015. It doesn't sell bump stocks, the accessory attached to a semi-automatic gun that makes it easier to fire rounds faster. It also doesn't sell large-capacity magazines. It also says it doesn't sell handguns, except in Alaska.

In announcing the change in policy, the company said it had processes in place to make sure it was applied for online sales.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/walmart-s...235639418.html

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...0xJRTv6mbmhXKs


Dick's Sporting Goods Stops Selling Assault-Style Weapons, Raises Age for Gun Buyers
Wall Street Journal 1h ago

Dick's Sporting Goods CEO on decision to no longer sell assault-style rifles: 'We don't want to be a part of this story'
ABC News 4h ago

No gun purchases before the age of 21 under California bill

BY TARYN LUNA
tluna@sacbee.com

• February 28, 2018 02:18 PM
• Updated 2 hours 50 minutes ago

A state senator is pushing a bill to raise the minimum age to legally purchase rifles and shotguns in California to 21.

Sen. Anthony Portantino, D-La Cañada Flintridge, amended Senate Bill 1100 on Wednesday to prohibit someone from purchasing more than one gun in 30 days and to increase the age limit to buy all firearms to 21.

"As a parent, I've been distressed about what's going on in Florida and very encouraged by the activism by the students," said Portantino, a father of two daughters.

"Anybody who has watched the young people has to be moved and shame on folks in Washington who are not moved. If they are not going to do it, we’ll do it."

Current state law sets the age limit to purchase rifles and shotguns at 18 and imposes a higher age restriction of 21 on handgun sales. With some exceptions, in California it's illegal to own an assault weapon, such as the AR-15 Nikolas Cruz used during an attack that left 17 of his Parkland, Fla.
classmates dead earlier this month.

Portantino's limit on gun purchases in a one month period makes exceptions for firearm collectors, law enforcement, correctional facilities, private security companies, film companies or hunters with active licenses issued by the Department of Fish and Wildlife.

SB 1100 is among several gun bills introduced by California lawmakers this year. Others would close a loophole in the state's definition of an assault weapon, further restrict the ability of mentally ill residents to own firearms and prohibit people convicted of domestic violence charges from possessing or owning guns, among other new restrictions.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-...202675974.html

Kroger to Stop Selling Guns to Buyers Under 21
Wall Street Journal 1h ago

Kroger-owned Fred Meyer stores won't sell guns to anyone under 21 years old
CNNMoney 53m ago

Superstore chain Fred Meyer to stop selling guns, ammunition

https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/_g...613.png.cf.jpg
Associated Press•March 17, 2018

https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/h9...7f747001c9.jpg
FILE - This March 1, 2018 file photo shows a Fred Meyer store is shown in Portland, Ore., Thursday, March 1, 2018. The Superstore company says it will stop selling guns and ammunition. The Portland, Oregon,-based chain in an announcement Friday, March 16 says it made the decision after evaluating customer preferences. The company has more than 130 stores in Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Alaska. (AP Photo/Don Ryan) More

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — Superstore company Fred Meyer will stop selling guns and ammunition.

The Portland, Oregon,-based chain in a statement Friday said it made the decision after evaluating customer preferences. The company sells guns at nearly 45 of its more than 130 stores in Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Alaska.

"Fred Meyer has made a business decision to exit the firearms category," the company said. "We are currently working on plans to responsibly phase out sales of firearms and ammunition."

The company, a subsidiary of Cincinnati, Ohio,-based Kroger Co., didn't give a timeline.

Fred Meyer stores sell a range of goods that include groceries, clothing, electronics, outdoor equipment, furniture and jewelry. Stores also include pharmacies.
The company said the firearms category represents about $7 million annually of its revenue and sales have been declining.

"We made the decision early last week after evaluating changing customer preferences and the fact that we've been steadily reducing this category in our Fred Meyer stores over the last several years due to softening consumer demand," the company said.

"More recently we have been transitioning away from gun departments as a result of our ongoing work to optimize space in our Fred Meyer stores."

Following last month's high school shooting in Parkland, Florida that left 17 people dead, Fred Meyer said it would stop selling firearms to anyone under 21. The company had already stopped selling assault-style guns several years ago, except in Alaska.

