Written Consent For Child Under 18 Years: Fill & Download for Free

Federal Law requires purchaser of a long gun from an FFL dealer be 18 years old. Federal law does not speak to purchase from someone who is not a dealer.Under Texas Law, namely Texas Penal Code Section 46.06(c), if a firearm is Sold to a child under 18 years of age, a parent must provide written consent; if the transfer is otjer ghan a sale, such as a gift or loan, a parent must give effective consent.Since Academy is an FFL dealer, the short answer to the question is “”18 years old”.If you want to buy a rifle from your Granddad’s old Army buddy, it's perfectly legal as long as a parent provides WRITTEN consent.

I was abducted by child prostitution facility as a high school student while traveling to Osaka.It was my first ever trip without my parents in my entire life. But it wasn't supposed to be an exiting or adventurous trip like most other answers written here. It was an overnight trip to Osaka from Tokyo for an important exam.I was becoming a high school senior in less than a month and the university entrance exam was less than a year away. Our school mandated us to take a mock examination during the end of Junior year. However, all of the trial exams in Tokyo were booked so I had to take it in Osaka where few seats remained vacant.Although traveling alone as a minor was strictly prohibited, our school executive granted me special permission to travel to Osaka for the exam.My anxious mother give me my banking card to pay the fees for the train and the hotel. I departed early in the morning before the sun even rose for the bullet train station in Shin Yokohama, and arrived in Osaka less than three hours later and arrived at the location where the test would be held just in time.It was already night when the examination was over. Exhausted, I rushed into the hotel I booked which was near the Osaka Station and quickly slept, never even thinking what was about to happen the following day.The next morning, I checked out the hotel at around 8 am and headed to the Osaka Station. Suddenly, a tall, thin man came out of nowhere and blocked my way.“Kid, do you want to f@ck a young girl??” He enthusiastically asked.“Not interested, sir” I answered.“Are you sure you dont want to f@ck a young girl????” he asked.“No thanks.” I said.“Come on, kid! There is no reason to refuse! It's a special offer!” he followed.“I’m busy. And I'm also a minor” I said.I averted his way to continue my journey and was blocked. Then, I turned left to go to a different road which he quickly changed his position and blocked again.“Dude, why don't you try to become a real man!!!!?” This time, he said it in a threatening way.I decided to go back where I came from to get away from this guy but, as soon as I looked back, I saw two man who were tall but also somewhat muscular surrounding me and staring me in a threatening way.“One customer on the way” the thin man shouted on the transceiver.The three guys surrounded me and held my arm. I yelled for help but everyone around me was just giggling watching me being taken somewhere.I was taken to a black brick building along a small street. Above the small rusty steel stairs, there was a giant, thick, steel door which said “No one under 18” slowly opened as we approached.“It said “No one under 18” I'm under 18!!” I shouted“Dont worry, those are decorations!” the thin man said.“Screeeeeech” the entire place vibrated as the heavy door slowly motioned, revealing a bluish purple ultraviolet-ish light that started pouring outside.Inside was a bar like place with dark blue lighting. Every small window was caged by thick steel bars. There were several giant rugged man inside greeting me.I was forced to sit on a sofa as the man showed a menu.Then, some young girls, much younger than me, came in front of me. Though I was still immature and didn't know what sexually explicit stuff was, I knew I was in a terribly bad place when I saw several girls years younger than me wearing heavy makeup and weird clothing with many holes in which I have never seen in my entire life. They were staring at me and making weird noises. This was a child prostitution facility, I thought. And my safety was not guaranteed at all in this environment.I just heard on the news that there were several criminal organizations that abduct citizens to force child prostitution and blackmail them to their family to pay a certain amount of money or else they call the police. I also personally know a person who told me one of his family members went missing and was probably abducted and killed by a criminal organization. I realized that my life was being threatened and one wrong move and everything was going to be over and, more importantly, it likely would be a painful way to end.I refused the offering and rushed to the door but, just in time, a giant man blocked the door.