Watson’s suit alleges that Dick’s policy violates Oregon law against age-based discrimination for people 18 years and older in places of public accommodations. State law includes prohibitions against discrimination in stores that are open to the general public.
So we shall see if state age discrimination laws trump federal firearm sales laws (which state that an FFL can refuse a sale to anyone.)
Good thing Dick’s Sporting Goods was not selling wedding cakes.
I would be surprised if this had not already gone to court as "White gun dealer would not sell to a black person solely on account of skin color."
The irony here is just too sweet.
>
So we shall see if state age discrimination laws trump federal firearm sales laws (which state that an FFL can refuse a sale to anyone.)
>
“Shall not be infringed.” Believe he has a case.
In 1959, at the age of 13, I had save up money from my paper route and went into the Western Auto hardware store where I purchased a .22LR bolt action Winchester rifle. I needed the rifle for marksmanship and gun safety training at Hampton High School where I was taught by NRA certified instructors.
I think Dick’s will lose on this.
In 1964 my friends and I used to ride on our motorcycles with rifles slung on our backs out to our favorite shooting spots. Mine was a M-1 carbine purchased from the Army for the then handsome sum of twenty dollars. This was in Tampa, Florida.
Florida is going to raise the minimum firearm purchase age to 21. If you’re 18 to 20 YOA now is the time to cash in at Dick’s and Walmart in Florida.
ML/NJ
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
If you would like more information about what's happening in Oregon, please FReepmail me.
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.
Age discrimination laws do not say that the only apply to older individuals. If it’s legal in the state for a 20 year old to buy the rifle and Dick’s refuses to sell it to him then it’s age discrimination.