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: 12
27
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 08:00 PM
link   
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.




posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 08:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: howtonhawky
So it is no big deal for someone to not be alive?


What are you so afraid of? Don't they say that if you let fear win, then you've already lost?

Why so afraid?



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

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.


I’ve looked long and hard and have yet to find an age discrimination lawsuit that was sided to the young.

That protected class (age), is meant to protect OLDER folk and not the young.

This 20 year old goof has no shot at winning this case.

It’s not remotely close, from a legal perspective, to the cake shop who actively discriminated against a protected class. Sorry, but young-adults are not a protected class.



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 08:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Reydelsol

So what?

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.


Cruel and unusual? oh ffs... cut the hyperbole.

They said come back in a year and you're good to go. They didn't break his heart and soul because he had spent his entire 20 years pining for a walmart gun.

No difference between a gun and a cake? lmfao..

The ridiculous depths to which you lot reach..... "Stop, or I'll throw this cream bun at you!"



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 08:19 PM
link   

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


Only if they refuse to become white.


legal immigrants with US citizenship


Only if they lose their citizenship.


southerners that moved to Boston


Only if they refuse to become Northerners


Mormons


Only if they refuse to worship with you at your church.


women


Only if they refuse to become men.

Now age?

Well he will turn 21.

Spot the difference?



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 08:29 PM
link   
a reply to: badw0lf

LMAO..cruel and unusual
what a snowflake. The fact is the 20 yr old go to any number of places and get what he wants.
And I don't buy into age being the same as race, or sexual orientation in regards to discrimination.



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 08:34 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig

I think it is also fair to say the “gay wedding cake” ruling was a bad ruling..

A wedding cake is not even remotely the kind of item you couldn’t just find down the road..




That said 2 wrongs don’t make it right.


One bad ruling doesn’t mean we should start making all the rulings suck..


That is toddler logic.



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 08:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Reydelsol
Funny how you mentioned the sale of wedding cakes!
The law that this 18yo is suing Dicks under is the same law that Oregon used against the Sweet Cakes Bake Shop. This bake shop was ultimately forced out of business and forced to pay over $135.000 to the lesbians involved. It is still in court but it doesn't look good for them.
Oregon has had a law since 2015 ,Oregon State law 659A.403, which state that, persons of age, cannot be discriminated against along with other targeted groups. Persons of age are 18 years of age. The issue here is not that Dick's WOULDN'T sell a long gun to the individual. The issue is that they DISCRIMINATED against him by not selling him a gun. If the people who sued the bake shop were right so is this 18yo male!


edit on 6-3-2018 by Bob350 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 08:37 PM
link   
a reply to: vonclod

Legally it is the same..

It has almost always been used to defend discrimination against the elderly, but it is a “protected class” HOWEVER THE SECOND AMENDMENT has only been once to protect private citizens gun rights and that was a total prohibition in Washington DC.


So he could sue for age , but he can’t sue for the right to a gun at any age..



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 08:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: neo96

Your point?

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




I think everyone needs to start suing every business in Oregon that offers a senior discount. It's discrimination apparently.

The offering of special rates or services to persons 50 years of age or older.


Senior discounts are illegal and apparently a form of discrimination in Oregon.

sigh...



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 08:59 PM
link   
i like how nobody says why he was denied the sale of the rifle. probably a drugged up homeless guy.



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 09:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: JourneymanWelder
i like how nobody says why he was denied the sale of the rifle. probably a drugged up homeless guy.

It's in the op, he went to buy a rifle, told the employee he was 20, and the employee informed him of company policy regarding gun sales.



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

The case in Oregon, there was more than just the refusal to bake a case. There was the fact that the person posted the peoples name, address and phone number, where they were harassed over such, and had evidence pointing back to the baker on such. And the other case, right now the Supreme Court has yet to issue a ruling in this matter.



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 09:35 PM
link   
I was looking into similar situations for comparison, and ran across California raising the age to purchase tobacco and tobacco related products to 21 years of age. That includes lighters, I guess you are supposed to rub sticks together until you are 21 and old enough to responsibly manage instant fire.

The federally set age is 18, and the California government has decided that wasn't good, 21 is better. Smoking could be considered freedom of expression, because smoking is what you do and love. But in California you are restricted on your constitutionally given 1A rights because the state has decided to not follow the set federal laws regarding age requirements.

Legal analysts have examined this situation, and liberal ones tend to say it's not a violation of the 1A because they say it doesn't infringe on free speech, however, they never mention the freedom of expression guaranteed by the 1A that WOULD be covered in such a scenario.

Why haven't people sued to get smoking back to 18 in Cali? It's a literal violation of your 1A rights! The government is restricting you!



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 09:36 PM
link   
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.



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 09:43 PM
link   

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.

Unfortunately the 20 yr old activist will likely win his lawsuit.

Senior discounts are also illegal and a form of discrimination in Oregon. Denny's might be in trouble after this.



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 10:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

No he won’t.. (imho lol.. I don’t know, know lol)

The second amendment can’t be sited to Handle the thing he is protesting..


He MIGHT have a point on age, but I don’t see how ANYONE could say he has a right to buy a gun from X or Y specific manufacturer.



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 10:27 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox
He will win his initial suit in Oregon, just like you would if you sued McDonalds for not giving you a 25c cup of coffee like the elderly lady in front of you.

It obviously will be appealed, and probably upheld simply to send it to the supreme court for ultimate ruling on the matter.

I hope this kid took on a lawyer pro bono, otherwise he will bankrupt himself with legal fees, and likely be ruled against at the supreme court level.



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 10:54 PM
link   
They will settle it out in court probably. I don't really blame him for taking on this suit, a lot of children up this way learn to shoot at young ages. This age change restricts them in upbringing customs as well as safety and or food sources living in some rural areas. I think it's posturing for the companies. If a killer wants a gun or other they will obtain it anyway if that includes stealing.



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 12:43 AM
link   
a reply to: dreamingawake

This is almost certainly his attempt at 15 min of fame and maybe a job at Fox News.. I bet ANY lawyer could tell you he has no case..


If he knows he has no case. Then this is just for show.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join