Fred Meyer did not mention the school shooting in its statement Friday.

Other stores announced in the wake of that shooting that they would stop selling guns to anyone under 21 including Walmart Inc. and L.L. Bean. Dick's Sporting Goods recently banned sales of assault rifles.

Several outdoor chains, including Bass Pro Shops, Cabela's, Gander Outdoors and Academy Sports, continue to sell assault-style rifles.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/superstor...160749720.html

Kroger will stop selling magazines about assault rifles

by Aaron Smith @AaronSmithCNN March 16, 2018: 6:35 PM ET

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/a...s-1024x576.png


Kroger is going to stop selling magazines about assault rifles, a spokeswoman for the grocery chain said on Friday.

Kroger (KR) made the announcement just weeks after it said it would stop selling guns and ammunition to anyone under the age of 21. Kroger sells guns through its 45 Fred Meyer stores, located in four Western states.

Kroger didn't specify how the company will screen gun magazines for "assault rifles." Some magazines, like Field & Stream, focus on hunting rifles and shotguns. Other magazines focus on handguns. But military-style assault rifles often appear on the cover of magazines like Guns & Ammo, Recoil and Tactical Life.

People often use the term "assault rifles" to refer to semiautomatic military-style rifles that are widely available to civilians in the US.

Related: Kroger to stop selling guns to anyone under 21

After a mass shooting last month at a high school in Parkland, Florida, Dick's Sporting Goods (DKS)said it would stop selling assault-style rifles and would no longer sell guns to anyone under the age of 21.

Walmart (WMT), which stopped selling military-style semiautomatic rifles back in 2015, also recently said it wouldn't sell gun to customers younger than 21.

http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/16/news...nes/index.html

It is preferable to government mandating that no one can sell guns. There will probably be a new gun superstore chain opening. Just like there are super liqueur chains that cater to that market. Such stores can focus more on screening customers and proposing gun safety courses in conjunction with sales than one that casually sells guns.

The age thing I support. The NRA claims that it denies 18 - 21 YO Second Amendment rights is bogus to me. Whether driving, getting married, or joining the military, there are exceptions. For these, a minor can do these with permission from their parents. A child can go to court and be declared emancipated. To do that they must show the court they are mature enough to manage their own affairs. If someone under 21 has a good need to have a gun, there should be such avenues available to them. I recall that drivers under 21, or so, are considered high risk to insurance companies. But if they are married, they are considered a better risk. This logic can also be applied to gun ownership as well.

Gun ban for young adults would be wholly unconstitutional

BY DAVID KOPEL AND JOSEPH GREENLEE, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 03/13/18 11:30 AM EDT 547THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL

http://thehill.com/sites/default/fil...?itok=5SHX7FnX

© Getty Images

Should young adults, ages 18-20, be prohibited from purchasing firearms? Under current federal law, gun stores are prohibited from selling handguns to anyone under 21, and long guns to anyone under 18. Now, some people are calling for a ban on all firearms sales to any adult under 21. In early March, Florida raised the age for firearms purchases to 21. Similar bills have been introduced in California and other states.

Additionally, some firearm retailers — including Walmart, Dick’s Sporting Goods, L.L. Bean, and Kroger — have begun refusing service to all customers under 21. The refusal has subjected the companies to lawsuitsin states that have civil rights laws against age discrimination.

Besides violating the laws of some states and cities, firearms bans for young adults also violate the Constitution. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court reiterated that “[c]onstitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them.” When the Second Amendment was adopted, there were no firearms restrictions on 18-to-20-year-olds, and they were included in every militia across the country.

In fact, 18-to-20-year-olds had been included in over one hundred militia acts leading up to the Second Amendment’s ratification — dating back to 1631 Massachusetts — and were apparently excluded in none. The federal Militia Act of 1792 likewise included 18-to-20-year-olds.

All nine Justices in Heller agreed that individuals in the militia were protected by the Second Amendment. (The Justices disagreed about whether non-militia persons were also protected). All nine Justices also recognized that militiamen had to supply their own arms. Indeed, 18-to-20-year-olds males in the colonial and founding eras were required to own firearms.

