It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: sdcigarpig
What I can tell from the article is this: A 20 year old, went to Dicks and then Walmart, in an attempt to purchase a rifle, and was turned down due to his age. He feels that this is a case of age discrimination.
Some here believe that the 2nd amendment also would apply to private business. As one has pointed out, the state can dictate what is and is not age control when it comes to products. And one poster brought up about the baker in Oregon that got fined. One brought up the 5th and 14th amendments.
As far as the amendments being brought up, that is baseless, as it is not the government that is preventing this, but a private business.
There is a difference in the baker case and this one. The baker case is looking at what would be on the refusal to provide serve on the basis of a protected group.
There is much here that is not mentioned, and the first is did they ask for proof of age? Firearms would be considered age restricted, and if the person did not have proper id, then it would be a baseless lawsuit.
The courts are going to look at many things before deciding one or another. Good chance that they are going to look at store policies including the past, did the store change their policies in the past concerning this kind of product. Walmart, does have a past history of changing policy. And then there is the crux of the matter, is there an actual case of age discrimination here.
The burden of proof will fall on the man, to show that he is being discriminated against, due to his age. Based on all court cases, and most of them are on employment, however, the test that has come up is the “but for” test. In cases of age discrimination, the courts use this test to determine if there is or is not a case of discrimination. Under the “but for” test, discrimination must have been the determining reason for the decision, not just one reason among others.
That means the man is going to have to show in a court of all that it was his age and only his age was the reason for denying him the sale. And if both of the companies bring up any other reason, that the court would find valid, the guy will lose the court case.
originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Reydelsol
There's no GD difference between a wedding cake and a firearm.
That 20 year old has those rights to speech,voting, the others that deal with due process.
That 20 year shouldn't be slapped with a cruel or unusual punishment for a crime he had nothing to do with.
originally posted by: Ahabstar
In order to sell guns you have to have a Federal Firearms License, which can be revoked for not following laws. While the seller does have the right to refuse a sell despite passing a background check. The right to refuse cannot be based on discrimination.
Could a business refuse to sell to blacks
legal immigrants with US citizenship
southerners that moved to Boston
originally posted by: MotherMayEye
originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: neo96
Dick's hasn't broken any laws with their decision. If they did you'd have government regulating what a business can and can't do. I thought you guys were against that kind of thing? Small government right?
They violated Oregon state law if they refused to sell a gun to a 20 year old based solely on their new policy. They violated another Oregon state law by publishing the policy.
Have you read the Complaint? Link
The offering of special rates or services to persons 50 years of age or older.
originally posted by: JourneymanWelder
i like how nobody says why he was denied the sale of the rifle. probably a drugged up homeless guy.
originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Bob350
2 wrongs do not make a right..
I agree that was a crap ruling..
They could have likely gone 2 blocks down the road.