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

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: Reydelsol

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.

You have to break the T&C to get banned. What did the Young Adult do to warrant a punishment of not being able to purchase and being of legal age to purchase?

Unless they are breaking a law stores are allowed to specify their own t&C's, including who they are willing to sell certain products to.

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: Reydelsol

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.

You have to break the T&C to get banned. What did the Young Adult do to warrant a punishment of not being able to purchase and being of legal age to purchase?

Nothing, and they don't care.

They see no problems with punishing people that had nothing to do with breaking the law.

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: cynicalheathen

originally posted by: eNumbra
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.

Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner.

Age has been held as a protected class by SCOTUS, so the kid has a discrimination case.

The 20yo will get a token settlement to go away, and his lawyers will get 75%

Walmart and Dicks will get out of the firearms business altogether, well what little bit they are in it with their horrible selection, prices, and ignorant sales staff.

Support your local gun store.

My understanding is age is only protected in federal law with regard employment, not public accommodation. Happy to be corrected however.

He filed in state court under state place of public accommodation laws, which cover age based discrimination in Oregon.

It was a reply to post about scotus an age discrimination.

However you have answered my next question which was is there an age discrimination law in Oregon that applies.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Ah, sorry about that didn't see the other one. In that case yes, you're spot on.

originally posted by: JIMC5499
I'd have no problem with Dicks and Walmart refusing to sell guns to people who were under 21 if it wasn't for the bakery that was fined for not making a cake for a gay wedding. It used to be that a business had the right to refuse service to anyone, not any more. All of the arguments here that favor Dicks and Walmart can be applied to that bakery as well.

The Left made it's bed, now it has to lie in it. I hope the kid wins big. If he doesn't, I hope that the bakery's lawyer is paying attention. Any decision that supports Dicks and Walmart gives him a reason for appeal.

That's the way I see this as well. I think the lawsuit is dumb, but in the wake of the wedding cake fiasco, it kind of has merit. Again, I don't agree with suing Dicks over this, I wouldn't do it, but then I'm a tad over 21.

This should be a good discussion and not just tossed out because you don't agree.

a reply to: howtonhawky

These guns protect your rights and life.

Also used to take away my rights and life.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: ScepticScot

Ah, sorry about that didn't see the other one. In that case yes, you're spot on.

Quick look suggests the law doesn't stop application of rules on serving alcohol.

The stores clearly need to give a free tequila shot with every rifle and the ban can stand.

What could possibly go wrong.

Need more gun laws because we don’t want to follow the laws that already exist. That someone can use those laws to protect their ability to follow those laws makes it wrong because I don’t want them to have what they want seems to be “the law” used to keep the 20 year old form buying is what is in effect here.

And I will strawman that “law” with a hypothetical banning that the mods do for reasons not understanding that mods only perform the action and it is actually the member that bans themselves. But to put it that perspective it is the poster, not the post, that results in a banjust like it is the shooter doing wrong things rather than the gun itself. Otherwise we would have to ban anyone that happened to read the post or participated in the thread, just in case.

For the record, we have had bad posters well above the age of 21. And have had exceptional posters well below the age of 18. I can think of one in particular that was maybe 13 when they signed up to be a member. I could mention numerous things I did at 17 that is rather uncommon, but it would come off as bragging, one of which is kinda funny.

originally posted by: howtonhawky
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.

So, you are saying that to deny selling alcohol to a minor is against the law. That Pharmacies have to sell medications to anyone who wants them. That you cannot ban someone because of inappropriate behavior in a restaurant because their mental disability was involved in them tearing off their clothes and peeing on the rest of the people there. Also, since guys walk around without shirts in the pool area of your hotel, you can not discriminate against females doing the same thing.

Wallmart can adopt a policy of some locations and incorporate it into their system country wide, if it is illegal to do somewhere in this country, they can make changes to their policy. Many places have started banning sales of firearms to people under twenty one in this country already, Walmart can alter their sales policy upward, but not downward lower than the legal limit. The big factor here is that since it is illegal in some areas of this country, they can make a nation wide policy. They also can refuse to sell guns to anyone if they want, all of this is listed in my original post. A person younger than twenty one can just go somewhere else, now if they make a rule, they cannot make acceptions to that rule either, it applies to everyone in that class.

originally posted by: Eshel
a reply to: howtonhawky

These guns protect your rights and life.

Also used to take away my rights and life.

Which is why i support common sense regulations based on ability and not age.

Discrimination sucks

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: JIMC5499
I'd have no problem with Dicks and Walmart refusing to sell guns to people who were under 21 if it wasn't for the bakery that was fined for not making a cake for a gay wedding. It used to be that a business had the right to refuse service to anyone, not any more. All of the arguments here that favor Dicks and Walmart can be applied to that bakery as well.

The Left made it's bed, now it has to lie in it. I hope the kid wins big. If he doesn't, I hope that the bakery's lawyer is paying attention. Any decision that supports Dicks and Walmart gives him a reason for appeal.