The Militia Act of 1792 included such a requirement. Enacted a few months after the Second Amendment’s ratification, it presumably reflected the original understanding of the right. According to the original meaning of the Second Amendment, the government can require, but not prohibit, firearm ownership among young adults.

Of course it is true that in different legal contexts, such as voting, early American laws often set an age limit of 21. That is one reason why the 18-year-old vote required a constitutional amendment, which was adopted in 1971. In contrast, the Second Amendment right to arms included young adults right from the start.

Males aged 18-20 have a relatively higher violent crime rate than most older age groups. This might be a rationale for special licensing procedures, but not for a ban on the peaceable and law-abiding. Moreover, a ban on 18-to-20-year-old-women makes no sense, since that group is much less violent than the average adult.

Singling out any group for a civil rights ban because of the misbehavior of a tiny minority of the group is collective punishment, and is unjust. All social science data show that males are much more violent than females. That does not justify a gun ban for all males. If statistics show that members of certain races, ethnicities, or religions are relatively more violent, statistically, that does not justify prohibition for the very large non-violent majorities of those groups.

We know that suicide rates are highest for males over 70. This fact does not justify gun prohibition for everyone in that group.

Besides, the Founders were aware of the tendencies of some young adults. As the Encyclopedia of Police Science explains, “The relationship between aging and criminal activity has been noted since the beginnings of criminology . . . This age-crime relationship is remarkably similar across historical periods, geographic locations, and crime types.” Knowing the social facts, the Founders recognized that 18 to 20-year-olds have the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.

Because, as Heller explained, “the inherent right of self-defense [is] central to the Second Amendment right,” the more relevant consideration is that young adults are victimized by violent criminals at the highest rateof any adults. Women ages 18-to-24 are more than three times as likely to be victims of rape or sexual assault than older women.

So when the government bans guns for young adults, it is ensuring that the groups that are the people who are already the most-attacked will be stripped of the means to resist violent attacks. This increases the safety of a criminal who is contemplating breaking into the home of a 20 year woman to brutalize her, and it terminates her safety.

Perversely, bans on young adults means that those who volunteer to risk their lives defending America with automatic weapons are prohibited from defending themselves with far less lethal firearms.

From the perspective of gun prohibition, one of the benefits of bans for young adults is to prevent them from acquiring rifles or shotguns for hunting or target sports. In the long run, this will reduce the number of participants in those sports, and thus shrink the base of voters who may be active in opposing further bans.

Some young adults 18 to 20 are married with children. These families deserve to protect themselves as much as any family does. If these adults are not mature enough to be trusted with firearms, then logic would suggest that they are not mature enough to marry in the first place.

For that matter, perhaps they are not mature enough to vote If they cannot be trusted with a squirrel rifle, how can they be trusted to elect leaders who wield nuclear weapons?

Finally, it is disingenuous to prosecute 18-to-20-year-olds as adults for firearms offenses or other crimes, while simultaneously denying them the right to own firearms because they supposedly are incapable of adult responsibility.

David Kopel (@DaveKopel) is research director at the Independence Institute (@I2idotorg), a free market think tank in Denver. Joseph Greenlee is a fellow at the Millennial Policy Center (@MilPolicyCtr) in Denver.

http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/...constitutional

Quote:

---

All nine Justices in Heller agreed that individuals in the militia were protected by the Second Amendment. (The Justices disagreed about whether non-militia persons were also protected).

---

That would give them no right if they aren't in the militia!

Quote:

---

In contrast, the Second Amendment right to arms included young adults right from the start.

---

Yet the Constitution does not identify what age an adult is.

Quote:

---

Because, as Heller explained, “the inherent right of self-defense [is] central to the Second Amendment right,"

---

But does "self defense" include unlimited firepower?

Look at the source: David Kopel (@DaveKopel) is research director at the Independence Institute (@I2idotorg), a free market think tank in Denver. Joseph Greenlee is a fellow at the Millennial Policy Center (@MilPolicyCtr) in Denver.

http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/...constitutional

Here's why raising the gun possession age could cost some crime victims their lives

http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnew...9412929585.jpg

By John R. Lott | Fox News



The Florida House gave final legislative approval Wednesday to a bill banning gun sales to anyone under 21, sending the measure to Gov. Rick Scott, who has not said whether he will sign it into law. More significantly, there is serious consideration in Congress of a similar national ban.

On top of this, Dick’s Sporting Goods, Walmart, L.L. Bean and Kroger have all moved to discontinue gun sales to anyone under age 21.

Man who predicted the collapse of GM, Fannie, and Freddie says the next big bankruptcy is going to catch everyone by surprise.

We all know what prompted these well-meaning actions. It was the horrific attack at a Florida high school last month by a 19-year-old that claimed the lives of 14 students and three adults. So it is hardly surprising that people want to keep guns away from 19-year-olds.

The desire to “do something” is obvious. But what about a 20-year-old woman who is being stalked by a rapist or a killer? Research shows that having a gun is by far the most effective way for young women to defend themselves.

A ban on gun sales to anyone younger than 21 won't keep people who are determined to be mass killers from getting weapons.

We have to consider both types of cases to decide what changes will save the most lives.
Fortunately, we don’t need to guess. This isn’t the first time that the government has raised the age requirement for rifle purchases. In 1994 the first federal limits required buyers to be 18 years of age. Prior to that law, there was no federal age requirement for buying a rifle.

Thomas Marvell has done the only peer-reviewed study on this change. It was published in the Journal of Law and Economics, and concluded: “Where the 1994 laws seem to have an impact, the suggestion is almost always that crime increases; thus, there is no evidence that these bans had their intended effect.”

Marvell found that the 1994 age requirement was associated with a 5.1 percent increase in the homicide rate, and a 6 percent increase in firearm homicides. Beyond that, there was no real effect on crime rates. But Marvell notes that if “juveniles are more vulnerable targets, the result is likely to be more crime, especially violent crimes involving juveniles.”

A ban on gun sales to anyone younger than 21 won't keep people who are determined to be mass killers from getting weapons. These killers often plan their attacks more than six months in advance, and sometimes as much as year or two ahead of time.

Young people have shown themselves to be highly capable of obtaining illegal drugs, and they can often buy illegal guns from the same sources. After all, the same people who sell drugs have guns to protect their valuable property.

What is certain is that the most law-abiding people will be disarmed.

Young adults tend to have lower incomes and live in less desirable areas where more crimes take place. Limiting gun purchases to those 21 and older makes it more difficult for young adults to defend themselves. There is also a lot of evidence that the young people who use guns for self-defense are extremely law-abiding. Concealed handgun permit holders lose their permits for firearms violations at rates of thousandths or tens of thousandths of a percentage point.

The data for Michigan, Nevada and Texas indicate that permit holders between the ages of 18 and 22 are even more law-abiding than older permit holders. Why should these law-abiding young adults be denied their right to defend themselves?

Most who oppose the increased age for buying a gun point out that 18-year-olds can vote and serve in the military, where some of them handle fully automatic weapons in combat to defend our nation. So why can’t they make decisions on whether to save their own lives or the lives of others?

Those who make arguments that 19- and 20-year-olds are emotional and irrational would never argue that we should take away these young adults’ ability to vote, to join the military, or to drive cars that can accidentally or deliberately kill people.

But, as I have just pointed out, the main argument for raising the age limit as a way to reduce crime is itself suspect.

The other gun control laws being pushed, such as background checks on gun transfers or waiting periods, wouldn’t have stopped a single mass public shooting this century or even years before that. Unfortunately, the discussion ignores that gun control laws have real costs. The vast majority of people stopped from purchasing guns by background checks are actually law-abiding citizens.

Waiting periods also stop law-abiding people who may need guns quickly for self-defense. Indeed, even short waiting periods have been associated with a small increase murder rates. We ignore that over 98 percent of these attacks keep happening in gun-free zones, where general citizens are not able to defend themselves.

Laws passed in the heat of the moment can do more harm than good. The current rush to pass legislation is no different. Even in the aftermath of terrible mass public shootings, we shouldn’t lose sight of all of the crimes that are stopped by people acting in self-defense. Democrats ignore research at our peril.


http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/...eir-lives.html