Oregon: 20-year-old sues Dicks and Wally-mart

[Absalom]

A 20-year-old sues Dick's and Walmart because they wouldn't sell him a rifle - CNN

Here we go.

This should be interesting. Oregon has a liberal reputation, but those of us who live here know it is much more complicated than that, especially when it comes to quirky court decisions.

 

[robertrwalsh]

Unless he is in a protected class I doubt he will have much luck, but I wouldn't bet on it. I hear Oregon is almost as strange as CA in many respects.

 

[eveled]

Discrimination is discrimination. What is this list of protected classes you speak of. We are all supposed to be equal.

 

[kwselke]

Walmart and Dick's will probably just quit selling guns altogether if pushed hard enough.

 

[Watchdog]

Here we go.

This should be interesting.

I hate to say it, but I don't see it as all that interesting. Or maybe it's interesting at a low level, I don't know. I don't really see it as having much, if any, chance of success. It might generate attention to the issue, but that's all. I doubt it will take long to be resolved, unless the plaintiff just keeps filing appeal after appeal.

It actually seems somewhat frivolous to me, similar to a 20-year-old suing a package store for refusing to sell him liquor.

 

[JH1951]

Have we not been supporting the rights of retailers that exercise their rights to not sell, or not be forced to sell, to people that they do not want to sell to? An incident with a bakery comes to mind.
In my neck of the woods, house rules apply. As an example, the owner of an establishment reserves the right to ban firearms from their establishment. We have the full right to go elsewhere.
I am playing devil's advocate here, as I do not support what these retailers have done, but I've been wrestling with the issue and come up with the thought above. It is their prerogative to do as they choose, and it is mine/ours to patronize or not. Sounds like a fair trade to me.

 

[desi2358]

I hate to say it, but I don't see it as all that interesting. Or maybe it's interesting at a low level, I don't know. I don't really see it as having much, if any, chance of success. It might generate attention to the issue, but that's all. I doubt it will take long to be resolved, unless the plaintiff just keeps filing appeal after appeal.

It actually seems somewhat frivolous to me, similar to a 20-year-old suing a package store for refusing to sell him liquor.

I would agree that he doesn't have much chance of success. though there is one key difference, most (if not all) states regulate liquor sales to 21 and up. Other than some proposed laws I am not aware of any such current state restrictions on long gun sales and federal law still makes 18 and up the legal standard. Getting a judge to agree with him is the problem

 

[Chuck24]

If he were really interested in a rifle and not his 15 minutes, he should go support a lgs.

 

[SC_Mike]

He could always buy one in the street or back alley.

 

[LoboGunLeather]

Discrimination is discrimination. What is this list of protected classes you speak of. We are all supposed to be equal.

Unfortunately, that is not really the case. Anyone who has studied the history of civil rights legislation and litigation knows that everything revolves around the creation of protected classes of people, and unless a particular defendant is a member of a recognized class there is little protection under the law.

 

[rwsmith]

In this state.....

I hate to say it, but I don't see it as all that interesting. Or maybe it's interesting at a low level, I don't know. I don't really see it as having much, if any, chance of success. It might generate attention to the issue, but that's all. I doubt it will take long to be resolved, unless the plaintiff just keeps filing appeal after appeal.

It actually seems somewhat frivolous to me, similar to a 20-year-old suing a package store for refusing to sell him liquor.

20 year olds are allowed to buy rifles and shotguns, but no handguns.

 

[rwsmith]

Well SOMEBODY thinks that it's good.....

Ask your LGS if he likes it that big box stores aren't selling guns, even to legal buyers.

 

[BC38]

It actually seems somewhat frivolous to me, similar to a 20-year-old suing a package store for refusing to sell him liquor.

Nope, not the same at all. It is against the law to sell liquor to anyone under 21.
Last I knew it was not against the law in Oregon to sell someone over 18 but under 21 rifle ammo.
Refusing to sell a legal consumer product to a person who is legally old enough to buy it under the law is age discrimination. It is no less discriminatory than refusing to sell the same product to a person due to the color of their skin.

Have we not been supporting the rights of retailers that exercise their rights to not sell, or not be forced to sell, to people that they do not want to sell to? An incident with a bakery comes to mind.
In my neck of the woods, house rules apply. As an example, the owner of an establishment reserves the right to ban firearms from their establishment. We have the full right to go elsewhere.
I am playing devil's advocate here, as I do not support what these retailers have done, but I've been wrestling with the issue and come up with the thought above. It is their prerogative to do as they choose, and it is mine/ours to patronize or not. Sounds like a fair trade to me.

Also not the same thing, IMO. Declining to provide a service for an event for religious reasons is not the same as discriminating based on age. Freedom of religion is a constitutionally recognized right. Just like the right to keep and bear arms. It's the old YOUR right to swing your arm ends at the tip of MY nose situation. You can't make me violate my religious beliefs to cater your event.

Personally, I hope he wins big.

 

[Bill Bates]

it actually seems somewhat frivolous to me, similar to a 20-year-old suing a package store for refusing to sell him liquor.

It would be more like liquor store or bar refusing to sell or serve to anyone under 25 just because they think people under 25 aren't responsible enough to handle their alcohol. Worse they came to the decision because just one person, out of millions between the age of 21 and 25, got drunk and killed people.

In this case you have a able person looking to make legal purchase and a dealer just because of age is refusing to serve them. That is straight up age discrimination

 

[Watchdog]

20 year olds are allowed to buy rifles and shotguns, but no handguns.

So? I'm familiar with age requirements and laws for purchasing firearms, and that includes shotguns and rifles.

The 20-year-old isn't suing over a law. He's suing two corporate entities over their business decision. In effect, he's suing in an effort to negate their right to run their privately owned businesses as they see fit, and he's basing that lawsuit on the really hard to prove idea of age discrimination.

In my opinion, his lawsuit is baseless and has little or no chance of success.

 

[Rule3]

Oregon is a State that has a STATE Non discrimination law in a place of public accommodation.

AGE is one of them unlike other Federal laws

So he may have a case based on State law not Federal

ORS 659A.403 - Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited - 2015 Oregon Revised Statutes

http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/state-public-accommodation-laws.aspx

For what its worth.

Age Discrimination Suit Against Dick's Sporting Goods and Walmart for Refusing to Sell Rifle to 20-Year-Old - Volokh Conspiracy : Reason.com

Can Gun Stores Refuse to Sell Rifles and Shotguns to Under-21-Year-Olds? - Volokh Conspiracy : Reason.com

But I am not a lawyer nor played one on the Internet, I will let the "experts" debate it all.

 

[Cardboard_killer]

In my opinion, his lawsuit is baseless and has little or no chance of success.

Pretty much it. Even if he won it would be under Oregon law. And even if he won, it might simply cause the stores to stop selling firearms to EVERYONE. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

Of course, he might be trying to drive the stores from the firearms business. Anyone know who's funding him?

 

[Watchdog]

It would be more like liquor store or bar refusing to sell or serve to anyone under 25 just because they think people under 25 aren't responsible enough to handle their alcohol. Worse they came to the decision because just one person, out of millions between the age of 21 and 25, got drunk and killed people.

Well, you say it could be "more like" one thing. I say it could be "more like" something else. Someone else could come along and make another comparison to something entirely different. It's turned into a pointless discussion, far as I'm concerned.

In this case you have a able person looking to make legal purchase and a dealer just because of age is refusing to serve them. That is straight up age discrimination

Does the expression "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" ring any bells with you?

And who's to say he's "able" or not? All I've seen written about him is his age and name and where he lives.

There have been instances of gun stores refusing to sell a firearm (of any type) to people because the potential purchaser wasn't acting right or didn't look right. And they were entirely within their rights to do so.

This whole debate could, and probably will, go on and on until everyone's sick of it. I'm a bit tired of it, myself, and I can't find anything more recent in national media than two days ago that even talks about this any more. Tyler Watson's fifteen minutes of fame are pretty much over.

His suit will have to be heard, of course, according to law. What may end up happening is the Oregon legislature will get involved and change the current state law and will prohibit anyone under the age of 21 from buying any kind of rifle or shotgun. And Oregon residents will have little Tyler to thank for it.

If this crybaby wants his Ruger .22 rifle, let him go buy it somewhere else other than Dick's or Walmart. Or buy it online. Surely there's an LGS somewhere nearby that'll sell the guy a rifle. I'd sell him one just to get him and his attorney to shut up.

 

[Golddollar]

I just found an interesting wrinkle in this discussion. Look up the blog for the Prince Law Office in Bechtelsville, PA. A subsidiary of the law firm is dedicated to firearms law. An article by its chief counsel suggests that the refusal of Walmart and Dick's to sell long arms to 18-20 year olds may constitute a violation of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. It would take a search of the law in each state to determine if there is a similar statute to base a lawsuit on but at least it's a starting point.

 

[Rule3]

Well, you say it could be "more like" one thing. I say it could be "more like" something else. Someone else could come along and make another comparison to something entirely different. It's turned into a pointless discussion, far as I'm concerned.



Does the expression "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" ring any bells with you?

And who's to say he's "able" or not? All I've seen written about him is his age and name and where he lives.

There have been instances of gun stores refusing to sell a firearm (of any type) to people because the potential purchaser wasn't acting right or didn't look right. And they were entirely within their rights to do so.

This whole debate could, and probably will, go on and on until everyone's sick of it. I'm a bit tired of it, myself, and I can't find anything more recent in national media than two days ago that even talks about this any more. Tyler Watson's fifteen minutes of fame are pretty much over.

His suit will have to be heard, of course, according to law. What may end up happening is the Oregon legislature will get involved and change the current state law and will prohibit anyone under the age of 21 from buying any kind of rifle or shotgun. And Oregon residents will have little Tyler to thank for it.

If this crybaby wants his Ruger .22 rifle, let him go buy it somewhere else other than Dick's or Walmart. Or buy it online. Surely there's an LGS somewhere nearby that'll sell the guy a rifle. I'd sell him one just to get him and his attorney to shut up.

Perhaps read the links in my post #16

Apparently "others" think differently

Oregon and other States have "age" in discrimination laws not related to Employment Even Broward County in Florida has such

The alcohol issue is excluded.


) 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;



Yes a FFL can deny a sale based on "spider Senses"

Yes, the the 20 year old will probably be dead and buried before any resolution, but just maybe a precedent?.

If Florida's proposed "act" is passed the 21 age will probably become a standard.

It is more the "challenge"