That's the way I see this as well. I think the lawsuit is dumb, but in the wake of the wedding cake fiasco, it kind of has merit. Again, I don't agree with suing Dicks over this, I wouldn't do it, but then I'm a tad over 21.

This should be a good discussion and not just tossed out because you don't agree.

We had a gay couple get down on a local florist for not being able to supply them flowers for their gay marriage, they came in on tuesday evening and wanted special flowers for the weekend, her truck had already come in for the week, she could not get more flowers for saturday. The people kept stating they were gay and getting married and the florist stated she still can't get flowers that soon for their gay marriage, since they were making such an issue about the gay thing. The girls worked at walmart and trashed her and her business on social media.

So the responses came in from our local theater, they get flowers from this woman even for the gay function they have every year. A quarter of the people at the theater are gay, She knows them and their preferences well. These people and some of the gay people in the community came to the florists rescue on social media, she sells to them quite often and is one of the least discriminatory people in the area. They bashed the gay couple's statements. I think that is a good way to get acceptance in the community, those gay girls with their big mouth were actually causing harm for the gay community.

That cake deal you mentioned actually did the opposite and pitted more people soundly against gay people than it did to help their cause. Stuff like that should not be promoted.

Sorry for going off topic.

a reply to: howtonhawky

I have been waiting for this to happen, and boy, am I glad it's happening on the west coast and under the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, because that gives me hope that this will end up on the steps of the SCOTUS.

And here's what I hope happens: I hope that the private business is backed up in this regard, because supporting government telling business what to do is not something that I generally support, and this would be a good example. I believe that businesses should be able to pick and choose their own policies as to how they sell their items.

I'm a big believer that the court of public opinion and the ability to boycott places with our wallets is a better way to handle things in a free society.

a reply to: rickymouse

statics show that underage drinking takes many lives and cost many dollars to society. the same can not be said for gun purchases 18-21.

discrimination is bad and unlawful

these kneejerk policies do nothing to stop mass carnage events

the thought that dicks and walmart could refuse to fill prescriptions based on age is kinda scary and by your own argument if they can do it in my town then that gives them the right to do it in your town is very short of logical.

originally posted by: howtonhawky
ktvu

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) -- An Oregon man filed suits Monday claiming Dick's Sporting Goods and Walmart discriminated against the 20-year-old when they refused to sell him a rifle. Dick's and Walmart restricted gun sales to adults 21 and older in the wake of the Florida high school massacre. The 19-year-old accused in the school slaying bought the AR-15 used in the attack legally. Oregon law allows residents to buy shotguns or rifles starting at age 18.

I was hoping that someone would stand up for their rights. These companies created monopolies on goods and now discriminate against people based on age. It is illegal and immoral. I am no smart guy but i know injustice when it happens. Who can honestly say that the actions the major retailers project can not be used to discriminate in the future for other reasons or goods?If they get away with it now then they get away with it later. GOD speed youngsters! May you be provided with the finest and wisest team to keep our country free.

You ever heard No Shoes no shirt no sevice.....the company's have every right to do this! Some bars let minors in, but they can t drink. ..some bars REFUSE to....it's up to the company's own discretion.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

A privately held company, private company, or close corporation is a business company owned either by non-governmental organizations or by a relatively small number of shareholders or company members which does not offer or trade its company stock (shares) to the general public on the stock market exchanges, but rather ...
Privately held company - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org...

not the same in the case of dicks or wal mart

i agree with you very much unless a business has killed the competition in the manner these monopolies have.

honestly do you not see the difference?

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.

CVS no longer sells cigarettes I am going to Sue! LOL!

It will be interesting if businesses are legally allowed to put an age restriction on their customers for whatever merchandise they please.

For example, I sell t-shirts. I don't want old people wearing my shirts. So I only sell to people 35 and under. Legal?

This is ridiculous, Dick's should be forced to sell weapons to anyone and everyone that demands it. Screw company policy, the customer is always right.

On that note I'm going to sue the government for not letting my 5 year old join the army. Age limits are discrimination! We may as well dilute the word "discrimination" so much that it becomes a useless term to describe almost anything we don't like. That'll show them!

Also, a bakery being forced to sell a wedding cake (which I absolutely hated, no business should be forced to sell anything!) is enough reason for me to support Dick's being forced to sell guns to anyone (which is great, businesses should be forced to sell something!).

I hope this 20 year old wins this case because we know that Dick's is the only place that sells guns and that this person isn't just trying to get his 15 minutes and easy money. Such great character deserves to have a gun in their hands.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

again there is a difference between a monopoly and a mom and pop

the giants have killed mom and pop and now they seek to remove your rights

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

again there is a difference between a monopoly and a mom and pop

the giants have killed mom and pop and now they seek to remove your rights

If dicks has a monopoly, you can take them to court for that, but they don’t, no matter how many times you claim it. Dicks does not have a monopoly on gun sales.