Question: Would a law abiding 18 year old have an age discrimination case against Wal-Mart?

3/1/18 | sff

[SoFloFreeper]

I suppose if Wal-Mart said.they'd stop selling ammo to Muslims, women, or blacks the media wouldn't be applauding their stupid gun stunt.

I thought AGE was a federally protected status.

So I ask if a LAW ABIDING 18 or 19 year old wants to buy a product that is legal in their state of residence, and the multibillion dollar company WAL-MART refuses, is this a civil rights case?

[Reno89519]

I would think so, age, gender, nationality, ethnicity, religion are supposed protected. Seems that they have a choice: sell to any anyone legally authorized to buy or sell to no one.

While I would favor them saying "No gun or ammo sales to Muslims" or "No gun or ammo sales to anyone in gang attire" I bet both would get flagged. Age should as well. These are legal products.

[LesbianThespianGymnasticMidget]

I am sure this is going to piss off a lot of Freepers.

1) 18 and active military no limits.
2) 21+ and pass background check, no limits
3) 14 to 21 and your parents think you are stable, have them buy your guns and ammo and hold them responsible if you are a nutbag.
4) NO GUNS FOR NUTBAGS.
5) No guns for felons or people who have domestic violence convictions
6) Universal background checks for sales and buyers
7) Get rid of the damned tax stamps for suppressors. (Hearing aid lobby)
8) If either parent is CCW, they get the choice to waive the 21 requirement
9) ...

It is common sense, which unfortunately is not common.

ps, bump stocks are a joke. See this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2YLgLj8KVY

[Carl Vehse]

Imagine the outrage if Walmart announced its store wouldn’t sell firearms to a selected race with a demonstrated higher crime rate for violence?

[The Pack Knight]

These claims are defined by statute. The cake guy was sued under a Colorado statute prohibiting places of public accommodation from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.

There is no federal statute prohibiting places of public accommodation from discriminating on the basis of age—Title II only prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. The only federal age discrimination claim is for employment discrimination. There are some states (I think 19) that have statutes prohibiting age discrimination for places of public accommodation. You would have to look at your state’s laws.

[gattaca]

I heard Judge Nap on Fox yesterday discussing this. He said yes, they can be sued. It’s a civil rights case.

[Yo-Yo]

Seems discriminatory....can a gun dealer refuse to sell to blacks, women, or known Muslims, then, without fear of legal action?

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/28/florida-muslim-free-gun-shop-owner-wins-discrimina/

[Truth29]

For whatever it is worth, Judge Napolitano on Fox News says yes, depending on state laws.

[oldplayer]

Short answer: of course they can be sued. I bet they will be soon.

Like noted above, though, age is NOT a constitutionally “protected class” that requires limitations to be analyzed by courts applying “strict scrutinity.” But remember, participating in deviant sexual behavior did NOT make a person a member of a protected class either twenty years ago.

An age discrimination suit will fail absent some good old leftist style judge shopping.

[9YearLurker]

Interesting, thanks.

[bmwcyle]

The 2nd amendment is not age dependent. It is a right. Corporations should not be allowed to make law affecting the Constitution.

[grobdriver]

Interesting read for non-FFL people.

From the outside looking in I would think if the NICS check came back OK, the dealer would be covered.

I can see a gut feel about a bad actor, NICS or not - but a blanket "under age" policy with no other evidence of cause seems excessive (were I an 18-year old). I suppose a dealer might decide to sell me a .22 rimfire but not an AR based on my age... but even that would suck for an Eagle Scout and otherwise upstanding citizen.

[Tennessee Conservative]

I agree with a lot of that. Young people in the military are, or should be, mature. If they aren’t when they go in they will be when they get out.

We have seen over and over that most 18 year olds aren’t as mature as 18 year olds were 40 years ago. I agree that between 18-21 the parents should have to sign or buy the guns and be responsible.

I also think that if these kids are too immature to buy a gun or drink that they are too immature to vote.

[fruser1]

“NOT against the law”

Actually, this is the point, but not the way you think.

Unlike other countries, in the US, if it’s not prohibited by statute you CAN do it, i.e., you don’t need to get permission first.

So only where commerce regs include an explicit prohibition against age, can you NOT prohibit sales based on age.

If however, it’s not mentioned, as it is not in fed commerce regs, you can.

Federal commerce regs bar discrimination based on race, sex, and creed.

[stars & stripes forever]

[The worse part for Walmart is they are calling 18 year olds to incompetent to buy a gun and use it while we have 18 year olds going in the military to serve this country. Does Walmart think these under 21 military people are issued spit ball shooters until the reach 21?]

When the 21 year old age limit to own guns become law, would the U.S. military legally be allowed to let 18-20 year olds join the service?

[grumpygresh]

Can’t gamble in casino or rent a car at 18.

[Enlightened1]

Absolutely you have a case.

Most likely Walmart would sell you the gun.

Sam Walton would never agree with this. He was a Patriot and loved America.

[SERKIT]

If there have been successful suits over gay wedding cakes, I’d like to think we’d see a successful lawsuit for a 19 year old, who is otherwise good-to-go who cannot get something that is ACTUALLY NAMED in our pesky Constitution.

[Political Junkie Too]

Substitute Facebook for Walmart, and conservative posts for guns, and ask the same question.

-PJ

[The Pack Knight]

I'm never pissed off by someone posting a controversial opinion, but I think you are just wrong on at least a couple of those.

1) 18 and active military no limiIts.

I think the Founding Fathers would find it strange that an adult citizen's rights under the Second Amendment should be conditioned on his membership in a standing army, when part of the whole point of the Second Amendment was to avoid having standing armies and to check the power of standing armies when they do exist.

6) Universal background checks for sales and buyers

I think it has been explained ad nauseam why this is a bad idea. Background checks are already required for all sales by FFLs, and all persons in the business of selling firearms must be FFLs. These constitute something like 98% of all firearms sales. "Universal background checks" means background checks for sales or transfers by people who are NOT in the business of selling firearms--i.e., your wife thinks you have too many guns and makes you sell a couple of them, you have to conduct background checks.

Background check requirement for FFLs is enforced through strict record-keeping requirements, with random audits by the ATF, that include detailed inventory records kept by both the FFLs and the manufacturers and wholesalers from whom they receive their inventory. The only way to enforce such a requirement on non-FFLs would be to either impose a similar record-keeping requirement, with audits, or to set up a national gun registry, which we oppose for reasons which should be obvious to any Freeper.

[DoodleDawg]

So I ask if a LAW ABIDING 18 or 19 year old wants to buy a product that is legal in their state of residence, and the multibillion dollar company WAL-MART refuses, is this a civil rights case?

Civil rights? No. But possibly age discrimination. Walmat is refusing to sell something that a person is legally allowed to buy based on their age alone. Most state anti-discrimination laws include discriminating on age.