I am NOT saying Wal-Mart shouldn't have the RIGHT to sell their products to people of their choice, but it seems to me the knee jerk reaction to say NO to kids is against current law.
Short answer, yes, in some but not all states. 18, 19, & 20 year olds will have an ‘age discrimination’ case. I’m sure of which states but it’s only about 25% of the states.
Personally, since it’s NOT against the law for an 18 year old to buy a gun then I think they can be sued for discrimination.
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?
That’s a great question. But the only thing I find via searching for “federally protected class” + “age discrimination” is the Age Discrimination in Employment Act for jobs for people over 40.
Under the Equal employment age policy an 18 year old can be discriminated based on age. Discrimination based on age only applies to those individuals over 42 years of age. This not being an employment is issue would a baker who was attempted to be hired to baking a cake for a wedding of an 18 year old be discriminated against?
Isn’t it the same thing to require a bakery to bake a cake for queers?
No, because a Federal Firearm Licensee can refuse to sell a firearm to an individual for any reason.
Why do you think age is a federally protected status?
This is a nonstarter
Under federal law, age discrimination can only be claimed if the “victim” is 40 years old or older. And it only involves employment (I think).
https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/age.cfm
Maybe there are state laws that might apply here, but I doubt it.
Anyhow, even though I think Wal-Mart is wrong, it’s their store. I don’t see any need to cry discrimination. It’s kinda like the pool hall up the street from me. They’ve got a “No one under 18” sign in their window. It’s their pool hall. Let ‘em make whatever rules they want to.
Thanks for posting this. I had wondered the same thing myself. Responses should be illuminating.
Received my first firearm when I was 7 years old, shot my first deer the same year. By the time I was 18 I had several firearms. By the time I was 19 I was well trained on a variety of weapons, including small arms both semi and fully automatic and all artillery weapons the Army had available. At 20 I was in the A Shau Vally with the 101st. Many of those the same age were already married and started families. Raising the age to 21 denies their ability to protect their families. I don’t see them raising the age to 21 but I’ve been wrong before. We’re not in Kansas anymore.
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.
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
I heard Judge Nap on Fox yesterday discussing this. He said yes, they can be sued. It’s a civil rights case.
For whatever it is worth, Judge Napolitano on Fox News says yes, depending on state laws.
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.
The 2nd amendment is not age dependent. It is a right. Corporations should not be allowed to make law affecting the Constitution.
Can’t gamble in casino or rent a car at 18.
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.
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.
-PJ