If you would like more information about what's happening in Oregon, please FReepmail me.
Posted on 03/06/2018 3:50:09 AM PST by Yo-Yo
A 20-year-old is suing Dick’s Sporting Goods after being refused a Ruger .22 rifle purchase based on his age.
The plaintiff, Tyler Watson, claims he faced “Unlawful Age Discrimination.”
Watson attempted to buy the rifle “on or about February 24” at a Medford, Oregon, Field and Stream store. (Field and Stream is subsidiary of Dick’s.) Watson’s suit, filed in the Circuit Court of Oregon for the County of Jackson, says a store employee refused the purchase and indicated, “He would not sell [Watson] any firearm, including rifles and shotguns, or ammunition for a firearm, because [Watson] is under 21 years old.”
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
I wonder if buying liquor is an enumerated constitutional right?
“Western Auto”
That’s a hoot. I’m sure we had Western Autos around when I was a kid, but Sears was the place I spent hours pining over a Ted Williams .22LR semi-auto rifle. Got it for Christmas!
And that was why many Framers argued against a Bill of Rights.
The 21st Amendment to the Constitution sort of made buying liquor pursuant to State Law a Constitutional right. And for better or worse (mostly the latter!) that's how the right to bear arms has been treated (despite the obvious meaning of the Second Amendment).
ML/NJ
Oregon state law doesn't prohibit 18-20 year olds from purchasing long guns.
Oregon state law does prohibit 18-20 year olds from purchasing alcohol.
So getting back to your original question "What would happen if he tried this against a Liquor Store?", the two cases aren't the same.
In one, the seller is following state law, and in the other the seller is not.
Actually that law was passed under duress, if I am not mistaken, and might reasonably be considered invalid.
ML/NJ
Under duress as in the legislature and the Governor were physically threatened with violence, or under duress as in Federal Highway funds would be withheld if it were not passed?
Let's hear the reasonable argument that constitutionally protects 18-20 year old's right to purchase alcohol. Notice I didn't say right to 'drink.'
Likewise, an 18-20 year old's right to possess a long gun or handgun would not change, only their ability to purchase a long gun.
What if the 20 year old lived in New York City?
The Constitution was written to establish what the Federal and State governments could and couldn't do; not to protect or grant rights to citizens. I doubt that very many people at the time of the adoption of the Constitution considered it unusual for an 18 year-old to buy a beer. Only the warehousing of children in public schools changed that.
ML/NJ
And that was why many Framers argued against a Bill of Rights.
Yes. THis was one of the big discussions surrounding the adoption of the first 12 amendments to the Constitution (12 proposed 10 accepted initially) The Anti-Federalists argued that without the specific things outlined in the proposed Amendments, the governemnt would claim jurisdiction over those items. The Federalists claimed that by adding the specific rights protected, the government would claim that other natural rights don't exist.
I think it should be clear to everyone that both sides would have likely been completely astounded at comments from "conservatives" saying there is no "right to privacy" because it wasn't spelled out in exactly those terms. I think it's obvious from context surrounding the 4th and 5th that a Privacy Right is a fundamental part of our system, or at least is supposed to be.
However it does bring home the point that the "Federal Farmers" were exactly correct to say that even though we can't list everything, there are a few things that we should call out specifically because they are that important.
Not sure what you are implying, other than the bastardization of the right to privacy as it was applied in Roe v. Wade.
LOL! They had “Federal Farmers” back then? ;-)
> “Western Auto”
> That’s a hoot. I’m sure we had Western Autos around when I was a kid, but Sears was the place I spent hours pining over a Ted Williams .22LR semi-auto rifle. Got it for Christmas!
Yup, Western Auto.
That where my Dad would go to buy Hercules dynamite, blasting caps and fuse cord, so that we could remove the tree stumps at the edge of the field behind our home.
As I recall, he had to show his driver’s license for ID and then had to sign some form on a clipboard. I think that was in 1956.
That’ll never never happen today.
Under the letter of the law, the kid has no case - the correct remedy for bad behavior like this from a business is to boycott them. In fact, I am boycotting Dick’s.
The letter of the law has not mattered in courts for many years. It’s all politics and how activist a judge the kid happens to get.
Isn’t there a difference in declining a sale after evaluating an individual buyer, versus instituting a sales policy which forbids sales to a whole class of customer? The distinguishing characteristic for disenfranchisement in this case is age. Why 21? Why not 18? Tortured logic results in a different age for different activities?
What if the age for purchase of any firearms or ammunition was whimsically bumped up to 65? Why stop there? If the businesses sale’s criteria can be manipulated to allow age discrimination by group, this would seem to also allow any other class characteristic to be arbitrarily a determination to promote firearms related strictures.
The letter of the law as it now stands allows sale to an eighteen year old. Abiding by the law, or being subject to the whims of virtue signalling in connection with social justice activity, appears to be the issue. This isn’t about evaluating an individual’s standing regards FFL sales criteria; but, wholesale denial of a defined group to exercise a right. Where would it stop?
Oregon ping
The owner of the liquor store believes this was a horrible tragedy that should never happen again.
The owner of the liquor store institutes a store policy that states - No alcohol shall be sold to anyone under the age of 25.
...
What would happen if a 24 year old, who just a week ago could lawfully purchase alcohol from that liquor store, sued the liquor store for age discrimination?
If you would like more information about what's happening in Oregon, please FReepmail me.
Some car rental companies won't rent to drivers under 25, while others add a surcharge. Is that discrimination as well?
“Some car rental companies won’t rent to drivers under 25, while others add a surcharge. Is that discrimination as well?”
An excellent question, really.
What happens if they add a surcharge to older drivers instead? Is *that* discrimination?
If it is for the elders, I believe it is for the yuts.
It would be if renting a car was an enumerated right in our constitution.
We have a pre-emption law as well. Only the legislature can make gun laws. OD Fish and Wildlife ran afoul of it some years ago, and had to lift a restriction barring bowhunters from carrying sidearms.
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.