20-year-old Oregon man sues Dick's Sporting Goods and Walmart over rifle sale restrictions

[Fantine]

This is certainly an example of what our litigious nation has come to.

It's not as if he doesn't have access to these items at gun shows and other places.

Dick's and Walmart could of course end this lawsuit by stopping the sales
of semi-automatic rifles in their stores completely--hence no discrimination. There's nothing in any law that says they have to carry those items.

I certainly wouldn't miss them....the last time I went into the gun aisle was when I had cataract surgery two years ago and someone told me that hunters glasses would be a good way to protect my eyes in the first few days. They were yellow and sort of wrap around.

I have no interest in or use for guns of any kind.

 

[Radagast]

It's not as if he doesn't have access to these items at gun shows and other places.

It's not like they didn't have water fountain access in other places.

 

[Kentonio]

It's not like they didn't have water fountain access in other places.

Did you seriously just try and draw a parallel between an entire race being treated a second class citizens and a store not wanting to sell guns to kids? Despicable.

 

[variant]

Did you seriously just try and draw a parallel between an entire race being treated a second class citizens and a store not wanting to sell guns to kids? Despicable.

That's where the laws we're talking about originate.

 

[bhsmte]

Did you seriously just try and draw a parallel between an entire race being treated a second class citizens and a store not wanting to sell guns to kids? Despicable.

Well, 18 year olds, are considered adults, not kids.

Anyone paying attention, could see this challenge coming. Personally, I have no problem with the law, but I also understand that this could be a legit legal challenge.

 

[Aldebaran]

This is certainly an example of what our litigious nation has come to.

It's not as if he doesn't have access to these items at gun shows and other places.

Dick's and Walmart could of course end this lawsuit by stopping the sales
of semi-automatic rifles in their stores completely--hence no discrimination. There's nothing in any law that says they have to carry those items.

This is exactly the type of logic Christians used in support of bakers who didn't think it was right to sell wedding cakes for homosexual "weddings". The argument against it from Atheists was that not selling wedding cakes for homosexual weddings was similar to not selling anything to black people during the days of segregation.

 

[USincognito]

This is exactly the type of logic Christians used in support of bakers who didn't think it was right to sell wedding cakes for homosexual "weddings". The argument against it from Atheists was that not selling wedding cakes for homosexual weddings was similar to not selling anything to black people during the days of segregation.

Oh spare us this bipolar poppycock. There are were plenty of Christians, Jews, etc. who supported the plaintiffs. Trying to paint that as a Christian vs. atheist (note, you don't need to capitalize it) issue is simply dishonest.

 

[Radagast]

This is exactly the type of logic Christians used in support of bakers who didn't think it was right to sell wedding cakes for homosexual "weddings".

There the issue was that designing a special wedding cake is a creative act. Is selling a gun a creative act?

 

[Rion]

Oh spare us this bipolar poppycock. There are were plenty of Christians, Jews, etc. who supported the plaintiffs. Trying to paint that as a Christian vs. atheist (note, you don't need to capitalize it) issue is simply dishonest.

No, it is actually the same item or concept that the guy is basing his lawsuit under.

 

[Aldebaran]

There the issue was that designing a special wedding cake is a creative act. Is selling a gun a creative act?

No. That's what makes it even more in favor of the person who is 18 years old and wants to buy a firearm that's for sale. If this was put on equal footing with the Christian baker, then the baker would be refusing to sell ANY cake to the homosexuals for their "wedding".

 

[Radagast]

No. That's what makes it even more in favor of the person who is 18 years old and wants to buy a firearm that's for sale.

I think I misunderstood you. Oops.

I note the defences of the store seem to be "age discrimination is perfectly legal." Unfortunately for the store, that doesn't seem to be true in Oregon.

 

[Fantine]

There the issue was that designing a special wedding cake is a creative act. Is selling a gun a creative act?

Au contraire. It is a potentially destructive act when that gun is sold to the wrong person.

 

[Radagast]

Au contraire. It is a potentially destructive act when that gun is sold to the wrong person.

But does the store get to decide who the wrong person is? Isn't that up to state or federal governments?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I don't see how he could win...

There's a big difference between a state making a law, and a private store making a rule that they apply consistently.

Also, the constitution isn't specific on age limits for firearm ownership. If it were a case where 2A stated "The right of, of all citizens over 18, to bear arms shall not be infringed", and the state government was attempting to set the age to 21, then there could be a valid 14th amendment challenge to such a law.

 

[TLK Valentine]

No. That's what makes it even more in favor of the person who is 18 years old and wants to buy a firearm that's for sale. If this was put on equal footing with the Christian baker, then the baker would be refusing to sell ANY cake to the homosexuals for their "wedding".

Except that Dick's sporting goods sells more than just firearms. A 20 year old can still purchase almost anything else from Dick's stock.

 

[Rion]

I don't see how he could win...

There's a big difference between a state making a law, and a private store making a rule that they apply consistently.

Also, the constitution isn't specific on age limits for firearm ownership. If it were a case where 2A stated "The right of, of all citizens over 18, to bear arms shall not be infringed", and the state government was attempting to set the age to 21, then there could be a valid 14th amendment challenge to such a law.

The law itself is most likely unconstitutional. The era of Cruikshank is dead and gone.

 

[Arcangl86]

I don't see how he could win...

There's a big difference between a state making a law, and a private store making a rule that they apply consistently.

Also, the constitution isn't specific on age limits for firearm ownership. If it were a case where 2A stated "The right of, of all citizens over 18, to bear arms shall not be infringed", and the state government was attempting to set the age to 21, then there could be a valid 14th amendment challenge to such a law.

Except he's not making a 2A argument. He's basing his argument on Oregon civil rights law which actual forbids age discrimination. It appears he actually has a pretty good case.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The law itself is most likely unconstitutional. The era of Cruikshank is dead and gone.

But suppose we're not talking about the law -- we're talking about the business policies of Dick's Sporting Goods. How does Cruikshank not apply to them?

 

[Rion]

But suppose we're not talking about the law -- we're talking about the business policies of Dick's Sporting Goods. How does Cruikshank not apply to them?

For the same reason that you support "bake the cake." It is a discrimination based upon physical characteristics which do not affect his ability to operate the weapon safely, and he is a legal adult.

 

[TLK Valentine]

For the same reason that you support "bake the cake." It is a discrimination based upon physical characteristics which do not affect his ability to operate the weapon safely, and he is a legal adult.

fair enough.