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

[Aldebaran]

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.

What do you suggest? Buying a golf club for home defense, or a catcher's mitt for deer hunting?

 

[Snappy1]

What do you suggest? Buying a golf club for home defense, or a catcher's mitt for deer hunting?

A bat not a golf club, don't be silly. And a bow for hunting is always an option.

 

[Aldebaran]

A bat not a golf club, don't be silly. And a bow for hunting is always an option.

Yet the item the person wants to buy is a firearm for both purposes and is being told they can't because they aren't 21 years old yet, even though federal law says you're allowed to buy at age 18.
Hey, if they can restrict people from buying something due to an age that they got to make up for themselves, they can restrict them based on other things as well.

 

[Rion]

A bat not a golf club, don't be silly. And a bow for hunting is always an option.

What about a scenario where the husband is 22, and the wife is 20. Would it be illegal for her to use it in self defense if he's not there?

 

[Snappy1]

What about a scenario where the husband is 22, and the wife is 20. Would it be illegal for her to use it in self defense if he's not there?

Uh....no? I keep getting a lot of weird questions lately.

 

[Aldebaran]

Uh....no? I keep getting a lot of weird questions lately.

But in the case Rion was proposing, that would be similar to a "Straw purchase" where they guy who was over the age to buy a gun and bought it for his "underage" wife to use. Just another law to get in the way of common sense.

 

[Snappy1]

But in the case Rion was proposing, that would be similar to a "Straw purchase" where they guy who was over the age to buy a gun and bought it for his "underage" wife to use. Just another law to get in the way of common sense.

If we're talking about laws now and not dicks then we can do it in the thread that covers that subject.

 

[Aldebaran]

If we're talking about laws now and not dicks then we can do it in the thread that covers that subject.

Ok. Then Dick's is basically making up its own laws by not selling something to people who are legally qualified to buy it. Federal law says a person needs to be 18 to purchase a long gun. Dick's is saying that if you're 18-20 years old, they will refuse to sell them what they're legally able to buy.

 

[Snappy1]

Ok. Then Dick's is basically making up its own laws by not selling something to people who are legally qualified to buy it. Federal law says a person needs to be 18 to purchase a long gun. Dick's is saying that if you're 18-20 years old, they will refuse to sell them what they're legally able to buy.

Yeah that's an accurate summation of the events.

 

[Aldebaran]

Yeah that's an accurate summation of the events.

It would seem that it opens up the door to legal action against them if they change the age that a person is able to buy something. I'm sure there would be a big uproar if certain bars were to have an alcohol policy to not serve anyone under the age of 24 instead of age 21, or liquor stores that wouldn't sell to anyone under 24.

 

[Snappy1]

It would seem that it opens up the door to legal action against them if they change the age that a person is able to buy something. I'm sure there would be a big uproar if certain bars were to have an alcohol policy to not serve anyone under the age of 24 instead of age 21, or liquor stores that wouldn't sell to anyone under 24.

It's definitely interesting. As I said on the first page of this thread.

 

[Aldebaran]

It's definitely interesting. As I said on the first page of this thread.

I was about to say, "Let's see if anyone ends up suing them", and then I googled the subject to find out. There seems to be 2 people already doing it.
18-year-old Battle Creek man suing Dick's Sporting Goods over gun policy

20-year-old sues Dick’s Sporting Goods, Walmart over new gun policies

 

[TLK Valentine]

What do you suggest? Buying a golf club for home defense, or a catcher's mitt for deer hunting?

Maybe sporting goods aren't the best choice for home defense? Just saying, the guy would probably fare better with a handgun.... and I don't think Dick's sells those.

 

[Aldebaran]

Maybe sporting goods aren't the best choice for home defense? Just saying, the guy would probably fare better with a handgun.... and I don't think Dick's sells those.

It all depends on what's right for each person. In California, handguns have a registration requirement. A shotgun or rifle might also cost less. Also, a person might be a hunter, which means they'd need a shotgun or rifle for more than one purpose. Handguns are more specialized in purpose, and are also harder to shoot well with.

 

[TLK Valentine]

It all depends on what's right for each person. In California, handguns have a registration requirement. A shotgun or rifle might also cost less.

Both of which go a long way in explaining why rifles are the weapon of choice among mass-shooting maniacs. Perhaps we should consider registering them?

 

[Aldebaran]

Both of which go a long way in explaining why rifles are the weapon of choice among mass-shooting maniacs. Perhaps we should consider registering them?

It used to be that the handgun was the weapon of choice due to their ability to be easily hidden. Remember when Reagan was shot and then the handgun became the villian? That's when Sarah Brady started her big campaign against handguns.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

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.

I'd have to read their specific law on this one because if it's as vague as some folks are making it sound, couldn't a 12 year old sue for not being allowed to drive a car at that point?

Certainly there have to be exemptions for certain things, otherwise anyone could technically sue for anything that currently has an age limit on it.

 

[Arcangl86]

I'd have to read their specific law on this one because if it's as vague as some folks are making it sound, couldn't a 12 year old sue for not being allowed to drive a car at that point?

Certainly there have to be exemptions for certain things, otherwise anyone could technically sue for anything that currently has an age limit on it.

I can't find the law itself, but the Bureau of Labor and Industries whom is responsible for enforcing civil rights law in Oregon has the following to say about public accommodations.

Discrimination in Public Accommodation
A place of public accommodation is defined in state law as any place that offers the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges, whether in the nature of goods, services, lodging, amusements or otherwise. It is illegal to discriminate in places of public accommodation on the basis of race, sex (including pregnancy), sexual orientation, national origin, religion, marital status, physical or mental disability, or age (18 years of age and older).

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I can't find the law itself, but the Bureau of Labor and Industries whom is responsible for enforcing civil rights law in Oregon has the following to say about public accommodations.

Discrimination in Public Accommodation
A place of public accommodation is defined in state law as any place that offers the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges, whether in the nature of goods, services, lodging, amusements or otherwise. It is illegal to discriminate in places of public accommodation on the basis of race, sex (including pregnancy), sexual orientation, national origin, religion, marital status, physical or mental disability, or age (18 years of age and older).

What's interesting about that is that nobody has made a challenge to the drinking age.

 

[Arcangl86]

What's interesting about that is that nobody has made a challenge to the drinking age.

I considered that as well and I wonder if the actual law which I can't find makes a carve out specifically for that. It's what I would do. But without knowing the name of the law I can't find it.

ETA:

Found it.

659A.403 Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is of age, as described in this section, or older.

(2) Subsection (1) of this section does not prohibit:

(a) The enforcement of laws governing the consumption of alcoholic beverages by minors and the frequenting by minors of places of public accommodation where alcoholic beverages are served;

(b) The enforcement of laws governing the use of marijuana items, as defined in ORS 475B.015, by persons under 21 years of age and the frequenting by persons under 21 years of age of places of public accommodation where marijuana items are sold; or

(c) The offering of special rates or services to persons 50 years of age or older.

(3) It is an unlawful practice for any person to deny full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation in violation of this section. [Formerly 30.670; 2003 c.521 §1; 2005 c.131 §1; 2007 c.100 §5; 2015 c.614 §27]

Also I should have said this earlier, but I can't imagine any half way competent attorney taking on a corporation as large as Dicks if they didn't think they had a really good chance of winning.