“Why did you tried to escape!!! Why!!!” he shouted.“You forced me to come here in the first place” I answered,“Why do you think that matters! Why does that matter??” he said.“Alright, you can leave, but you have to pay 12500 yen for the seating fee.” another man said.“What!” I was surprised“Alright then, the seating fee is 34000 yen!!”“Actually, you pay 64000 yen”The price inflated like crazy and I panicked so I agreed to pay 64000 yen.Since I did not have that amount of cash, we agreed that I could go to a unmanned ATM to withdraw 64k yen with the cash card my parents had given me.“Leave your belongings here. I can't trust you. You might escape.” a man said.“Well, how can you guarantee you would give me back my stuff after I paid,” I countered. There was all my personal information inside which I couldn't afford to hand over to them.We then agreed that I would be escorted to the unmanned ATM by one person.The thin tall man I first encountered was picked as my escort.Soon, the heavy metal door opened and bright fresh sunlight lit my entire body. It was a majestic light. I never thought sunlight was that fresh. Yet, the guy was still holding my hand as we walked to the ATM. I could not escape.“Kid, it's not too late, you can change your mind right now. It's a great chance to became a real man” the guy said as we walked.As I withdrew 64000 yen at the unmanned ATM, I quickly threw the money over to the guy hoping that he would forgive me. Yet, he held my hand again and started moving towards the facility.“Your payment will be officially processed at the facility with my boss,” he said.Oh no! I was heading towards the darkness again. This time, it might be the last time I can see light and forever be in the darkness. Painful! I had to find a chance to escape now or there would be no second chance! But even if I ran away from him, he was much stronger and faster than myself and I would certainly be caught again. What should I do??But as we walked, we saw a cop walking. Suddenly his grip lessened. “Hey, isn't it kinda embarrassing holding hands together in public?” he asked.I did not miss the chance. I pushed him over and rushed to the cop and asked him for help.Soon, I was taken to the police box near the train station. I said exactly what just happened to me. But the officers made a very unpleasent expression towards me.“Wait, so how do you know that you were threatened? Did they say they would directly and physically harm you?” the cop asked.“They surrounded me and threatened me with their postures” I replied.“How can you tell that such postures are the signs of a threat? You are just speculating.” he asked again.“They held my hands and blocked my way too” I countered.“But they didn't lift you up from the ground or handcuff you. Instead they surrounded you and held your hands but not tightly. You could have escaped at any moment but decided against it. We consider that it was your decision and is not an abduction.” he explained.Me“But they were much stronger than me and I would have been caught if I ran.”Cop “Again, that is purely just your speculation”Me“I was forced to pay 64000 yen to be released”Cop“I’m sorry. The moment you sat on the sofa, you legally consented to receive the service in exchange for currency. You agreed to pay and it is completely legal.”Me“Then what about the girls? Isn't that illegal?”Cop“As I told you a number of times, how do you know that the girls were younger than you? It could be an adult dressing up as a minor. The information you provided isn't nearly enough for us to start anything specific. And you know what, you entered a prostitution facility as someone under 18. I can hold you for that. If the girls were indeed underage, I can hold you for that as well. What if your school learned about that? Is that convenient for you? No. Right?”I was scared and could not speak further.“Of course that is just a joke but there is nothing we can do about it. Sorry. I know it's unethical and we will do our best to annihilate those mean guys, but we can't help you further. We'll notify you and your parents if we figure out something so please write your name, your parents' names, phone numbers, and your address here.” the officer concluded.As I left the useless police box, I headed to the train station, unharmed. But as soon as I saw the train station, I was surprised that the train station was only several hundred meters from the Hankyu Umeda station which is the main station for Osaka.As of today, no calls from the police have come to me or my parents.Oh, and the result of the exam turned out to be horrible and I was scolded by my parents in regards of the event as well as the test score. Gosh.

