It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

20-year-old sues Dick's, Walmart over new gun policies

page: 10
27
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: Nyiah

dicks walmart killed mom and pop

so now we should just bow to the new master cause they are too big to fail

You know what your feet are for, right? Walking to another business.

If you're too stupid to shop wisely & in accordance with your beliefs, it's not my fault.


lol words mean things

if you control all the businesses then where is one to go

Obviously the huge variety of other gun shops this kid had to choose from. Did you miss the poster who supplied that map?
edit on 3/6/2018 by Nyiah because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: F4guy

originally posted by: dothedew
a reply to: JoshuaCox

There is no precedent set.... but it takes a lawsuit to set a precedent. Depending on how this goes, if it's shown to have merit and go to court, it could potentially work it's way up the system. If it's shown to have no merit and the case is dismissed, then that's that. Boom, this case will set precedent either way you look at it. It has a chance, as stated that he is legally allowed to purchase a firearm. Purchase/ownership of a firearm is a constitutionally protected right. Hell, Purchasing a Cake isn't a protected right, but that still went to court.

We'll just wait and se how this all goes.

We all know it will be dismissed if it makes it to the 9th circuit court of appeals, however, seeing how the rest of the Court judges read case law while the 9th circuit judges read Dr. Seuss Books.........


Sorry, but that's not precedent. A lawsuit doesn't set precedent, except for the parties to that lawsuit. But that is called res judicata and not precedent. Precedent only comes from reported appellate cases. So, if the kid wins, and the store appeals and it goes through that whole process, and the appellate court renders a decision, and further orders that the opinion be published, then, and only then, does the appeals court opinion and order become precedent. And only some precedent becomes binding. A Washington state case is not precedent in Montana, unless the opinion is that of a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and both cases are in the same circuit. And the precedential value of a case is very narrow. If the kid wins on appeal because the store had its appellate brief printed in 6 point type instead of 8 point, it has no effect on the question of whether 20 year olds can buy guns from a store that decides not to sell to him.
FWIW, my opinion as a retred lawyer, judge, and law school professor, the kid is going to lose.


Please delete your post. That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Precedent is set by court cases that have happened. The opinions from the Appellate are nothing to that process.



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Reydelsol

originally posted by: howtonhawky


I was hoping that someone would stand up for their rights.


What rights?

The 2nd Amendment does not apply to businesses only the government. A business has the right to decide who it sells guns too.

The 2nd is irrelevant in this case.


Tell that to the baker that refused to bake a cake for the gay couple. Out of business!



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah

but all those other shops are protected and do not have to sell to everyone



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 03:09 PM
link   
If only Perry Mason was a member here...



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel


businesses can refuse service to any person for any reason, unless the business is discriminating against a protected class


Not true


As a retired judge, lawyer and law school professor, I can tell you that it absolutely is true, unless you are a common carrier, and even then, you can set rules that discriminate against some. Airlines will not carry an unaccompanied 3 year old, therby discriminating against 3 year olds. Drunks are not a protected class so bars can discriminate against them by refusing service.



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: F4guy

in some cases but never without reason



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: F4guy

The reason needs to be consistent for an entire group. Not serving someone randomly, just because, can be an issue.



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: F4guy
If the kid wins on appeal because the store had its appellate brief printed in 6 point type instead of 8 point, it has no effect on the question of whether 20 year olds can buy guns from a store that decides not to sell to him.
FWIW, my opinion as a retred lawyer, judge, and law school professor, the kid is going to lose.



8 point type? Har har...

I would like to hear why you think he will lose, though. Personally, I don't think this case would exist if it wasn't perhaps destined to lose...designed to lose. Did you read the Complaint? Are there any glaring red flags that you see? Link

The Oregon laws cited seem pretty clear about businesses discriminating based on age, but if this case loses...it will be enough to put others off from even trying to challenge age-discrimination gun sales policies & practices, in Oregon.







edit on 3/6/2018 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96
There IS a GD difference. He won't always be under 21. A gay couple will still be gay. All he has to do is wait. And for the record, I don't think the cake ruling is OK.



