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

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Oops, I misread it! Had the beer goggles on, amazing how one word makes all the difference hehe.

a reply to: howtonhawky

I’m gonna say the same thing about this as I did about the lesbians suing the christian baker: If that business won’t serve you, find one who will. I know dick’s and walmart aren’t the only two places to buy a shotgun. Stop relying on government control to get what you want, you spoiled brats.

originally posted by: howtonhawky

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.

I am non partisan so yes that thought occurred to me but I don't care.

Either the govement can force businesses to sell items, in which case it apply to cakes, guns and everything else.

OR

Business can choose to do business with who it likes in all matters.

It all or nothing otherwise it is hypocrisy.

a reply to: Reydelsol

unfortunately great hypocrisy exist throughout our government.

perhaps one day we can clean up much

originally posted by: howtonhawky
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.

hi hawkyhawk

its great to see that you now understand why the cake decorating scenario plays relevance in this argument. back on the first page, RIGHT HERE, you obviously didn't get it at all. its great to see that you are able to learn, but your lesson is that you should probably bite your tongue when you THINK you understand certain matters, but you actually (and obviously) do not. here are another two which you have been called out on in this thread, but (like with the gay cakes) you have refused to address:

-- "privately held" buisinesses (as given by your earlier wiki link) are not any more or less obligated to conform to the bill of rights than walMart or Dick's. you seem to think your "mom and pop" versus the "monopolies" argument is valid. IT IS NOT. the difference between them you have implied does not exist. you made that crap up. i, and everyone else that have read your repetitions of this mistake over and over, know that you made it up.

and,

-- none of the above businesses and corporations fall under the purview of the US constitution. or rather, NO SELLER is OBLIGATED to sell to any particular person or class of people based on constitutional law. the second amendment does not apply to any form of corporate or business structure; it applies to the government ONLY.


i am not trying to be a prick in pointing these things out. but you have muddled the argumentation of valid points among other members with your insistent misunderstandings, and it has made the thread difficult to read. it would be great if you could read and understand what i am saying, rather than being offended and responding reactively. you seem like a swell guy and i hope you keep posting on ATS.

a reply to: tgidkp

I am not gonna change my feelings on the subject simply because of government hypocrisy.

I believe that there is a great difference between a company that puts small businesses out of commission then takes over the markets then begins to limit who can buy and what they can buy.

Let us be clear there are too many contradicting laws both federal and state to even say that discrimination is legal or not and that is where the problem is. Even your position no matter how well educated it is can be refuted by others and rightfully so simply because of contradicting laws.

It does not matter how well typed one is they will always find valid fault and back it up with some contradicting law.

To put it plainly beyond the laws i believe that the problem is that discrimination is only recognized by someone when they personally feel they can gain from their point of view.

Very few will actually stand up and even say that affirmative action is discrimination in itself.

Yes i have my flaws but they are greatly out weighed by the hypocrisy on the different levels of government.

If i have single store where i sell things then i should be able to sell what i want to who i want but if i have multiple stores operating on a greater level then i should be bound by fairness to all in my policies because when growing i am also removing competition. That is how i feel and in some states my belief is held up and in others it is not.

now in this case it really does not matter because the purchase in question was attempted 4 days before store policy was implemented. Neither of our opinions really matter past that point.

a reply to: howtonhawky

.... if i have multiple stores operating on a greater level then i should be bound by fairnes...
... That is how i feel.

awesome! what you have just stated and your manner in stating it is quite a bit different than your previous approach. earlier you were making these points as though they are established mandates and legal structures, which they are not. you now are saying that they are what you FEEL would be appropriate. this is great with me and in fact i might agree.

honestly, i just dont want you sitting on the other side of the monitor making a fool of yourself. on your thread a couple weeks ago about the dick's employee that quit, people were joking about you eating Tide Pods because you were not seeming to understand the arguments being presented to you (the exact same ones i pointed out in my above post).

again, not trying to be a prick. most people round here (DBCowboy, neo, others...) are so lost in their faulty arguments that i only rarely respond to anyone in any thread, ever. but like i said you seem like a swell guy. i just think you would be better off being honest about your relationship to the information (ie. call feelings, feelings).


see you round

dkp

a reply to: tgidkp

this case will win because of the previous 4 day purchase before the ban

cyaround

peace out

ps
on certain levels we all eat tide pods

Okay, so does the interstate commerce clause destroy the 2nd Amendment? One part cannot destroy another. Shall not infringe is intact. And BTW, the misconstrued interstate commerce clause is the 'go to' for federal over reach. Regulate means to make regular. That's it. A gun being sold in one state to someone in that state only has anything to do with interstate commerce in the minds of perverts. Perverts love perverted law.
If you are charged with a crime within a state, where are you to have the trial? In the jurisdiction of that state or in another jurisdiction? Might want to read up on the constitution again. Federal jurisdiction does not equal federal jurisdiction.

18 U.S. Code § 7 - Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States defined

So there above there is a conjunction 'and' in that title. Do you know what a conjunction is? It joins two subjects. Those two things are 'Special Maritime' AND 'territorial jurisdiction'. Your post ignores 'and territorial jurisdiction'. I hope this helps clear up your confusion.

a reply to: F4guy

a reply to: howtonhawky

If only McDonalds refused to sell Big Macs because they cause obesity and death.

originally posted by: craterman
Okay, so does the interstate commerce clause destroy the 2nd Amendment? One part cannot destroy another. Shall not infringe is intact. And BTW, the misconstrued interstate commerce clause is the 'go to' for federal over reach. Regulate means to make regular. That's it. A gun being sold in one state to someone in that state only has anything to do with interstate commerce in the minds of perverts. Perverts love perverted law.
If you are charged with a crime within a state, where are you to have the trial? In the jurisdiction of that state or in another jurisdiction? Might want to read up on the constitution again. Federal jurisdiction does not equal federal jurisdiction.

18 U.S. Code § 7 - Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States defined

So there above there is a conjunction 'and' in that title. Do you know what a conjunction is? It joins two subjects. Those two things are 'Special Maritime' AND 'territorial jurisdiction'. Your post ignores 'and territorial jurisdiction'. I hope this helps clear up your confusion.

a reply to: F4guy

Your post puts me in the mind of the times when I was a judge and had to read brief submitted by non-lawyers who tried, usually very unsuccessfully, to represent themselves, and it's not a pleasant remembrance. They were usually unsuccessful not because they were evil or stupid. They were simply untrained and ignorant of the huge morass called "The Law,You write that, "Federal jurisdiction does not equal federal jurisdiction." Huh? what does it equal? Unicorn jurisdiction? Mayberry, North Carolina jurisdiction?
I hate to tell you, but a federal statute means more than the few words in the title. If you actually read more of the statute than the title, you will see that the "territorial jurisdiction" it refers to water, boats, airplanes, overseas military land, and (I am not kidding about this) piles of bird #. See subsection 4. The law calls it "deposits of guano," but that means bird #. And as regards the impact of firearms on interstate commerce, may I remind you that Oregon is not big in the gun manufacturing business. If it is a Remington, Marlin, or AAC it is shipped from New York, Kentucky, North Carolina, or Arkansas. If a Colt, it comes from Connecticut. If a Kimber, it's shipped from NY. Who knows where Bushmasters are made now, since it filed bankruptcy and was bought by Dyke, who then sold out to Cerberus' Freedom Group, who then shut down the Maine facility and tried to sell Bushmaster and couldn't. Nobody wanted it. Bushmaster still has a phone number in NC, but who knows if anyone is still there to answer it. The guns formerly known as Armalite are now shipped from plants in Illinois, Arizona, and Oklahoma. For a pretty good overview of firearms and the commerce clause, take a look at fas.org...

Federal law prohibits discriminating based on race, color, religion or national origin.

In Nevada, where you can do just about anything, their discrimination laws cover race, color, religion, national origin, disability, sexual orientation, sex, gender identity and expression.

Nowhere does it cover discrimination by age. So it's very different than the wedding cake scenario. There are also already multiple states where you need to be 21, and heck.. a gift store in a mall near where I live sells a ton of replica swords and weapons.. and you must be 21 to buy one. OMG.. someone should SUE THEM RIGHT NOW!

a reply to: notsure1

A 20 year old suing is just ridiculous by the time it goes to trial he will be able to buy one from either place.

After the trial he won't have the money to buy a gun because his lawyer will take it all.

(I am not kidding about this) piles of bird #.

That's bat ####. For gun powder. But, who writes laws for DC and the territories of the United States? Who writes laws for the states? Does congress possess the same legislative power over the states as it does DC and the territories? The answer to the last question is absolutely not, and not even close. There are many cases where crimes committed on federal government controlled land (including military bases) and even Navy warships, where the federal government had no jurisdiction (territorial) because the land and jurisdiction was never ceded by the state, or the ship was within the territorial jurisdiction of the state. Now, how do you explain that a federal crime could not be prosecuted by the federal government and was handed back to the state for prosecution? Congresses ability to make law does not give the executive any expanded territorial jurisdiction to prosecute that law. It is up to the state to prosecute it. This is well demonstrated in the Ordinance of 1787 and 1789 as it explains the method of collecting direct taxes upon new states, just as the prior states. The federal government makes the law and the states enforce the law. Granted, all law, including God's law is perverted by men for his own benefit. a reply to: F4guy

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
a reply to: howtonhawky

If only McDonalds refused to sell Big Macs because they cause obesity and death.

Well if states keep superseding the constitution then they will be able to do just that while people stand around arguing that it is legal and that one who uses the constitution to defend the rights of the consumer is wrong.

originally posted by: craterman
(I am not kidding about this) piles of bird #.

That's bat ####. For gun powder. But, who writes laws for DC and the territories of the United States? Who writes laws for the states? Does congress possess the same legislative power over the states as it does DC and the territories? The answer to the last question is absolutely not, and not even close. There are many cases where crimes committed on federal government controlled land (including military bases) and even Navy warships, where the federal government had no jurisdiction (territorial) because the land and jurisdiction was never ceded by the state, or the ship was within the territorial jurisdiction of the state. Now, how do you explain that a federal crime could not be prosecuted by the federal government and was handed back to the state for prosecution? Congresses ability to make law does not give the executive any expanded territorial jurisdiction to prosecute that law. It is up to the state to prosecute it. This is well demonstrated in the Ordinance of 1787 and 1789 as it explains the method of collecting direct taxes upon new states, just as the prior states. The federal government makes the law and the states enforce the law. Granted, all law, including God's law is perverted by men for his own benefit. a reply to: F4guy

I don't quite know where to start. First, the Ordinance of 1787 was passed by the Continental Congress, since the US Congress didn't exist yet. Let's do a little tutorial on Constitutional law. You say, "The federal government makes the law and the states enforce the law." In fact, the federal government makes federal law under Article I, Section 7 of the USC. By virtue of Aticle II, the Executive branch of the federal government (which includes the FBI, DEA, ATF, and all other police forces of the Executive) executes and enforces those laws. There are some cases where the feds defer prosecution of crimes to state courts. That usually happens when the same act is a crime under both state and federal law, like murder, but when the state penalty in the particular circumstance, is more severe. An example would be California's notorious "three strikes" law where the state can impose an "El-wop" (life without parole, but the feds would be limited to the penalty in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. Under no circumstances does the federal government lose jurisdiction of a federal crime. They can voluntarily nol pros in favor of a state prosecution, but that is a decision the feds make. And the feds don't "make laws for the states" as you seem to suggest. They make laws for the country. The states have their own legislatures and executive branches to do that. Now, under Article III, the Supreme Court can decide the law in disputes between the states. But that's it.
Now, the above relates mainly to criminal cases. With civil cases there is a whole complicated body of law relating to the abatement of duplicative cases for various reasons. There is a very good Chicago Law Journal article covering this at chicagounbound.uchicago.edu...://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=3918&context=uclrev.

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

ITts not punishing, it's protecting everyone else. They don't have to sell to him and it's stupid and immoral IMO for anyone to sell guns to young people.

"I don't quite know where to start. First, the Ordinance of 1787 was passed by the Continental Congress,"

Had to stop there. You didn't even read my post. I said Ordinance of 1787 and 1789. They are pretty much word for word and the congress re-passed the law under the constitution to MAKE DAMN SURE EVERYONE KNEW IT WAS THE LAW. But apparently many dimwits think otherwise. READ MY POST AND THEN COMMENT. If you would like.

a reply to: F4guy

a reply to: Nyiah

No, you're taking those posters wrong. Normally, those same folks would be in total agreement that the businesses have the right to deny service--in this case, selling a gun--to whomever they wished. BUT, since the bakery case did happen and the bakers were told they could not refuse service, that set a new precedent. And under that new precedent this just shouldn't be allowable...because the only difference is that the business is discriminating on age rather than sexual orientation. They're simply saying if the bakery case is an example of how we apply the law, then it must be applied the same way across the board and we can't pick and choose.

Edit to add: after reading the back-and-forth on the definition of "precedent" on the previous pages, I want to clarify that I didn't necessarily mean actual legal precedent, since the bakery case is still making its way through the courts.

originally posted by: riiver
a reply to: Nyiah

No, you're taking those posters wrong. Normally, those same folks would be in total agreement that the businesses have the right to deny service--in this case, selling a gun--to whomever they wished. BUT, since the bakery case did happen and the bakers were told they could not refuse service, that set a new precedent. And under that new precedent this just shouldn't be allowable...because the only difference is that the business is discriminating on age rather than sexual orientation. They're simply saying if the bakery case is an example of how we apply the law, then it must be applied the same way across the board and we can't pick and choose.

Edit to add: after reading the back-and-forth on the definition of "precedent" on the previous pages, I want to clarify that I didn't necessarily mean actual legal precedent, since the bakery case is still making its way through the courts.

Anti discrimination law relate to a specific characteristics. So in federal law its illegal discriminate who you sell to based on race or sexual, orientation but not based on height or indeed age.

There is a specific state law of age discrimination that could apply here, however that is unrelated to the bakery case.