20 year old sues Dicks and Wal-Mart

[CoGirl303]

He'a suing them on the basis of age discrimination and citing Oregon laws that prevent this. Interested to see where this goes. Looks like Dicks and Wal-Mart have their hands full.

I was looking at this before from a 2A point of view that as long as they didn't sell firearms or ammo to an age lower than what Federal law requires, which is 21 for handguns and 18 for shotguns/rifles and ammo, so it wouldn't be a violation of his 2nd Amendment rights but I never considered states having an age discrimination policy, which many states do. Clever lawsuit. I hope he wins.

Of course Wal-Mart and Dicks will probably just turn around and end all their gun/ammo sales period if they lose. [emoji849]


http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/03/05/oregon-20-year-old-sues-dicks-sporting-goods-refusing-sell-rifle/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GeorgeandSugar]

It was bound to happen. A knee-jerk reaction on the part of Walmart and Dick’s was silly. A strong statement of support for the 2A would have had a bigger impact and would have shown some backbone and leadership. Moreover, had they stated the epic failures of government, the focus could have been redirected to the real reason for this tragedy.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[spqrzilla]

foxtrot, its not in Federal court.

[BushMasterBoy]

Depends on the judge every time. If he claims he needs the rifle to protect his garden and feed his family, he will most likely win. I have acted as my own attorney in cases against the state and federal government and have won every time. The right to keep and bear arms is governed by law and not corporate policy. I was at a Dick's store tonight and the prices were exorbitant. When I was 13 I used to walk around England with a shotgun. My, the times have changed! William Shakespeare was right!

[RblDiver]

I totally called it! Any judge that rules that it's not discrimination will have to pull a Roberts interpretation from their posterior.

If you have to bake a cake, you have to sell the gun.

[kpp80202]

I’ve never heard of age as being a protected class in anything other than employment. (Unlike other classes, like gender, race, etc.) weird.

[MarkCO]

I have no clue if you are right or wrong foxtrot, but it still irks me when doing the right thing is discouraged by an officer of the court while so many frivolous lawsuits occur. As another friend says..."Never mistake the US Legal System for a Justice System."

[BushMasterBoy]

Foxtrot is right, it doesn't look too sympathetic.

[RblDiver]

How do you figure? It seems pretty cut and dry to me. From https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/659A.403

2015 ORS 659A.403¹
Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited
Text
News
Annotations
Related Statutes
(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 (Definitions for ORS 475B.010 to 475B.395), 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]

[CoGirl303]

http://www.oregon.gov/boli/CRD/pages/c_crprotoc.aspx

http://www.oregon.gov/boli/TA/docs/Protected_Classes.pdf

Foxtrot is probably right, as it appears age discrimimation applies to hiring practices in the employment sector and not sale of products.

I guess this wouldnt be any different (in the eyes of the law) than not selling alcohol to someone that was already inebriated or in a poor mental/emptional state of mind.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Gman]

http://www.oregon.gov/boli/CRD/pages/c_crprotoc.aspx

http://www.oregon.gov/boli/TA/docs/Protected_Classes.pdf

Foxtrot is probably right, as it appears age discrimimation applies to hiring practices in the employment sector and not sale of products.

I guess this wouldnt be any different (in the eyes of the law) than not selling alcohol to someone that was already inebriated or in a poor mental/emptional state of mind.




Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkWe are born with rights. At what point in someone's life does the Constitutional protection of those rights not apply to a natural born citizen? For example, are you not free to speak your mind or choose which religion you want to practice until you're 21?

Sent from my SM-T700 using Tapatalk

[RblDiver]

Foxtrot is probably right, as it appears age discrimimation applies to hiring practices in the employment sector and not sale of products.

Look at the link I had, it's for "Public Accommodation" law rather than employment discrimination. Age is a protected class pretty much anywhere in terms of employment, but for sales, that's public accommodation, which only certain states have age as a protected class (of which Oregon is one, CO is not).

[CoGirl303]

We are born with rights. At what point in someone's life does the Constitutional protection of those rights not apply to a natural born citizen? For example, are you not free to speak your mind or choose which religion you want to practice until you're 21?

Sent from my SM-T700 using Tapatalk


Look at the link I had, it's for "Public Accommodation" law rather than employment discrimination. Age is a protected class pretty much anywhere in terms of employment, but for sales, that's public accommodation, which only certain states have age as a protected class (of which Oregon is one, CO is not).

Not disagreeing with either of you, but as Foxtrot points out, logic and reasoning and applying the law, rather than a political or personal bias or an opinion no longer hold weight in a courtroom. Some libtard judge will do as he/she damn well pleases, the law and his/her duties to uphold it be damned.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ben4372]

I know its a bit out there, and may not make business sense. What would happen if a store made the age something more arbitrary, like age 24? Or 29? The thing the plaintiff has on his side is Oregonians might hate Walmart as much as guns. On the other hand the do like Dick's.