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

oremploymentlawyer.com... this is oregons age discrimination law so he may indeed have a case under state law

Oregon Law: Oregon age discrimination law applies to all employers, labor organizations, and employment agencies that employ individuals in Oregon. ORS 659A.030(1)(a)-(e). ORS 659A.001(4) defines employer as “any person who in this state, directly or through an agent, engages or uses the personal service of one or more employees, reserving the right to control the means by which such service is or will be performed.” Unlike the ADEA, small employers are not exempt from Oregon age discrimination law. Oregon state law also creates liability for individuals who aid, abet, incite, compel or coerce age discrimination. ORS 659A.030(1)(g).

www.oregon.gov...
although this is what he may try to use

Discrimination in Public Accommodation A place of public accommodation is defined in state law as any place that offers the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges, whether in the nature of goods, services, lodging, amusements or otherwise. It is illegal to discriminate in places of public accommodation on the basis of race, sex (including pregnancy), sexual orientation, national origin, religion, marital status, physical or mental disability, or age (18 years of age and older).
so seems being 18 and older would be the portion that could in theory apply to this situation



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: ReluctantBlossom

lol is that how that works

once gay always gay?

you make it sound like a disease



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 03:38 PM
link   
www.bendbulletin.com... another article relevant to the OP's article

“In Oregon, businesses cannot discriminate if (they) openly discriminate against (customers) because of their age,” Crawley said. “Walmart, Dick’s, Kroger and Bi-Mart are four entities that have been very public that they are not going to sell firearms and ammunition to a particular age group.” In response, Walmart said it would stand behind its policy to not sell any ammunition or guns to anyone younger than 21. Four businesses — Walmart, Dick’s Sporting Goods, The Kroger Co., which operates Fred Meyer, and Bi-Mart — announced last week they would not sell guns to anyone younger than 21.



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: SR1TX


That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard


So angry, yet so incorrect.


Precedent is set by court cases that have happened.


Precedent is either binding or persuasive. For it to be either one of those, it almost always has to come from a court higher than the lowest court. A local district court cannot set precedent by itself because decisions in that court don't impact other courts or higher courts in almost every case.

So no, simply hearing a case in district court does not set precedent once the case is settled because precedent means a decision that binds lower courts to a certain decision.



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 03:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: SR1TX

originally posted by: F4guy

originally posted by: dothedew
a reply to: JoshuaCox

There is no precedent set.... but it takes a lawsuit to set a precedent. Depending on how this goes, if it's shown to have merit and go to court, it could potentially work it's way up the system. If it's shown to have no merit and the case is dismissed, then that's that. Boom, this case will set precedent either way you look at it. It has a chance, as stated that he is legally allowed to purchase a firearm. Purchase/ownership of a firearm is a constitutionally protected right. Hell, Purchasing a Cake isn't a protected right, but that still went to court.

We'll just wait and se how this all goes.

We all know it will be dismissed if it makes it to the 9th circuit court of appeals, however, seeing how the rest of the Court judges read case law while the 9th circuit judges read Dr. Seuss Books.........


Sorry, but that's not precedent. A lawsuit doesn't set precedent, except for the parties to that lawsuit. But that is called res judicata and not precedent. Precedent only comes from reported appellate cases. So, if the kid wins, and the store appeals and it goes through that whole process, and the appellate court renders a decision, and further orders that the opinion be published, then, and only then, does the appeals court opinion and order become precedent. And only some precedent becomes binding. A Washington state case is not precedent in Montana, unless the opinion is that of a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and both cases are in the same circuit. And the precedential value of a case is very narrow. If the kid wins on appeal because the store had its appellate brief printed in 6 point type instead of 8 point, it has no effect on the question of whether 20 year olds can buy guns from a store that decides not to sell to him.
FWIW, my opinion as a retred lawyer, judge, and law school professor, the kid is going to lose.


Please delete your post. That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Precedent is set by court cases that have happened. The opinions from the Appellate are nothing to that process.


It's not dumb. My understanding is the same and the poster said it better than I could.

(Except for the "6 or 8 point type" part. I don't even think that would get a pass in footnotes.)



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

PLUS, the opinions have to be 'published.'

(Although I believe some unpublished appellate opinions can be used for precedent purposes if it's a really compelling argument where no other published precedent opinions can be used....or something like that. I freely admit I am not a lawyer.)



edit on 3/6/2018 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Psst. There are some state legislators looking to up the age of purchase for cigarettes from 18 to 21 but couldn’t find a good way to justify it....but if there was a court case on legal age discrimination for some other undesirable product...

Anyone clued in yet?



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

thank you for the links

thank you everyone who provides or provided to the thread

seems like dicks only defense is public safety.

if that is the case then dicks will loose because of statistics show 18-21 are not a valid public threat as far as gun crime
edit on 6-3-2018 by howtonhawky because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 04:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Reydelsol

actualy thats not true if he is legal age for state and has valid and legal tender then they have no right to refuse a transaction



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 04:17 PM
link   
businesses can set their own policies, isn't that part of amurica?




top topics



 
27
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join