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: 11
27
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Reydelsol

i used to work retail and we sold rifles and i can tell you if they have id and cash and are correct age you got to sell to them. people think store owner can do what they want but it just is not true. i have seen store refuse to sell to african americans in violation of law they were sued and lost. i have seen bars try to raise drinking age to 25 on their premises they were sued and lost their licence in process . laws are on the books for multiple reasons.




posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 04:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: SR1TX

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.


He appears to be talking about courts of record (as we would call them here, anyway).

Not every court creates a legal precedent that is binding (or even persuasive) on other courts. It's only when the matter reaches a court of sufficient standing that their judgments are given weight in future cases.



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 04:29 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.


Where in the hell do you think appellate opinions come from. They are a second step in the whole process. Miranda is precedent. It is an appellate opinion by the Supreme Court arising out of an Arizona trial where Miranda was found guilty of kidnapping and rape. The issue was the admissibility of his confession. Miranda appealed and the Supreme Court of Arizona affirmed the conviction in a reported opinion. That opinion became precedent for state courts in Arizona. Miranda filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the US and it was granted and scotus heard the case. They ruled for Miranda and that opinion became precedent for all jurisdictions in the US. The postscript to Miranda is that he was retried in Arizona, the confession was not admitted into evidence and he was convicted anyway. And wannabe lawyers who watch too much tv think they understand things like Miranda and Gideon and Escobedo, and concepts like precedent.
And if you want a legal dictionary definition of precedent, look at dictionary.law.com... . You might notice that it uses words like "reported opinion of an appeals court." Or you might not. Ignorance is bliss.



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 05:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: F4guy

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.


They cannot guarantee the 3 year olds safety without adult supervision or aid. It has nothing to do with discrimination and everything to do with safe operations and the well being of the 3 year old. Drunks are a danger to themselves and the public at large. If a bar is caught serving alcohol to someone whom is inebriated, they can be held liable for damages that person goes and causes, if any. Even if not, they can be fined for obviously continuing to serve someone that is intoxicated.

You were not a lawyer, or a judge, or a prof.



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 05:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
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.


Wrong wrong WRONG!

No higher court has to hear anything. It can be refused all the way to the supreme court and then what..still no precedent? The precedent is set until something can override that ruling/decision. It DOES NOT MATTER what happens after that until something changes whats already been ruled on. If refused, the ruling is both binding and persuasive.



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 05:38 PM
link   
a reply to: SR1TX


In the modern legal system, the term precedent refers to a rule, or principle of law, that has been established by a previous ruling by a court of higher authority, such as an appeals court, or a supreme court. Courts in the U.S. legal system place a high value on making judgements based on consistent rules in similar cases. In such a system, cases based on similar facts have a fair and predictable outcome. To explore this concept, consider the following precedent definition.


Just because you say wrong over and over doesn't make it so.


The court hierarchy is critical for the doctrine of precedent to function effectively. A precedent set in one court applies to all lower courts – but only in the same hierarchy. A precedent in the Supreme Court of Victoria, for example, is binding on the County Court of Victoria and the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria – however it is not binding on courts in other jurisdictions, such as the Federal courts or courts of other States. A precedent can be overturned in a higher court in the same jurisdiction. A County Court precedent, for instance, can be appealed and overturned in the Supreme Court. This allows some flexibility, review and challenge of precedents; they are not set in stone.


Just because you say wrong over and over doesn't make it so.


In the US legal system, judicial decisions create legal precedents that guide judges in deciding similar future cases. The decisions of the highest court in a jurisdiction create mandatory precedent that must be followed by lower courts in that jurisdiction. For example, the US Supreme Court creates binding precedent that all other federal courts must follow. Similarly, intermediate appellate courts (such as the federal circuit courts of appeal) create mandatory precedent for the courts below them.


Just because you say wrong over and over doesn't make it so.



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6


I watched L.A. Law once, I think you may be correct-ish.



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 06:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: SR1TX


In the modern legal system, the term precedent refers to a rule, or principle of law, that has been established by a previous ruling by a court of higher authority, such as an appeals court, or a supreme court. Courts in the U.S. legal system place a high value on making judgements based on consistent rules in similar cases. In such a system, cases based on similar facts have a fair and predictable outcome. To explore this concept, consider the following precedent definition.


Just because you say wrong over and over doesn't make it so.


The court hierarchy is critical for the doctrine of precedent to function effectively. A precedent set in one court applies to all lower courts – but only in the same hierarchy. A precedent in the Supreme Court of Victoria, for example, is binding on the County Court of Victoria and the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria – however it is not binding on courts in other jurisdictions, such as the Federal courts or courts of other States. A precedent can be overturned in a higher court in the same jurisdiction. A County Court precedent, for instance, can be appealed and overturned in the Supreme Court. This allows some flexibility, review and challenge of precedents; they are not set in stone.


