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: 13
27
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 12:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

I doubt it.

I think this is his attempt at 15 min of fame. I bet no lawyer thinks he actually has a case.




posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 12:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

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...


It looks like the state public accommodation laws specifically allow discounts for over 50s.



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 04:02 AM
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.


A state forcing a private business to do something is not communism. There is no state or private business in communism, for that is the entire point of communism.

It wouldn’t be socialism either, since it wouldn’t be a private business in that case.

The term you’re looking for lays between benevolent social democracy and malevolent fascism. Please try to get the terminology right, or the powers that be who do understand the terminology will continue to walk all over you.



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 04:12 AM
link   
a reply to: howtonhawky

Are Dick's and Walmart taking away his right to bear arms? Is there nobody in the free market willing to sell him a gun? If not...I smell an opportunity.

Slthough its beinv overwhelmed by ghe reek of this 20 year old opportunist.



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 05:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: SR1TX

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.


I sidestepped it because what you said was incorrect and it’s already been explained why. Just because you insist on repeating incorrect statements doesn’t mean everybody else has to keep addressing them.

A lower court does not establish precedent simply by hearing a case. No matter how many times you say otherwise, it doesn’t make it true unless you completely change the definition of what precedence is and take out the part of the definition where it’s a court ruling that lower courts have to follow.



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 07:38 AM
link   
a reply to: badw0lf

I spot the difference, you are comfortable with age discrimination. Of course there is a downside to allowing such a discrimination. What if 18-20 year olds that were drafted for Vietnam were to sue for lost wages plus interest for their involuntary service? What about 18-20 year olds today that apply for but do not receive a job for whatever reason? Can they now claim discrimination based on age and have it apply? Can they now petition the courts to let them out of contracts like car payments or mortgages or marriages? Could they now request to purchase handguns at 18 instead of 21? Or to be issued CCW’s at 18? Since the age difference has always been about concealablity of the weapon versus the ability to hunt and put food on the table.

Funny thing about setting a precedent, it can be used in other places as well to justify a point. So setting a dangerous precedent such as age discrimination can have serious consequences. Especially on the other side of the scale. Forced retirement at a lower age. Suspension of driving privileges at a certain age. Declarations of fiscal irresponsibility at a certain age requiring money managers.

Why we can make it just like the society in Logan’s Run if we try hard enough with the whole age discrimination thing. We kinda already have if you consider the pre-born and the abortion issue. The other side of that scale is Logan’s Run.



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 07:40 AM
link   
This will be decided by the laws of that state. If such age discrimination is prohibited by state law, then he has a case and will win. Statutory law rights and causes of action are accumulative to common law rights and causes of action. In common law however, this young man does not have a case, because he can show no injury due to the refusal of contract. Some state may have such a prohibitive statute, and someone in that or those states will figure out they have a cause of action. I am for gun rights, but I am against the forcing of any contracts because the freedom to contract is a common law right (but it is actually for those of age, which is 21. In common law, you are an infant until that age).



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 08:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
Senior discounts are illegal and apparently a form of discrimination in Oregon.

sigh...



No, they aren't:


659A.403 Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is of age, as described in this section, or older.

(2) Subsection (1) of this section does NOT prohibit:

(a) The enforcement of laws governing the consumption of alcoholic beverages by minors and the frequenting by minors of places of public accommodation where alcoholic beverages are served;

(b) The enforcement of laws governing the use of marijuana items, as defined in ORS 475B.015, by persons under 21 years of age and the frequenting by persons under 21 years of age of places of public accommodation where marijuana items are sold; or

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

(3) It is an unlawful practice for any person to deny full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation in violation of this section.


Link

*sigh*





edit on 3/7/2018 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 08:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
Senior discounts are also illegal and a form of discrimination in Oregon. Denny's might be in trouble after this.


Senior discounts are NOT prohibited....see my previous comment.

You didn't fully read that law before you thought you had that figured out, did you?



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 08:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
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.





He isn't citing the Second Amendment. You need to actually read the Complaint rather than assume you know what the legal argument is.

For example, it was filed in a state court -- not a federal one -- and it specifically cites the Oregon STATE LAWS that Dicks is violating with their new policy and by publishing their new policy.



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 08:29 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Living in Oregon, the news is reporting the issue as a case where Dicks is violating state public accommodation laws.


The same laws that tell a baker that they cannot discriminate.



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 08:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Living in Oregon, the news is reporting the issue as a case where Dicks is violating state public accommodation laws.


The same laws that tell a baker that they cannot discriminate.



Yes...this is the Oregon state law: Link

With the bakery case, it's now up to SCOTUS to rule if the bakery owner's religious and freedom of speech rights weigh in. I don't believe there's been a ruling, yet, but this case and that one don't really compare beyond the state court's ruling (which was that the bakery violated state public accommodation laws).



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 09:43 AM
link   
I do not know if it has been mentioned yet but the person in this case was denied the sale 4 days before the policy took effect at field and stream store.



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: F4guy

Well, I do appreciate the quick lesson in criminal law. Right now I'm a paralegal specializing in Family and Bankruptcy law, so other than our occasional "dabbling" in criminal issues for acquaintances, my knowledge is somewhat limited on the particular subject; basically I know certain things about criminal law and suits as it specifically pertains to our clients/matters we are working on.

Here's my view on it though, as it comes to the area the lawsuits were filed in: Oregon has anti discrimination laws on the books specifically relating to age, and classifying as a "protected class", making it illegal to discriminate based on that, just like they can't discriminate based on ethnicity, religion, sex, etc, etc. As the rest of the Federal firearm dealers in the state all abide by minimum age restrictions set forth by federal law, I could see that technically being a form of discrimination based on age.... at least within the state.



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 10:34 AM
link   
It would have been better if a 21 year old bought a gun and right at the register/checkout sold it to an 18-year-old. Now that would make the snowflakes really crazy and kick this newest attempt of left-wing fascist gun grabs into high gear.

Whats next, 21-year-olds with red hair can't buy guns? 50-year-olds with ED can only buy one bullet a day? Or, you are forced to make a gay wedding cake before we can buy a gun?



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: dothedew

so what do you think if the guy was denied 4 days before the store policy went into effect?



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Reydelsol

Age discrimination is illegal.


So its OK to sell alcohol to under 21's?



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 10:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nickn3

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!


And I am completely against them being forced to sell that cake too.



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Reydelsol

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Reydelsol

Age discrimination is illegal.


So its OK to sell alcohol to under 21's?


hey jerky

ever heard of public saftey and statistics that show under 21 drinking causes thousands of deaths where selling a weapon to under 21 has not shed even close to the same amount of blood.



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Reydelsol

originally posted by: Nickn3

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!


And I am completely against them being forced to sell that cake too.


did you ever have the thought that the same force behind making people to decorate cakes in ways that go against their beliefs is the same force trying to kill under 21 peeps by removing their right to legal protection.
edit on 7-3-2018 by howtonhawky because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
27
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join