Previous Post
Next Post

From the Second Amendment Foundation:

The Second Amendment Foundation today filed a federal lawsuit challenging federal law that prevents young adults from purchasing and owning handguns.

SAF is joined by the Firearms Policy Coalition and Louisiana Shooting Association and two private citizens, Caleb Reese and Joseph Granich, both in the affected age group. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Raymond M. DiGuiseppe of Southport, NC, Adam Kraut and Joseph Greenlee from Sacramento, CA, and John W. Dillon from Carlsbad, CA, and George J. Armbruster III from Lafayette, LA. Kraut is FPC’s Director of Legal Strategy and Greenlee is the group’s Director of Research. The case is known as Reese v. BATF.

Named as defendants are the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and Acting Director Regina Lombardo, and Attorney General William Barr, in their official capacities.

Neither Reese or Granich have criminal records. Both are over age 18, and thus have reached what is generically called the age of majority, which means adulthood. Yet they are denied full rights under the Second Amendment to purchase and own handguns, according to the lawsuit, which states, “The Handgun Ban prevents (them) from purchasing handguns of the makes and models of (their) choice, with full manufacturer warranty and support…in violation of (their) constitutionally enumerated rights.”

“While both of these young men were able to vote in the recent national elections, and they can pursue other activities as legal adults, they are prevented by law from purchasing and using handguns,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “They can join the military and defend the nation, possibly at the risk of losing their lives. They can enter into contracts, start businesses, get married and even run for office. Preventing them from legally purchasing and owning handguns seems rather silly, and we believe their rights as adult citizens are being violated.”

“One mission of the Louisiana Shooting Association is to protect Americans’ right to keep and bear arms which necessarily includes their ability to acquire firearms,” said Dan Zelenka, Louisiana Shooting Association’s president. “Handguns are the firearm of choice for self-defense as well as for many types of sport shooting disciplines. Nothing in the Constitution would subject adults under the age of 21 to different rights and protections under the Second Amendment as adults over the age of 21. On behalf of our members who are currently banned under federal law, as well as our younger members who will soon be in that banned age group, the Louisiana Shooting Association is proud to be a part of this effort to stop the federal government from enforcing its unconstitutional ban.”

“The right to keep and bear arms is not a second-class right, and the law-abiding legal adults the federal government currently bans from purchasing handguns are not second-class people,” said FPC President and FPF Chairman Brandon Combs. “These adults have the fundamental, individual right to purchase handguns and handgun ammunition for all lawful purposes from the lawful retailer of their choice. If they can be asked to fight and die for our country then they can and must be guaranteed the full protection of the Constitution. FPC is committed to fighting for and protecting the rights of all responsible citizens regardless of their age. FPC will continue to fight forward and restore the Second Amendment throughout the United States in this and other cases.”

“People who must bear all the burdens of being an adult should not be denied the benefits of it, especially when those benefits stem from fundamental liberty interests guaranteed by the Bills of Rights,” said attorney DiGuiseppe. “Law-abiding adults who are under 21 years of age shoulder the same essential responsibilities as all other adults, and, in the eyes of the Constitution, they have the same fundamental rights. Yet, the federal government has denied these full-fledged citizens the right to purchase handguns and handgun ammunition, cutting off their ability to acquire the quintessential weapon of self-defense in America. That is unconstitutional. This lawsuit aims to restore the right and ability of these adults to purchase constitutionally protected handguns and ammunition for them in their lawful exercise of their Second Amendment rights.”

“Adults over the age of eighteen have the full protection of all rights under the Constitution,” added Kraut. “But the federal government’s ban singles out their Second Amendment rights for especially unfavorable treatment. And our nation’s history and tradition show that adults under the age of 21 not only have the same Second Amendment rights as those over the age of 21, they were often required to keep and bear arms. We look forward to striking down this unconstitutional ban and providing millions of individuals with access to their constitutional rights.”

“Throughout the colonial and founding eras, hundreds of laws required 18-to-20-year-olds to own firearms—law applying to both males and females, and laws related and unrelated to militia service,” Greenlee explained. “By comparison, there were no restrictions whatsoever as to adults in this age group. If we look to the original understanding of the Second Amendment, as the Supreme Court requires, it is clear that 18-to-20-year-olds were fully protected by the right to keep and bear arms. We seek to vindicate that right in this case.”

“This is the third federal suit SAF has filed so far this month,” Gottlieb noted. “Other suits include our challenge of New York City’s extremist carry law as well as the state of New Jersey’s Draconian carry permit scheme. This is part of SAF’s effort to win firearms freedom one lawsuit at a time. Our ultimate goal is to get these cases reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court.”

The Second Amendment Foundation ( is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Hhhhmmmm. This sounds like a losing proposition at this time. There are wider reaching issues available. The general public understands “kids” having rifles, but not handguns. There should be a groundswell of pro-gun decisions ahead of “handguns for kids”. Seems like a periphal issue to be patched on to more significant litigation, later.

    • 14th Amendment…..Equal Protections.

      18 year olds are Constitutionally Legal Adults. They’re in the Right for Owning Long-Guns, and therefore Handguns.

      14th Amendment….Equal Protections…..End of Fucking Story.

      • “18 year olds are Constitutionally Legal Adults. They’re in the Right for Owning Long-Guns, and therefore Handguns. ”

        There is no moral victory in a loss, only a loss.

        The courts do everything possible to avoid a constitutional issue, prefering to quibble over the process (is the process viable as to legal sufficiency (think levels of scrutiny).

        The state has a compelling government interest in prospering public safety. The age group of the population, 18-21, has a strong record of violent behavior, this strong behavior creates unnecessary and dangerous conditions for the public, therefore, the prohibition of a proven unreliable group regards self-control is a legitimate concern of government, and only the volitale, unreliable segment is constrained. The constraint is narrowly drawn, and meets all three levels of scrutiny. The law meets the requirement for a constitutional exception to whichever provision of the constitution.

        Courts do not start any review with the question, “Is this issue a constraint on the wording of the constitution, and if so, is it permissible?” Courts begin with, “Does this constraint provide “due process” supporting a government compelling interest?”

        Let’s get all the constraints removed from adults 21 and older, then extend “adult” to the ages considered as adult for legally binding an individual to public committments.

          • What’s the compelling argument?

            Public safety.

            I would capture data about the incidents of injury, damage, death, imprisonment, faithlessness to obligations represented by the age group 18-20.999. Would also add that the age group is a sweetspot for gangs. Adding that allowing handgun purchases in the age group would also permit otherwise prohibited gang members to possibly (widely?) legally purchase handguns for crime, whereas before all such purchases were illegal. Thus building on the reasoning that resulted in the handgun ban for the 18-20.999 group in the first place.

            The result would be spending money and time to refute all the accusations, money and time better spent on larger issues: open carry everywhere; ending “may issue” everywhere; legal transport everywhere; state pre-emption laws; removing levels of scrutiny for enumerated rights (i.e. Second Amendment); fees and taxes on exercising a constitutionally protected and enumerated right; ending NFA, GCA, banning of semi-auto firearms; limits on ammunition and firearm accessories of any type.

        • Sam you are…Age discrimination is much more of a threat than your public safety line of crap. Are those over 65 going to be denied because vision for many people over 65 deteriorates so all people over 65 cannot own handguns?
          If you were as bright as you think you’d demand public schools educate students about the US Constitutional Rights and why the Second Amendment exists, etc. Otherwise students get heads full of demoCrap and use firearms accordingly and then knuckleheads like you come along and throw everyone in the dumpster.
          That’s right here’s your 3600 pound projectile 18th birthday present and a 30.06 rifle but that handgun? You cannot have that. If you want one if those take your 18 year old behind and go enlist. The very government that denied you a handgun will give you a handgun and a machinegun.

          • Debbie, this is your biggest misfire (although you generally are perceptive).

            My line of reasoning actually had nothing to do with chosing which age group should/should not be covered by the Second Amendment. The point was/is there are more important issues against which to expend time, money and energy. The 18-21 restriction becomes completely indefensible if all the other major legal battles are won. Losing a battle in an effort to save an outpost is the worst kind of logic, and use of resources.

        • The 5th circuit is very conservative; it’s filled with trump judges. I’m very confident the 5th circuit will rule for the 2A. Them SCOTUS will probably deny cert and the ruling will stand. They picked the 5th for a reason; this is a great suit. It will also take at least a few years to work up to the 5th and SCOTUS

      • The computer program used to switch votes form Trump to Biden Operation Scorecard; deploys “Dominion.” (Also called “Project Hammer”);

        • Here is how it worked

          At time stamp 35:35 in the video watch in real time how the program switched 560 votes from the republican to the democrat.

