Rifle Purchase and Age Discrimination

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • motorcoachdoug

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    And the fight begins. With the liberal left leaving Cali and traveling north into Oregon and Washington, ruining two very beautiful and wonderful states,they have brought their leftest agenda with them and courts their becoming like the Cali courts as well. We should build the wall around Cali and let it go back to Mexico or fall on its own...
     

    cms1528

    Active Member
    Feb 26, 2013
    802
    A concern that I have about an 18-20 year old pushing the age issue in court, is that Walmart or Dicks may just stop selling guns & ammo completely.

    You're correct this is always a possibility, please don't be offended when I say this it's not aimed toward you in a negative manner, I just think that taking a stand for the rights of gun owners and potential gun owners out weighs the benefits of a simple bargain.

    I just bought a .22 for my son at Walmart for a great price, so yes that is a nice option. Let Walmart and Dick's pull their firearm sales, so what. The brick and mortar gun shop really should be our go to place for most things and their disappearing more and more. I have to remind my little boy when we walk into to the Mt. Airy Gun Shack to look around and take it all in because one day it will likely be gone.

    I like you and everyone else enjoys saving a penny but at the cost of letting a knee jerk liberal reaction to a political issue trample over our legal rights is absolutely a no go for me.

    Soccer moms will still buy their yoga paraphernalia at Dick's and their laundry detergent at Walmart. I imagine firearm sales at Dick's isn't that significant for them as well.

    Walmart has been long known for pushing the small mom and pop stores out of business merely by the shear volume of their size and inventory. Maybe if more people, and this isn't that realistic, were to start taking their sporting needs back to the smaller retailer they would have a chance to grow stronger in an economic market too and maybe giving us, the consumer, a chance at a bargain every once in awhile.
     

    danb

    dont be a dumbass
    Feb 24, 2013
    22,704
    google is your friend, I am not.

    Oregon case looks like a winner - Volokh

    http://reason.com/volokh/2018/03/06/age-discrimination-suit-against-dicks-sp

    Age Discrimination Suit Against Dick's Sporting Goods for Refusing to Sell Rifle to 20-Year-Old
    Oregon law generally bans discrimination in selling goods based on age, so this lawsuit looks like a winner.

    Keep in mind this lawsuit is based on age discrimination laws. Not 2nd Amendment grounds. Oregon could always carve out an exception, which may or may not be overturned on 2nd amendment grounds. Its the 9th, so dont hold your breath.
     

    frogman68

    товарищ плачевная
    Apr 7, 2013
    8,774
    My hope is with FL causing a split that SCOTUS will have to take

    SCOTUS doesn't have to take anything...that is a huge problem...SCOTUS should be compelled by law to hear any challenge to anything in the bill of rights with no ability to turn them back...in fact, I believe any state challenge to any of the first 10 amendments should have to go directly to SCOTUS instead of a circuit court of appeals. Right now you have some states that enjoy their 2A rights and some states where the 2A is on life support...We are suppose to all be equal under the law, we certainly are not...and it's mostly because some activist judges don't believe the 2A applies to civilian gun ownership, even though the SCOTUS has ruled otherwise..
     

    danb

    dont be a dumbass
    Feb 24, 2013
    22,704
    google is your friend, I am not.
    SCOTUS doesn't have to take anything...that is a huge problem...SCOTUS should be compelled by law to hear any challenge to anything in the bill of rights with no ability to turn them back...in fact, I believe any state challenge to any of the first 10 amendments should have to go directly to SCOTUS instead of a circuit court of appeals. Right now you have some states that enjoy their 2A rights and some states where the 2A is on life support...We are suppose to all be equal under the law, we certainly are not...and it's mostly because some activist judges don't believe the 2A applies to civilian gun ownership, even though the SCOTUS has ruled otherwise..

    No. What if they took the case and it was revealed Roberts was anti-gun and ruled with the liberals? Just because they take a case does not mean they rule in favor!

    If SCOTUS were forced to take a case, then they could be forced to make a bad ruling that hurts us more.

    Sometimes the answer is "if you cannot say something nice, dont say anything at all." I'd rather that the Supreme Court said nothing, than say something bad about the 2nd amendment.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    275,428
    Messages
    7,281,380
    Members
    33,452
    Latest member
    J_Gunslinger

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom