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: 2
27
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 10:44 AM
link   
This guy can still buy a gun somewhere right? Did he have his heart set on a gun from Wal Mart or Dicks?

How does this violate any rights? If this violates rights then all 18 year olds who get carded at the club then not let in should be able to sue.




posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 10:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Reydelsol

No it doesn't.

It applies to private business's.

The wedding cake lawsuit proved it.



Which:
1) I don't agree with.

2) Know you spoke out against when it happened.



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 10:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: pavil
So can Dicks sell to a 15 year old then, since they can choose who to sell to?

If the State has determined an age of purchase, stores there have to follow those State's laws, do they not?






If the kid really wants to 'merikuh pew pew, there's likely countless other businesses he can buy from within a few blocks. And the internet. Nobody is infringing on his rights.


So as long as there's alternatives, no one's rights are ever really infringed????

What kind of apathetic garbage is that?



Also, if a business is receiving ANY government subsidies, etc. then yes, said business is as liable as the government for rights violations.



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 10:48 AM
link   
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.
edit on 6-3-2018 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Frivolous lawsuits are not supposed to be allowed. A company has the right to limit who they sell certain products too, if there is a rule someplace, like in some towns, that state that a person has to be twenty one to buy a gun, then they can expand this policy to cover all locations. That is business. I think that twenty year old should have to pay for all expenses of Walmart for defending against the lawsuit myself. Everyone has rights. Walmart should just stop selling guns all together. That will allow other gun shops and specialty sports stores to have more sales. A place that sells medications and alcohol should not sell guns. But that is my opinion I suppose. I can see bullets being sold in a place that sells alcohol, but not guns.



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 10:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Reydelsol

ok then how do you protect gay edding cakes, and non segragated schools and restaurants?



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 10:54 AM
link   
I am big supporter of the 2nd. when I was 19 this would have pissed me off. I thought it was stupid and unjust that I could not buy a beer at the game or go to a bar.

Then I turned 21 and stop giving a shi. Young people dont need to be out drinking that is why we have that law that says you have to be 21.

Why do some of you over 21 want them to have guns? I have raised 2 kids I dont think most 18 year olds need to own a gun.

I have no problem with a 21 age limit but of course im 45



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 10:55 AM
link   
The kid will probably win and rightly so.
This is age discrimination.



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 10:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96

That 20 year old has those rights to speech,voting, the others that deal with due process.

You dont have freedom of speech in regards to corporations.

Just try breaking the T&C on ATS on abusive speech and see whats happens.


originally posted by: neo96

That 20 year shouldn't be slapped with a cruel or unusual punishment for a crime he had nothing to do with.

Being made to wait until 21 or being forced to shop at another store is not "a cruel or unusual punishment " and make a complete mockery of people who have experienced a cruel or unusual punishment.



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: Reydelsol

ok then how do you protect gay edding cakes, and non segragated schools and restaurants?


I wouldn't. I would let the free market decide those.



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse


Can business owners really refuse service to anyone? Under federal anti-discrimination laws, businesses can refuse service to any person for any reason, unless the business is discriminating against a protected class. At the national level, protected classes include:

Federal protected classes include:
Race.
Color.
Religion or creed.
National origin or ancestry.
Sex.
Age.
Physical or mental disability.
Veteran status.


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



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 11:01 AM
link   
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, Mormons, women? That leaves age on the 1964 Civil Rights Act for things you cannot discriminate against.



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Reydelsol




Being made to wait until 21 or being forced to shop at another store is not "a cruel or unusual punishment " and make a complete mockery of people who have experienced a cruel or unusual punishment


Yeah it is.

As the fifth explicity states.

No person shall be held to a capital or otherwise infamous crime.

The 6th states.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,

Since no under 21 was taken to court and been found guilty in a court of LAW.

They are now being held ANSWERABLE for a crime they did not commit.

And that isn't a unusual punishment?

Arbritrary lose a right because some jacksnip company is pandering to political hacks?

What the eff ever.
edit on 6-3-2018 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Reydelsol

im good with that



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 11:05 AM
link   
Honestly I think this is more likely to end with Dicks simply pulling firearms from all their stores, or at least the ones where the law doesn’t specifically state age based restrictions on certain firearms.



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Reydelsol


The 2nd is irrelevant in this case.


Yep.

That's why this fella filed his suit under the Oregon place of public accommodation law rather than filing it in federal court with a 2nd Amendment claim.

This is what it was always going to come down to: the states that allow for the sale of rifles and shotguns to 18-21 year olds were the states that were going to see legal challenges to the new policies.



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 11:06 AM
link   
To paraphrase Rick James, "That's capitalism, bitch!" Let the customers of the businesses decide if they sink or swim -- with their money. Not some whiny kid who can't wait a few months and has to sue over a private business policy, which, I might add, is not the same as a government one. Government mandates the minimums, that's it. A tobacco shop, for example, can decide to sell only to 25+ if they want, not a damn thing a 24 year old smoker can do about that.

It should also beg the question of WTF was he going to do with it that it's sooooo critical to buy from ONLY Dick's? Nobody else would sell to him, either? Not even a mom & pop store? The things that make you go "Hmmmm."
edit on 3/6/2018 by Nyiah because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 11:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Reydelsol




Being made to wait until 21 or being forced to shop at another store is not "a cruel or unusual punishment " and make a complete mockery of people who have experienced a cruel or unusual punishment


Yeah it is.

As the fifth explicity states.

No person shall be held to a capital or otherwise infamous crime.

The 6th states.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,

Since no under 21 was taken to court and been found guilty in a court of LAW.

They are now being held ANSWERABLE for a crime they did not commit.

And that isn't a unusual punishment?

Arbritrary lose a right because some jacksnip company is pandering to political hacks?

What the eff ever.



So if ATS bans me, I can sue for the same violation for taking my freedom of speech?



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Reydelsol

No, you agree to terms and conditions during registration.



posted on Mar, 6 2018 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Dbl post....

edit on 6-3-2018 by Bluntone22 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join