    • Methinks you are not looking ahead. This isn’t designed as a lead test case — it’s being filed as part of what will likely be the next wave.

      There are lots of test cases in the pipeline already, and Los Supremos will likely take the first good one and issue the long-awaited “we really meant it when we said 2A is a fundamental right” opinion. (My money is that it will be in Young v. Hawaii.)

      When that comes down, you want other cases already on file. That’s how I’m reading this.

      • “When that comes down, you want other cases already on file. That’s how I’m reading this.”

        Is it not one thing to “load the pipeline”, yet another to expend limited resources on relatively negligible cases? There is always a political (public policy perception) element to civil rights cases. It seems more of the public would support grand efforts, rather than tangential issues that easily fall victim to emotional tugs about youth being armed for other than hunting/recreation.

      • “Los Supremos will likely take the first good one and issue the long-awaited “we really meant it when we said 2A is a fundamental right” opinion. (My money is that it will be in Young v. Hawaii.)”

        Their potential response to such a ruling concerns me. We need to make sure they cannot add additional Justices at the drop of a hat to appease their extreme base. We better win both Georgia senate seats in January, *or else*.

        And there’s the issue of the letter sent to Roberts by the three senators a number of months back. In retrospect, was that probably a mistake, ‘shooting their wad’ on the upcoming ‘NY Pistol’ case before the court that was eventually mooted?

        • While we absolutely must remain vigilant and keep fighting on all fronts, I think the chances that the dems will be able to pack the courts is essentially nil.

          The Dems will have to run the table in GA, which is a longshot at best (and given some of the stuff coming out of Fulton County (tens of thousands of spoiled ballots), one of the races may well go for the GOP without a runoff). Similarly, if the MI senate recount uncovers even a fraction of the “errors” that appear to have occurred in Wayne County, the GOP picks up another seat.

          Even if the dems manage to draw to the inside straight and get to 50-50, to do the truly horrid stuff they would have to first eliminate the filibuster — otherwise, 41 GOP senators can block court packing, DC/PR statehood, etc. Especially given the election results (especially GOP gains in state legislatures, which will be doing redistricting that will likely lead to at least a dozen additional GOP house seats in 2022), there are at least a few saner senate democrats/independents who are going to see the possibility that the GOP could be back in power in 2024 with the WH and both houses of Congress. Having seen how their torpedos circled back on them the last time they tinkered with the filibuster (we can all thank Harry Reid for giving us ACB on the SCt!), there will likely be more than a couple who won’t want to get rid of it. (I believe Joe Manchin is already on record as being against eliminating the filibuster; Independent Angus King is similarly unlikely to vote for it.)

    • I was 17 when I signed my enlistment contract and 18 when I attended basic training to become an infantryman in the US Army. They didn’t deny me because I was a kid.

      • I entered basic at 17. I was issued and fired all sorts of explodey and bangy things before my 18th bd.

  2. ATF doesn’t make laws, they only do a terrible job enforcing them and making arbitrary rules. Why are they being sued for federal law?

  3. “They can join the military and defend the nation” is a spurious argument, since they have done neither.

    Besides, the 1st, 5th and 7th Circuits have already ruled against 18-year-olds. The NRA is currently suing over the Florida law prohibiting under-21s from purchasing any firearms, not just handguns. That case is not going anywhere either.

    • It seems like a logical fact to offer in support of the overall “Law-abiding adults who are under 21 years of age shoulder the same essential responsibilities as all other adults” argument – particularly given that the plaintiffs were not only allowed, but REQUIRED, to register to “join” should the need arise, in a system that has historically invoked that “need” under highly spurious circumstances.

      It also, in “Miracle on 34th St.” fashion, throws the weight of the government’s largest department (with the most relevant expertise) onto the scales – opposing the contention that 18-20y/o are insufficiently responsible for handguns, and frankly, exposing its absurdity.

      • Hey, I didn’t say that 18 year olds should be prohibited. But the whole notion that “if they can die for their country they should be able to buy a gun” is a false argument. It’s meant to appeal to emotions, which is what we accuse the left of doing. Oh the feels!

        The young men in question haven’t fought for their country and most 18-20 year olds never will. Moreover, the fact that they registered for the draft, as required by law, when there is no draft, means that women in the 18-20 year old category can be barred because they haven’t registered for anything.

        The only real question is whether or not 18-20 year olds are adults for the purpose of buying a handgun. My belief is that answer is “yes,” they are. I can’t prove it, but when it comes to fundamental rights, the burden of proof should be on the party denying the right.

        • I agree with most of what you wrote, except it’s an argument for consistency and against the practice of setting a threshold as X when it benefits one party and Y when it benefits the other – which is all the more unconscionable when X is the gov and Y is the citizen. The emotional appeal of highlighting one particularly egregious example of inconsistency is just the icing on the cake.

        • Ralph, could you please lay out a potential path of what Justice Thomas would like to see as part of a broad strategy to “Return respect for the 2A”?

          In your opinion, what cases should be argued first to get to where we want to be?

        • It doesn’t appeal to feelings, it appeals to equal rights.

          18 is defined as a legal adult. There’s no emotions involved in it.

          • “18 is defined as a legal adult. There’s no emotions involved in it.”

            Like any political principle, exceptions are “just common sense” (emotion). The “legal age” was once, indisputably 21.

            The better challenge would seem to be eliminating “may issue” all across the country, resulting from simultaneous filings in each federal judicial circuit, allowing the “legal age” matter to be swept up in the coattails.

        • @Geoff , we both know (or suspect) that Thomas would grant cert on every gun case and overrule just about any restriction on 2A, although I suppose that he might find some restrictions inoffensive. The least likely case he probably wants to use to start the revolution is a restriction on 18-20 yo buying a handgun from an FFL — but I’m not sure that he would let that case pass either.

          The case he would love to tackle IMO is “may issue” permitting. If Thomas had his way, “may issue” would be doomed. Not that he would overrule all permitting schemes, but any scheme that give the issuing authority discretion to deny permits just because they feel like it would be deemed unconstitutional.

        • Ralph, thanks. Guess we just wait and see.

          The more they ‘lose their shit’, the better the news is for us… 🙂

  4. I am so fucking sick and tired of the Crybaby Defeatist Attitudes of the Political Right.

    The following is a Copy and Paste but correct Statement of why lawsuits like this MUST Commence.

    14th Amendment…..Equal Protections.

    18 year olds are Constitutionally Legal Adults. They’re in the Right for Owning Long-Guns, and therefore Handguns.

    14th Amendment….Equal Protections…..End of Fucking Story.

    • That defeatist attitude is why we’re in this mess right now. Always on defense like a bunch of pussies. Way past time for people to get off their ass and help. Most any lawsuit is better than nothing. If 18 makes you an adult then you are entitled to all benefits of adulthood, guns, booze, tobacco…. I see a trend there ….atf?

    • But, but, but “public safety”…moron. Spot on, if its unconstitutional end it, period. Instead we get terd sacks in our own community like the one screaming about public safety concerns.

  5. As far as I’m concerned, let’s flood the lawsuit pipeline with 2A challenges, and see what sticks to the wall…

    • With ACB, Thomas;Kavanaugh, Alito and gorsuch on the court, don’t waste time. With an originality majority, we can see some long overdue pro Constitution decisions

  6. The suit will probably go nowhere, but it does have merit.

    At 17, with parental consent, I enlisted into the US Army. At 18, I was assigned as the M60 gunner, and was issued a 1911A1. Off duty I was not allowed either weapon. I qualified as Expert on both.

    I could vote, buy a car, enter into contracts and do everything any other adult could do, except purchase a handgun. The legal age for alcohol at that time was 18 where I was. I even skydived in my off duty time, which is arguably more dangerous than owning any firearm.

  7. Look at all you idiots arguing over something that won’t mean s h i t soon….
    Do you idiots even have brains???
    Did you not see who stole this last election and what that means for private ownership of ANYTHING…. AND FIREARMS ARE INCLUDED IN EVERYTHING FOR YOU MORONS….

    Wake the F u c k up!!!!!

    • Can’t happen on our lifetimes. They can try, we will fight. They will go only so far. They know it is a losing proposition considering how many millions of firearms and ammo there are in this Country. A lot sold before the 1968 GCA as well that are not traceable and perfectly operation.