Just because you say wrong over and over doesn't make it so.


In the US legal system, judicial decisions create legal precedents that guide judges in deciding similar future cases. The decisions of the highest court in a jurisdiction create mandatory precedent that must be followed by lower courts in that jurisdiction. For example, the US Supreme Court creates binding precedent that all other federal courts must follow. Similarly, intermediate appellate courts (such as the federal circuit courts of appeal) create mandatory precedent for the courts below them.


Just because you say wrong over and over doesn't make it so.


All you did was side step what i said. The higher court does not have to hear anything.



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 06:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Reydelsol

originally posted by: LordAhriman
Neither of these businesses have to sell guns, period, and they can refuse a sale of anything to anybody. This is stupid.


Funny how people are demanding the government force business to sell guns...... A govement forcing a private business to sell a product?.......Thats communism...... The OP is asking for communism......


O and before someone points it out, I don't think a shop should be forced to sell wedding cakes to people either.


No, that is not communism.



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 06:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

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.








You may laugh about the print size of appellate briefs but almost every appeals court has mandates in their Rules of Appellate procedure for the technical requirements of briefs. For example, in Florida, the brief must be on on opaque, white, unglossed paper; it must be on 8 1/2x 11 inch paper with at least one inch margins; it must be in black ink using only either Times New Roman 14point font or Courier New 12point font. (And you thought I was kidding.)
And the reason that I think he loses, other than knowing that Walmart will just flat wear him and his lawyer out, is that federal law, which preempts all state law, expressly gives Federal Firearm License holders (like Dicks and Walmart) discretion in deciding who they will sell to. All they have to do is testify that in their opinion people under 21 are not mature enough to properly comply with the law. They will call expert witnesses that will say that the brains of teenagers and 20 year olds are not fully developed and their decision-making capabilities are not as good as those of older adults. There is scientific evidence that until the mid 20s, kids' prefrontal cortex is still developing and that these young people are more reliant on the amygdala in making decisions. The amygdala is associated with emotions, impulses, aggression and instinctive behavior. The stores can afford much more impressive experts and can pay for full blown audio-visual presentations that can overwhelm a jury. I am very familiar with Walmart's litigation strategy. They approach a trial with the same attitude as General Sherman had on his way to Atlanta. They will dig into the plaintiff's past to a degree that a check for a top secret clearance would not. They will threaten the plaintiff's lawyers. I know of one FCPA case where they paid $720 million in legal costs. No 20 year old with a small town Oregon lawyer canwithstand the pressure Walmart will bring to bear. In the absence of the federal law, the kid might possibly win, but it's not absent.



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: notsure1

So you are ok sending an 18 year old off with a gun to fight and dies for his country, but they can't own a gun at 18 in their "free" country.



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: F4guy

I was laughing at 6 or 8 point type, not 10 and 12.

I know there are rules...but your examples were so small I found it funny.



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: notsure1


But you are ok with an 18 year old being given a gun and being sent to fight and possibly die for his/her country?



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 06:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: notsure1

So you are ok sending an 18 year old off with a gun to fight and dies for his country, but they can't own a gun at 18 in their "free" country.


No. I am not for sending anybody to fight and die for his country. But I have no problem with the 21 age limit.

Why cant kids drink untill 21? Why do you think that law exists?



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: notsure1


but the law says they can own a gun at 18 so you are not making a valid point.



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 06:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: notsure1


but the law says they can own a gun at 18 so you are not making a valid point.


Are we not talking about changing laws? Dont be stubborn just to win. Why do you think that law exists?



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 07:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: notsure1


but the law says they can own a gun at 18 so you are not making a valid point.


When I was a kid I could go get cigarettes legally. Then they passed a law saying you had to be 18 now in alot of places you have to be 21.

No one cares because we dont want our kids having access to cigarettes . For me it is the same with guns..

When you think about the dumbest most dangerous shi you ever did it was always in your teens and 20s .

19 year olds think the world is over when their girlfriend breaks up with them. They are emotionally unstable and still think the are invincible .

I just dont know why people over 21 even care . let em wait its not a big deal.
edit on 6-3-2018 by notsure1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 07:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: F4guy

I was laughing at 6 or 8 point type, not 10 and 12.

I know there are rules...but your examples were so small I found it funny.


Yeah, most Appellate judges are pretty old and their eyes can't handle the small print. Of course that assumes they actually read the briefs and don't rely on the young law clerks they hire.



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 07:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: notsure1


but the law says they can own a gun at 18 so you are not making a valid point.

Federal law says they can own one. It doesn't say you must sell them one.



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 07:46 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.


I can think of a business here that was used b/c the devote Christian cake shop owner felt making a wedding cake for a gay marriage went against his beliefs. That shop owner wasn't allowed to decide who he sold what to. If you meet the government's criteria, that is the deciding (and only) factor.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join