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: 15
27
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 04:32 PM
link   
Unfortunately the OP is right.

Age is a protected class and cannot be reason to not sell someone something.




posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: jidnum

lol

how is non discrimination unfortunate

i think you have it backward



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: howtonhawky
get it you can not get your black belt until you are 18 currently


You can get a youth black belt at 12 and an adult one at 16.





edit on 7-3-2018 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 04:47 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

yep that is what i meant

thanks


point being that you can be charged felonious if you use the training to cause harm in some cases

lol adult one you mean 1st degree


edit on 7-3-2018 by howtonhawky because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 04:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: howtonhawky
point being that you can be charged felonious if you use the training to cause harm in some cases


Not true, that is an urban legend. The felony is just for being violent, not for the training.



edit on 7-3-2018 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 04:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

yep that is what i meant

thanks


point being that you can be charged felonious if you use the training to cause harm in some cases

lol adult one you mean 1st degree



You don't need a black belt to do damage. I only have a green belt - and the attack incident took place when I was a mere yellow belt. (the thief ran when I dropped into a stance and snapped a punch.)



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

sweet

i was definitely not trying to talk down the power of training

just remarking how they can and will try to use everything against us



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

Sounds like yo didn't do any damage either. Not landing a strike is not damaging. It ma have diffused that situation, but, my guess is that the perp was a scared kid and you knew that. You might not be as lucky in S. Chicago however.



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 05:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: howtonhawky
point being that you can be charged felonious if you use the training to cause harm in some cases


Not true, that is an urban legend. The felony is just for being violent, not for the training.




i must speak real funny when i type cause that is what i was intending to convey

if you train them guns to a point then they become deadly weapons

lol i bet you still did not comprehend my speach

i was not saying that being trained is a felony

only if you hurt peoples then sometimes they can charge you if they find fault and some places charge you without fault even if you are just protecting yourself



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa


Don't mess with Byrd, she'll Krack a Toe upside your head.



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: howtonhawky
lol i bet you still did not comprehend my speech


Not, not really, your sentence structure and grammar are not easy to understand.
i was not saying that being trained is a felony


only if you hurt peoples then sometimes they can charge you if they find fault and some places charge you without fault even if you are just protecting yourself


Having a black belt or training in martial arts is not going to get you charged with a felony if you get in a fight, how you got into the fight, the outcome and what type of injuries that may have been sustained will be the factors.



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 05:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: Byrd

Sounds like yo didn't do any damage either. Not landing a strike is not damaging. It ma have diffused that situation, but, my guess is that the perp was a scared kid and you knew that. You might not be as lucky in S. Chicago however.



i have found that if you do not sleep around or screw people over then even in s. chicago no one can harm you

that is how some walk through "fire"

either way we do not need to keep guns away from responsible yutes



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

some areas they will charge you up if you use the skills even to defend yourself

real life

no different than using an automobile to defend yourself

you can be charged regardless of the weapon if they twist the laws like they do

it happens



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 05:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: jidnum
Unfortunately the OP is right.

Age is a protected class and cannot be reason to not sell someone something.


Well, legally it CAN be a reason to not sell someone something, i.e., not selling cigarettes or booze to minors. The legal question is, what is a minor?



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa

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?


Let's look at Oregon law, then. The general description is here

Here is the PDF of Oregon and federal "protected classes" Note that
* "age" only applies to 40 and older in Federal terms; 18 and older in Oregon... and it applies specifically to employment. Note the heading on that document I linked: OREGON REVISED STATUTES CHAPTER 659A State laws apply when an employer has one or more employees (except where noted)

It's only employment related. There's nothing on that document saying anything about age, religion, etc. So clubs can exist that are for only Catholics or only Blacks or only speakers of French -and in fact, monasteries (which restrict based on gender and age) are allowed to exist in Oregon.
* a weapon is not an accommodation under Oregon law.

Here's a link to Oregon's business laws and regulations. I do not see any other law about what a store chooses to sell or not sell and what they restrict customers from buying... do you?

(the section that specifically applies to sales is here)

I don't see a thing that prevents them from upping the age limit for buying a gun at their store to (say) age 40 as long as it applies to the entire population of Oregon.

I'd like to continue this discussion but prefer instead of opinion that laws actually be cited. Not what people thought the laws are.



edit on 7-3-2018 by Byrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 05:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: howtonhawky
some areas they will charge you up if you use the skills even to defend yourself


Links?



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: Byrd

Sounds like yo didn't do any damage either. Not landing a strike is not damaging. It ma have diffused that situation, but, my guess is that the perp was a scared kid and you knew that. You might not be as lucky in S. Chicago however.



Well, I didn't know what the guy was only that he grabbed my purse and he was bigger than I was. I hung on with one hand and aimed a punch at his nose with the other. He decided to not stick around and find out. If I'd been carrying a gun, he'd have either gotten a nice new gun (from my purse) or had to wait as I reached for my holster (with the wrong hand) and got the gun out and then tried to shoot him. By that time he could have twisted the purse out of my hand and been gone.

Dropping into a stance and aiming a punch (and giving a shout that we used in the studio) took a fraction of a second.

And I've been in S. Chicago, thanks, and in Harlem as well. And New Orleans. And Dallas, in rough neighborhoods. By myself. Unarmed.

Weapons aren't a good answer. Self defense and knowing what perps look for is a far better answer (I had training with the cops. I don't look like an easy mark or an easy victim. That kind of person leaves me alone.)


edit on 7-3-2018 by Byrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 05:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

some areas they will charge you up if you use the skills even to defend yourself


I'd like to see a link to these laws. I've taken martial arts training and they talked about a lot of stuff, but not that. They didn't even cover it when they talked about the kinds of weapons and which were not legal to carry in public (butterfly knives, for instance.)


edit on 7-3-2018 by Byrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: craterman
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



They don't make any laws "within the states" They make laws for the United States. And the power to regulate guns comes from the interstate commerce clause of Article I, Section 8, clause 3 of the Constitution. And the Constitution trumps (notice the small t) Title 18, particularly since the section you cited relatesONLY to the maritime jurisdiction of the US, and jurisdiction with regard to crimes against Americans in international waters. The word "gun" appears nowhere in the section. I suggest that going to law school might help with your interpretation of statutory law.



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 07:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: jidnum
Unfortunately the OP is right.

Age is a protected class and cannot be reason to not sell someone something.


Well, legally it CAN be a reason to not sell someone something, i.e., not selling cigarettes or booze to minors. The legal question is, what is a minor?


But none of those are rights protected from government interference by the United States Constitution, are they?

Big difference, Ms Strawwoman.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join