In November 1190, Princess Isabella of Jerusalem, then 18 years old, was forcibly removed from the tent she was sharing with her husband Humphrey of Toron in the Christian camp besieging the city of Acre. Just days earlier, her elder sister, Queen Sibylla, had died, making Isabella the hereditary queen of the all-but-non-existent -- yet symbolically important-- Kingdom of Jerusalem. A short time after her abduction, she married Conrad Marquis de Montferrat, making him, through her, the de facto King of Jerusalem. This high-profile abduction and marriage scandalized the church chroniclers and is often cited to this day as evidence of the perfidy of Conrad de Montferrat and his accomplices. But, as I shall show, scandal (like beauty) is in the eyes of the beholder.The anonymous author of the Itinerarium Peregrinorum et Gesta Regis Ricardi (Itinerarium), for example, describes with blistering outrage how Conrad de Montferrat had long schemed to “steal” the throne of Jerusalem, and at last struck upon the idea of abducting Isabella—a crime he compares to the abduction of Helen of Sparta by Paris of Troy “only worse.” To achieve his plan, the Itinerarium claims, Conrad “surpassed the deceits of Sinon, the eloquence of Ulysses and the forked tongue of Mithridates.” Conrad, according to this English cleric writing after the fact, set about bribing, flattering and corrupting bishops and barons as never before in recorded history.Throughout, the chronicler says, Conrad was aided and abetted by three barons of the Kingdom of Jerusalem (Sidon, Haifa and Ibelin) who combined (according to our chronicler) “the treachery of Judas, the cruelty of Nero, and the wickedness of Herod, and everything the present age abhors and ancient times condemned.” The author, however, brings no evidence of a single act of treachery, cruelty, or wickedness — beyond this one alleged abduction, which — as we shall see — was not a case of rape but rather a rational choice by a mature woman.Indeed, even this chronicler himself admits that Isabella was not removed from Humphrey’s tent by Conrad, nor was she handed over to him. On the contrary, she was put into the care of clerical “sequesters,” with a mandate to assure her safety and prevent a further abduction, “while a clerical court debated the case for a divorce.”Furthermore, in the very next paragraph our anonymous slanderer of some of the most courageous and pious lords of Jerusalem, declares that although Isabella at first resisted the idea of divorcing her husband Humphrey, she was soon persuaded to consent to divorce because “a woman’s opinion changes very easily” and “a girl is easily taught to do what is morally wrong.” Anyone detect a slight bias against women here?While the Itinerarium admits that Isabella’s marriage to Humphrey was reviewed by a church court, it hides this fact under the abuse it heaps upon the clerics involved. Another contemporary chronicle, the Lyon continuation of William of Tyre, explains in far more neutral and objective language that the case hinged on the important principle of consent. By the 12th century, marriage could only be valid in canonical law if both parties (i.e. including Isabella) consented. The issue at hand was whether Isabella had consented to her marriage to Humphrey at the time it was contracted.The Lyon Continuation further notes that Isabella and Humphrey testified before the church tribunal separately. In her testimony, Isabella asserted she had not consented to her marriage to Humphrey, while Humphrey claimed she had. The Lyon Continuation also provides the colorful detail that another witness, who had been present at Isabella and Humphrey's wedding, at once called Humphrey a liar, and challenged him to prove he spoke the truth in combat. Humphrey, the chronicler says, refused to “take up the gage.” At this point, the chronicler states that Humphrey was “cowardly and effeminate.”Both accounts (the Itinerarium and the Lyon Continuation) agree that following the testimony and deliberations the Church council ruled that Isabella’s marriage to Humphrey was invalid. There was only one dissenting voice, that of the Archbishop of Canterbury.However, both chroniclers insist that this decision was reached because Conrad corrupted all the other clerics, particularly the Papal legate, the Archbishop of Pisa. The Lyon Continuation claims that the Archbishop of Pisa ruled the marriage invalid and allowed Isabella to marry Conrad only because Conrad promised commercial advantages for Pisa if he was allowed to marry Isabella and became king. The Itinerarium, on the other hand, claims Conrad “poured out enormous generosity to corrupt judicial integrity with the enchantment of gold.”There are a lot of problems with the clerical outrage over Isabella’s “abduction” — not to mention the dismissal of Isabella’s change of heart as the inherent moral frailty of females. There are also problems with the slander heaped on the barons and bishops, who dared to support Conrad de Montferrat's suit for Isabella.Let’s go back to the basic facts of the case as laid out by the chroniclers themselves but stripped of moral