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

a reply to: howtonhawky

I still think the stores will use the defense that it's a safety issue and not a discrimination issue. That is different than the "gays getting married creeps me out, cuz religion" defense. We'll see what happens.

a reply to: kaylaluv
So, does that mean they can just as easily extend this refusal to sell guns to anyone that is a follower of Islam? After all, it could be equated to a safety issue too. I would not advocate that myself, but it does set a precedent involving curtailing of rights of a protected class.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Except we have precedent for not allowing young people certain things due to it being a safety issue....

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: howtonhawky

I still think the stores will use the defense that it's a safety issue and not a discrimination issue. That is different than the "gays getting married creeps me out, cuz religion" defense. We'll see what happens.

you are 100% correct according to the legal eagles i have heard but they will fail because stats do not back up the public safety claim as compared to other public saftey bans.

you have a great aura

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Krakatoa

Except we have precedent for not allowing young people certain things due to it being a safety issue....

And those are backed up by REAL data and statistics. This particular case is not. That is a big difference. We need to stop being so myopic when it deals with restricting peoples rights. There are a lot of 18 year old's I know that are more responsible and safe with a firearm now than some 30 or 40 year old people I know that I would never trust with such a responsibility.

Blanket bans of anything to a specific class of people is wrong, just wrong.
But go ahead and willfully let everyone take your rights away. That is your decision, Please refrain from making the same decision for others. You are not qualified.

Dicks should just stop selling guns in states that make it illegal to discriminate in public accommodations based on age. I think it's pretty crappy that they want to make money selling guns in Oregon but don't want to operate their business according to state laws.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Well we have data that generally speaking, teens don't always make good decisions and often don't think about the permanent consequences of their decisions. I'm sure the store's defense will include teen suicides by guns as well as accidental shootings. Like I said, we'll see what the courts decide.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Krakatoa

Well we have data that generally speaking, teens don't always make good decisions and often don't think about the permanent consequences of their decisions. I'm sure the store's defense will include teen suicides by guns as well as accidental shootings. Like I said, we'll see what the courts decide.

That right there (the bold text above) is a dangerous and slippery slope. I caution everyone to avoid making generalizations when it comes to asking for the curtailing of rights that are guaranteed protection by the United States Constitution. As I stated earlier, it could set a precedent that affects other protected rights such as freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

Be afraid, be very afraid of that line of thought.

It is likely to be settled out of court because the person tried to buy the weapon before the ban. That goes way beyond the scope of discrimination based on age.imo

Also if they are not allowed to buy alcohol then that would make them a safer group baring arms.

a reply to: neo96>>>> The under 21 can boycott Wal mart and Dick's if they want. Those high school kids got tons of free PR help and media attention, they may also want to take Wal mart down over something. The left says they hate Wal Mart( but love Amazon which is way worse).

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: kaylaluv
So, does that mean they can just as easily extend this refusal to sell guns to anyone that is a follower of Islam? After all, it could be equated to a safety issue too. I would not advocate that myself, but it does set a precedent involving curtailing of rights of a protected class.

Nope. That's religious discrimination. Plus, they'd have a very hard time proving their case, since more crimes are committed by Christians owning guns and all the mass shooters (except for two) were Christians.

originally posted by: howtonhawky
Also if they are not allowed to buy alcohol then that would make them a safer group baring arms.

They'd be a lot safer and far more able to defend themselves anywhere if they'd just take karate or another martial arts. There's no restriction on age or anything else for learning martial arts - PLUS you can carry your hands and body into any situation at all (unlike guns, which are restricted from a number of venues.) You can even carry your martial arts skills overseas.

And lots of shootings have been stopped by people who don't carry guns.

Heck, I've defended myself using what I learned in kung fu class (and it was in a place where guns weren't allowed.)

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: kaylaluv
So, does that mean they can just as easily extend this refusal to sell guns to anyone that is a follower of Islam? After all, it could be equated to a safety issue too. I would not advocate that myself, but it does set a precedent involving curtailing of rights of a protected class.

Nope. That's religious discrimination. Plus, they'd have a very hard time proving their case, since more crimes are committed by Christians owning guns and all the mass shooters (except for two) were Christians.

I agree, it is religious discrimination. However, in Oregon (the state of this case) which is the focus of this thread's OP, age is a protected "class" of people. So, it would also be discrimination in the Walmart case as well. Discrimination is discrimination against a protect class of citizen.....the reason for the protection is irrelevant.

Wouldn't you agree?

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: howtonhawky
Also if they are not allowed to buy alcohol then that would make them a safer group baring arms.

They'd be a lot safer and far more able to defend themselves anywhere if they'd just take karate or another martial arts. There's no restriction on age or anything else for learning martial arts - PLUS you can carry your hands and body into any situation at all (unlike guns, which are restricted from a number of venues.) You can even carry your martial arts skills overseas.

And lots of shootings have been stopped by people who don't carry guns.

Heck, I've defended myself using what I learned in kung fu class (and it was in a place where guns weren't allowed.)

ok
what makes you think that their right to form deadly weapons will not be infringed upon?

I mean when the first black belt goes in and breaks a few necks what protections will keep the right to train?

I do see your point but it is currently illegal for anyone under a certain age to even know the blackbelt patterns.

get it you can not get your black belt until you are 18 currently

them arms are deadly weapons

i learned that when i was in training as a youngster.

the right to self defense has been taken away much and we need to make a stand because this new bs law will not help protect anyone nor will it save lives but is likely to cost lives

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: kaylaluv
So, does that mean they can just as easily extend this refusal to sell guns to anyone that is a follower of Islam? After all, it could be equated to a safety issue too. I would not advocate that myself, but it does set a precedent involving curtailing of rights of a protected class.

Nope. That's religious discrimination. Plus, they'd have a very hard time proving their case, since more crimes are committed by Christians owning guns and all the mass shooters (except for two) were Christians.

deny ignorance

if they were Christians they would never do these events

real life does not support your post here

originally posted by: craterman
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).

Not just by the laws of this state. Federal law preempts state law, and is superior. See, Article V of the US Constitution; Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958); SILKWOOD v. KERR-McGEE CORP.464 U.S. 238 (1984); CIPOLLONE v. LIGGETT GROUP, INC. 505 U.S. 504 (1992) There is premptive federal law in Title 18 of the US Code and Title 47, among others in the Code of Federal Regulations. Those laws give broad latitude to licensed dealers in denying a sale of a firearm. The remedy specified in Title 118 is an order allowing the person to get a gun and correcting any erroneous information that caused a denial.

these stores are making these rules over knee-jerk reactions over an incident that was precipitated by criminal stupidity between a corrupt sheriff department and school district with out consulting their legal department.

these rules are blatant age discrimination and thus an easy win for plaintiffs.

they acting like 21 year olds are more mature when technically they are not.

cruz did what he did not because of age but because all the warning signs he was giving off were ignored by school ,cops ,and even fbi

tribune

Tyler Watson, 20, alleges he encountered age discrimination when he tried to purchase a .22-caliber Ruger rifle on Feb. 24 - four days before the companies announced their new policies - at Field & Stream, an outdoors sports store in Medford, Oregon, owned by Dick's. In Oregon, state law allows residents to purchase firearms at age 18.

imo this paragraph changes things much in favor of the discriminated.

No, not always. Show me where the federal government has ANY power to make gun laws within the several states. Matter of fact, just the opposite is true. "Shall not be infringed". Read Title 18 Section 7 which defines the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. 'Not within any particular state' - three times in 1 1/2 pages.

a reply to: F4guy