      Our goal now is to support GA in the Senate election to keep our majority. It is also to keep up our attack on unconstitutional laws. We have to wear them down and attract more people to our side.

      Maybe Biden and Harris are just what we need. They will solidify us and create a better 2A community by rejecting them. There are many fr9nts our community can engage in peacefully. We can learn from bad leaders as well as good leaders. The fact is we must learn, adapt and we will overcome.

  8. It will be declared moot because the courts will take more that 2 years to get there, we aught to enact a law that requires you to be of age to buy a handgun to vote, now that will fire up the libs.

  9. Positive note that there is a fight brewing between the Democratic Parties factions. We can use that fight in our favor. Democratic Underground is a platform were the extremes live. They are the Party of acceptance, but if you aren’t fully in the Democratic camp they will ban you. Go figure. I was banned for asking the “wrong questions”. Good to read their site, just don’t click on the advertisements and be sure to sanitize yourself after you leave.

    • Mmm…

      There is a fight amongst both parties innards.

      The two party system has failed. No more evidence needed. Trump was a republican like Jim Jones was a preacher and Biden/Harris are Dems like Hitler was a patriot. I don’t even know what that means tbh… But they are not either of those things, well, kinda…

  10. 14th Amendment – Equal Protection.

    The prohibition on buying handguns (actually anything other than a rifle or shotgun) is in the GCA of 68. Now, were 18 year old citizens considered adults in 1968? Answer, not really. Couldn’t vote, mostly couldn’t sign contracts, etc.

    Three years later, the 26th amendment was adopted, giving 18-year-olds the right to vote. Implicitly indicating that 18-year-olds are fully adult in the eyes of the constitution.

    Which brings us right back to “Equal Protection”.

    In 1968, one can legitimately argue that an 18-year-old is not an adult. In 2020 (since 1971) that argument holds no water.

    • As of this moment, the Privileges or Immunities Clause has been gutted and on life support since 1873. It received a brief revival in Saenz v. Roe (1999), but then faded away again.

      In his concurrence in the McDonald case, Justice Thomas tried to revive the P/I clause and overrule or limit the so-called “Slaughter-House Cases” that marginalized the clause, but the other Justices weren’t buying it.

      It’s time for P/I to be revived. Will a Roberts Court do so? I doubt it. Roberts is this generation’s Earl Warren. As for Thomas, he’s like no SCOTUS Justice that this country has seen before. If I had a legal hero, he’d be it.

  11. If you’re carrying a pistol for Uncle Sam they are a ok with it. Just dont own one yourself until you can buy beer.
    Maybe the age of military service needs to be raised to 26 , right after the health care on their parents runs out.

    • “Maybe the age of military service needs to be raised to 26 , right after the health care on their parents runs out.”

      Great comment. Almost snorted my Martini through my nose. Wish I could have posted my boisterious laughter after reading.

  12. My harsh response to Sam I Am. Your self righteous smug comment “The state has a compelling government interest in prospering public safety. The age group of the population, 18-21, has a strong record of violent behavior, this strong behavior creates unnecessary and dangerous conditions for the public, therefore, the prohibition of a proven unreliable group regards self-control is a legitimate concern of government, and only the volitale, unreliable segment is constrained. The constraint is narrowly drawn, and meets all three levels of scrutiny. The law meets the requirement for a constitutional exception to whichever provision of the constitution.”

