Posted on 03/02/2018 7:24:48 PM PST by Rebelbase
You said “age discrimination” in the context of it being applicable across the board. It isn’t. It’s only applicable as a matter of STATE law in those minority of jurisdictions that recognize such a claim.
My responses were focused on your apparent belief that:
1. There is a cause of action for violation of “federal law” or the Constitution.
2. That one can sue for the third party criminal acts of another.
You seem to think that you can sue for “damages” in addition to age discrimination. You can’t. I already explained it to you. Absent very narrow exceptions, a party is not liable for a third party criminal act. So, since you are the authority on this, cite me a case in which a court imposed liability on a retailer for failure to sell a self defense item to a customer, and then a criminal act was committed against that customer.
I’ll be waiting.
My position in this thread and others on the same subject is not only could these retailers be sued but that they certainly would be. I said they were committing age discrimination and in addition if someone that they discriminate against gets hurt they will get sued for damages as well. I will add these retailers in my opinion would be in there best interest to drop there political virtue signaling and either sell guns and other products to anyone who is legal to buy them or get out of the business all together. Anything else for them is going to be nothing but trouble and more trouble.
I think you are confusing letter of the law and spirit of the law. It is the latter that signaled to me that these companies were putting themselves in legal jeopardy and they certainly are.
First person that gets denied a constitution right without due process and suffers an impact (pain and suffering) due to these virtue signaling BS will own these companies.
Think - walk into a business and be denied service outside of legal restrictions, have documented damages due to non service, then company is lispable for discrimination and the impacts. Jackpot!!!!!!
You are incorrect. Reread what I posed. I’ll walk you through it read slow.
In post 18, I said there would “legally be no basis for a suit in such a situation.” The situation being that a third party criminal act causing liability for a Store that refused to sale a product. I specifically pointed out the problems with “duty, breach and causation” in your hypothetical.
In post 75, “There are not any States that make gun owners a protected class under public accommodation laws. Only a handful of States provide such protections for age and most do not apply those to 21 year olds.”
I never said that there were not ANY States in which an age discrimination claim wouldn’t work. I was pointing out your mistaken hypothetical as it relates to a federal or Constitutional cause of action.
I’m still waiting for that case citation. It should be easy. Show me a case where a court has imposed liability for the third party criminal act committed against a customer, after a retailer refused to sell a self defense product to that customer.
There’s already a guy in Oregon suing Dick’s and Wal-Mart for age discrimination.
Let’s get real, shall we?
Those 18-21 college age women weren’t going to be defending themselves with rifles and shotguns.
I'm not a lawyer. If you are, do your own research and remember just because it has not happened does not mean it can't happen. You've already been wrong once saying retailers are good to go to refuse to sell to anyone they want because of age. Less than 48 hours later both are in fact being sued for the very thing you said they were in the clear. Now you want to say the courts won't hold them liable for damages if someone is hurt or killed. I'm not saying either way what the court or how a jury would decide in court but I am saying they WILL be sued if someone gets hurt and it will be a lose lose situation for them. So if you are a lawyer are you saying you would tell Dicks and Walmart no need to worry you won't end up the loser in a landmark multi million dollar legal battle for damages?
We have never had a situation where the public through both federal and state legislatures have clearly decided 18 year olds have the right to purchase a firearm only to have big box retailers get together and in effect attempt to change those laws then they don't agree with.
Clearly these retailers are violating the spirit of the law and it's going to end up being a losing position for them.
Are you kidding? I'm sure it actually happens quite frequently.
Reread post 75. Absent a State public accommodations law, there isn’t anything that you can do to a retailer who refuses to sale to a customer because of age.
1.The Constitution only protects against governmental action. If a store violates your Constitutional rights, you have no cause of action for said violation.
2. In States without public accommodation laws (many States do not have them, or do not have such laws that apply to certain categories like age) you have no cause of action against the retailer. If a State has such a public accommodation law that applies to age, then there may be a problem for the retailer in that specific State.
3. It’s a fundamental principle of law that a person or corporation is not liable for the third party criminal acts of another, absent very narrow exceptions. Again, there is no cause of action against a retailer in your hypothetical. The case would get tossed on a 12(b)(6) motion.
Hey, don’t take my word for it:
https://reason.com/volokh/2018/02/28/can-gun-stores-refuse-to-sell-rifles-and
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.