judgments and slander:Isabella was removed from Humphrey de Toron’s tent against her will.She was not, however, taken by Conrad or raped by him.Rather she was turned over to neutral third parties, sequestered and protected by them.Meanwhile, a church court was convened to rule on the validity of her marriage to Humphrey.The case hinged on the important theological principle of consent. (Note: In the 12th Century, both parties to a marriage had to consent. To consent, they had be of age. The legal age of consent for girls was 12.)Humphrey claimed that Isabella had consented to the marriage (which was technically irrelevant since an 11-year-old was not considered legally competent to consent), but when challenged by a witness to the wedding he “said nothing” and backed down.Isabella, meanwhile, had “changed her mind” and consented to the divorce.The court ruled that Isabella's marriage to Humphrey had not been valid.On Nov. 25, with either the French Bishop of Beauvais or the Papal Legate himself presiding, Isabella married Conrad.Since a clerical court had just ruled that no marriage was valid without the consent of the bride, we can be confident that she consented to this marriage — at the comparatively mature age of 18. In fact, as the Itinerarium so vituperously reports, “she was not ashamed to say…she went with the Marquis of her own accord.”To understand what really happened in the siege camp of Acre in November 1190, we need to look beyond what the church chronicles write about this fabricated “scandal.”The story really begins in 1180 when Isabella was just eight years old. Until this time, Isabella had lived in the care and custody of her mother, the Byzantine Princess and Dowager Queen of Jerusalem, Maria Commena. In 1180, King Baldwin IV (Isabella’s half-brother) arranged the betrothal of Isabella to Humphrey de Toron. Having promised this marriage without the consent of Isabella’s mother or step-father, the king ordered the physical removal of Isabella from her mother and step-father’s care and sent her to live with her future husband, his mother and his step-father. The latter was the infamous Reynald de Chatillon, notorious for having seduced the Princess of Antioch, tortured the Archbishop of Antioch, and sacked the Christian island of Cyprus. Isabella was effectively imprisoned in his border fortress at Kerak and Toron's mother, Stephanie de Milly, explicitly prohibited Isabella from even visiting her mother for three years.In December 1183, when Isabella was just eleven years old, Reynald and his wife held a marriage feast to celebrate the wedding of Isabella and Humphrey. They invited all the nobles of the kingdom to witness the feast. Unfortunately, before most of the wedding guests could arrive, Saladin's army surrounded the castle and laid siege to it. The wedding took place nevertheless, and a few weeks later the army of Jerusalem relieved the castle, chasing Saladin’s forces away.Note, at the time the wedding took place, Isabella was not only a prisoner of her in-laws, she was also only eleven years old. Isabella could not legally consent to her wedding, even if she wanted to. The marriage had been planned by the King, however, and carried out by one of the most powerful barons during a crisis. No one seems to have dared challenge it at the time.At the death of Baldwin V three years later, Isabella’s older sister, Queen Sibylla, was first in line to the throne but found herself opposed by almost the entire High Court of Jerusalem (that constitutionally was required to consent to each new monarch). The opposition sprang not from objections to Sibylla herself, but from the fact that the bishops and barons of the kingdom almost unanimously detested her husband, Guy de Lusignan.Unable to gain the consent of the High Court necessary to make her coronation legal, Sibylla nevertheless managed to convince a minority of the lords secular and ecclesiastical to crown her queen by promising to divorce Guy and choose a new husband. Once crowned and anointed, Sibylla promptly betrayed her supporters by declaring that her “new” husband was the same as her old husband: Guy de Lusignan. She then crowned him herself (at least according to some accounts).This struck many people at the time as duplicitous, to say the least, and the majority of the barons and bishops decided that since she had not had their consent in the first place, she and her husband were usurpers. They agreed to crown her younger sister Isabella (now 14 years old) instead. The assumption was that since they commanded far larger numbers of troops than did Sibylla’s supporters (many of whom now felt duped and were no longer loyal to her), they would be able to quickly depose of Sibylla and Guy.The plan, however, came to nothing because Isabella’s husband, Humphrey de Toron, had no stomach for a civil war (or a crown, it seems), and chose to sneak away in the dark of night to do homage to Sibylla and Guy. The baronial revolt collapsed. Almost everyone eventually did homage to Guy, and he promptly led them all to an avoidable defeat at the Battle of Hattin . With the field army annihilated, the complete