    No….I couldn’t disagree more! This is another age discriminatory law based on deceit and class warfare, period! This damnable discriminatory oppressive “LBJ/KGB” clause in the unconstitutional 1968 Federal Gun Control Act signed into vile federal legislation by America’s most corrupt, abusive, and dictatorial president in America history: Lyndon B. Johnson or LBJ, rightly deserves to be exposed and repealed! LBJ’s treasonous socialist Senator : Thomas Dodd (D) of Connecticut also deserves the harshest condemnation for framing GCA ’68. Dodd was later charged with political abuse of power and censored by his own U.S. Senate colleagues and later rightly defeated for re-election to high office! Why is this never mentioned, covered up, concealed, and censored by a morally and intellectually dishonest and deceitful establishment news media? Instead of exposing the crimes of LBJ, Thomas Dodd, both the corrupt Earl Warren and Warren Supreme Courts, Ted Kennedy, and the corrupt Daley Democratic Machine in Chicago, Illinois (Cook, County), Richard Nixon was instead singled out and criminalized. Am I defending Nixon. No I am not. But Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ) did far more lasting damage to our nation, including the other career criminal politicians from our nation’s shameful past I have just alluded to. When GCA 68 was passed after October 1968 I was 11 going on 12 years of age. To say I was livid and angry at the age discrimination banning ammo for rifles and shotguns for those under 18, and for handgun ammo for purchasers under 21 years of age, still disturbs and bothers me over 50 years later! Barr McClellan’s 2003 book: “Blood, Money, and Power: How LBJ Killed JFK” needs to be promoted as much as possible. No….the damned courts are crooked and corrupt and cannot be trusted by the American public who remain largely numbed down, ignorant, apathetic, and who will willfully reject the truth for a deceitful damnable lie! Furthermore the recent election of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris is going to be a political nightmare for the honest America gun owner. I rightly consider Joe Biden a 21st century extension of Lyndon B. Johnson or LBJ!

    I place much blame on these deceitful vile age discriminatory laws passed at both the state and federal level for creating a hostile attitude of angry resistance among American youth. Since the late 1960’s, and escalating into the 1970’s, the results have manifested themselves among our youth. The saying, “Old age and treachery, will overcome youth and skill” has much merit. But these %$&* deceitful crooked socialist treasonous politicians, many or most who are lawyers, have no merit, credibility, or decency! They collectively remain “masters of deceit” and a shameful blight and disgrace on our nation!

    • “No….I couldn’t disagree more!”

      Nothing to disagree over. I simply posed an approach to defending the age stratification under the judicially popular justification of government overreach: “compelling interest”.

      “Compelling government interest” can be used to overcome any constitutional provision (or amendment) you choose to use in an attempt to limit government (the “Commerce Clause” is another favorite tactic). A claim that the age stratification violates “equal protection” under the 14th is no more powerful than “Shall Not Be Infringed” from the 2nd. Indeed, trying to use “equal protection” justification is just a transparent attempt to avoid the problems associated with getting the courts to review any law from the perspective of the written constitution, rather than from the “due process” (top down review, vs. bottom up).

      The point of it all is that if waving the Constitution around were a successful legal tactic, we would not have gun control laws at all. How much more simple could it be to decide constitutionality? Start with “What does the relevant clause in the constitution state? Is the law under review pose a government action in contravention? Constitution prevails, end of discussion.” But that is not how it works, at all. We need to be more agile in understanding the obstacles ahead of us, and quit sloganeering.

      “Compelling govenment interest” and “level of scrutiny” cannot be abolished as legal concepts because each phrase describes a judicial process/proceedure, and only the courts are constitutionally permitted to establish judicial processes/procedure. No matter what we do ahead of trial, the outcome is totally controlled internal to the court system.

      • Sorry if I was a little harsh. I’m really not as angry towards you as I am the career criminal politicians of our nation’s shameful past I alluded to in my previous comment. I guess what I’m trying to communicate is that within my lifetime, I will turn 64 years of age later this month, I have seen a considerable loss of personal freedom in America, including especially for our youth. Why are innocent youth politically selected and singled out by deceitful crooked state legislators and members of Congress for age related discrimination. Now I can fully understand the legal age for consuming alcohol: beer, wine, whiskey, Vodka, Bourbon etc. to be 21. I have never had an issue with that. Of course, I never chosen to drink alcohol beverages or smoke to begin with. But I despise GCA ’68 with the same passion as I likewise do LBJ and Thomas Dodd (D) of Connecticut. Hopefully both are barking in Hell! I never had a problem with certain occupations requiring a person or applicant to be 21 and over: many civil servant jobs such as law enforcement and others positions for instance. However, I was livid, angry, and irate many years back when the treasonous nanny state socialist “Bolshevik” legislators in Salem, Oregon passed a deceitful damnable law mandating the purchaser of BB’s be 18 and over! That is age discrimination targeting innocent youth! I rest my case for now.

        • getting some beer was always a pain-in-the-ass when I was in college…didn’t stop us though….got my first handgun at 21…[a baby browning]….and I still have it…..

Comments are closed.