TexasCHLforum.com

Stopped by the Daniel Defense booth at the NRA convention this morning. Was surprised that they would not let my 19 yr old son register for the drawing for a rifle... said that he had to be 21. So he's old enough to purchase their product, but too young for their marketing?

And you didn't ask them why?

I have never shot or much less held a DD rifle but I will tell you this if I am spending serious coin on one I’ll be buying a POF. They make the best production AR’s I’ve ever seen. I stayed at their booth this weekend for a long time.

C-dub wrote:And you didn't ask them why?

Started to, but my son said forget it... didn't want to waste his time at the convention. But not sure that there is a valid why when every other booth let him sign up for the drawings for long guns. He just couldn't sign up for the handguns because of his age and their inability to transfer to him.

Would this one incident/decision justify considering them a "foe"?

mojo84 wrote:Would this one incident/decision justify considering them a "foe"?

I guess that would depend on whether or not this was an isolated event, a new policy, or a mistake.

mojo84 wrote:Would this one incident/decision justify considering them a "foe"?

I personally wouldn't" sell a gun to someone under 21, unless I knew them very well. But I wouldn't sell a gun to a nonLTC holder unless I knew them well.

mojo84 wrote:Would this one incident/decision justify considering them a "foe"?

They have had others... The gun community has responded to them on another gun control issue that they supported and the CEO apologized and walked back his comments, so not so sure it is isolated.

Copied from their FB page...

Message from Marty Daniel:

Friends,

First and foremost, let me say that I have heard your voices. I put out a statement on Friday, supporting Senate Bill S.2135 also known as the Fix NICS Act. I have received overwhelming feedback since putting out this statement, which has brought to my attention that there are significant and justified concerns regarding this bill. I can no longer in good conscience put my support behind S.2135.

I released the original statement because I believed it was the best option available at this time to hold back the continued attacks on the Second Amendment and the erosion of our rights. I was wrong.

Let me be very clear:

• My life’s work is to protect an individual’s right to keep and bear arms by holding our lawmakers accountable to the Second Amendment.

• I believe that all firearms laws that limit the rights of law abiding citizens are unconstitutional.

• I will never support any legislation which infringes on any individuals rights, and could potentially subvert due process.

• Myself, my Family, and Daniel Defense love and serve our Veterans every day. I would never support a legislative measure which would strip them of their rights based on their history of service and sacrifice.

Thank you to everyone who reached out and voiced your concerns. You are a motivated and passionate group of people which I am proud to call my peers, my friends, and my family. We are all united in one fight – the fight to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. I will never turn my back on you. I stand with you and I am ready to continue to fight for our rights.

-Marty

Liberty wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Would this one incident/decision justify considering them a "foe"?

I personally wouldn't" sell a gun to someone under 21, unless I knew them very well. But I wouldn't sell a gun to a nonLTC holder unless I knew them well.

But are you in the business of manufacturing and selling guns?

cyphertext wrote:

Liberty wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Would this one incident/decision justify considering them a "foe"?

I personally wouldn't" sell a gun to someone under 21, unless I knew them very well. But I wouldn't sell a gun to a nonLTC holder unless I knew them well.

But are you in the business of manufacturing and selling guns?

Nope!

I believe in some states one has to be 21 to buy a rifle, just not in Texas. There were people at NRAAM from all over. That might be the reason for that policy.

On the other hand they do offer a military-veteran discount. I would bet that this is because some states require age 21 to buy a rifle.

Could it have anything to do with it being a raffle?

skeathley wrote:I believe in some states one has to be 21 to buy a rifle, just not in Texas. There were people at NRAAM from all over. That might be the reason for that policy.

No other vendor that had drawings for rifles had that issue. And per the data at Giffords Law Center, only Hawaii and Illinois require you to be 21 to purchase a rifle.

http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/ ... age/#state

jb2012 wrote:Could it have anything to do with it being a raffle?

Wasn't a raffle, was a drawing... no purchase necessary. My son purchased a ticket for a raffle from another vendor.