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.
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.