occupation of the Kingdom by the forces of Saladin followed – with the important exception of Tyre.Tyre only avoided the fate of the rest of the kingdom because of the timely arrival of a certain Italian nobleman, Conrad de Montferrat, who rallied the defenders and defied Saladin.Montferrat came from a very good and very well connected family. He was first cousin to both the Holy Roman Emperor and King Louis VII of France. Furthermore, his elder brother had been Sibylla of Jerusalem’s first husband (before Guy), and his younger brother had been married to the daughter of the Byzantine Emperor Manuel I. He effectively defended Tyre twice against the vastly superior armies of Saladin, and by holding Tyre he enabled the Christians to retain a bridgehead by which troops, weapons, and supplies could be funneled back into the Holy Land for a new crusade to retake Jerusalem. While Conrad was preforming this heroic function, Guy de Lusignan was an (admittedly unwilling) “guest” of Saladin, a prisoner of war following his self-engineered defeat at Hattin.So at the time of the “scandalous” abduction, Guy was an anointed king, but one who derived his right to the throne from his now-deceased wife (Sibylla had died in early November 1190), and furthermore a king viewed by most of his subjects as a usurper—even before he’d lost the entire kingdom through his incompetence.It is fair to say that in November 1190 Guy was not popular among the surviving barons and bishops of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. The latter were eager to see the kingdom pass into the hands of someone they respected and trusted. The death of Sibylla provided the perfect opportunity to crown a new king because with her death the crown legally passed to her sister Isabella, and, according to the Constitution of the Kingdom, the husband of the queen ruled with her as her consort.The problem faced by the barons and bishops of Jerusalem in 1190, however, was that Isabella was still married to the same man who had betrayed them in 1186: Humphrey de Toron. He was clearly not interested in a crown, and it didn’t help matters that he’d been in a Saracen prison for two years. Perhaps more damning still, he was allegedly “more like a woman than a man: he had a gentle manner and a stammer.”(According to the Itinerarium.)Whatever the reason, we know that the barons and bishops of Jerusalem were not prepared to make the same mistake they had made four years earlier when they had done homage to a man they knew was incompetent (Guy de Lusignan). They absolutely refused to acknowledge Isabella’s right to the throne, unless she first set aside her unsuitable husband and took a man acceptable to them.We know this because the Lyon Continuation is based on a lost chronicle written by a certain Ernoul, who as an intimate of the Ibelin family and so of Isabella and her mother. Ernoul (as cited in the Lyon Continuation of William of Tyre) provides the following insight: Having admitted that Isabella “did not want to [divorce Humphrey], because she loved [him],” he explains that her mother the Dowager Queen Maria Comnena persuasively argued that so long as she (Isabella) was Humphrey’s wife “she could have neither honor nor her father’s kingdom.” Moreover, Queen Maria reminded her daughter that “when she had married she was still underage and for that reason, the validity of the marriage could be challenged.” At which point, the continuation of Tyre reports, “Isabella consented to her mother’s wishes.”In short, Isabella had a change of heart during the church trial not because “woman’s opinion changes very easily,” but because she was a realist—who wanted a crown. Far from being a victim, manipulated by others, or a fickle, immoral girl, she was an intelligent young woman with an understanding of politics.As for the church court, it was not “corrupted” by Conrad or anyone else. It was simply faced by the unalterable fact that Isabella had very publicly wed Humphrey before she reached the legal age of consent. In short, whether she had voiced consent or not, indeed whether she loved, adored and positively desired Humphrey or not, she was not legally capable of consenting.No violent abduction and no travesty of justice took place in Acre in 1190. Rather a mature young woman recognized that it was in her best interests -- and the best interests of her kingdom -- to divorce an unpopular and ineffective husband and marry a man respected by the peers of the realm. To do so, she allowed the marriage she had contracted as an eleven-year-old child to be recognized for what it was -- a mockery. Isabella's marriage in 1183 as a child prisoner of a notoriously brutal man — not her marriage in 1190 as an 18-year-old queen — was the real “scandal.”Sadly, such marriages were all too common in the Middle Ages when noble marriages were political and neither party — man or woman, boy or girl — had much to say about it.Isabella, Humphrey, her mother Maria and her step-father are major characters in my award-winning three-part biography of Balian d'Ibelin, “Balian d’Ibelin,” “Defender of Jerusalem,” and “Envoy of Jerusalem.”