Jump to content
sirI sirI (Admin) Writer Expert Verified

Walmart and Dick's Raise Minimum Age for Gun Buyers to 21

Politics   (12,814 Views 322 Comments)
4 Followers; article_pluralized; 134,556 Visitors; 33,355 Posts
If you find this topic helpful leave a comment.
advertisement

You are reading page 3 of Walmart and Dick's Raise Minimum Age for Gun Buyers to 21. If you want to start from the beginning Go to First Page.

20-year-old sues Dick's, Walmart over new gun policies

An Oregon man filed suits Monday claiming Dick's Sporting Goods and Walmart discriminated against the 20-year-old when they refused to sell him a rifle.

Dick's and Walmart restricted gun sales to adults 21 and older in the wake of the Florida high school massacre. The 19-year-old accused in the school slaying bought the AR-15 used in the attack legally.

Oregon law allows residents to buy shotguns or rifles starting at age 18.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think age discrimination is an interesting approach, and one that might actually be successful. At least they were intelligent enough to not claim a violation of his second amendment right.

I imagine this person is being backed by the NRA. And if the suit moves forward, if the court follows Heller, nothing will happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think age discrimination is an interesting approach, and one that might actually be successful. At least they were intelligent enough to not claim a violation of his second amendment right.

I agree, and yet I think the state of Oregon restricts the sale of alcohol, tobacco and marijuana to 21 year-olds. Perhaps the difference is one is the state and the other is a business?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, we have seen that Trump supports discrimination. He urged the US Supreme Court to rule on the side of the cake maker who discriminated against the gay wedding couple.

So, I hope this kid isn't looking to the WH for support.

And as Nina Totenberg's piece stated, the US Supreme Court is loathe to take on gun cases.

Here is yet another example of responsible gun ownership. Fortunately, the similar case here in KY brought charges against the parents. And that is something new. When I first moved here, and these shootings would come up, the parents weren't charged. Looks like OH is charging parents. Good!

Prosecutor: After boy, 8, shot sister, mom went back to work - NY Daily News

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get that the issue here is irresponsible storage that allows kids access to guns. However, the highlighting of the fact that she returned to work bothers me. She likely would have lost her job after taking an afternoon off to take care of a child. She won't be the first working class mom to get caught in that trap.

I agree that parents who fail to secure guns properly, resulting in injured or dead kids, need to be charged. That being said, there's more to this story than meets the eye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
advertisement
I get that the issue here is irresponsible storage that allows kids access to guns. However, the highlighting of the fact that she returned to work bothers me. She likely would have lost her job after taking an afternoon off to take care of a child. She won't be the first working class mom to get caught in that trap.

I agree that parents who fail to secure guns properly, resulting in injured or dead kids, need to be charged. That being said, there's more to this story than meets the eye.

There probably is more to the story. But she also failed to seek medical treatment for the child who was shot.

This isn't the kind of person who I want to continue to have unfettered access to guns. Clearly, there are problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, there are problems. I just get skeeved when working class women get scapegoated while their "betters" get off the hook because "they've suffered enough."

It's the way of our world, especially these days, I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I imagine this person is being backed by the NRA. And if the suit moves forward, if the court follows Heller, nothing will happen.

The NRA might, or might not be behind this, I don't know. My personal opinion is that they aren't; if they were, I don't think they would approach it from the age discrimination perspective as they have generally been straight forward and aggressive in their defense of gun ownership.

How exactly do you think Heller has any bearing whatsoever in this case?

Edited by chare

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The NRA might, or might not be behind this, I don't know. My personal opinion is that they aren't; if they were, I don't think they would approach it from the age discrimination perspective as they have generally been straight forward and aggressive in their defense of gun ownership.

How exactly do you think Heller has any bearing whatsoever in this case?

Well, I am not a lawyer, but since Heller clearly states that there is no absolute, unfettered right to own a gun, that restrictions can be placed on ownership, how does discrimination come into it?

We are seeing more and more businesses, rightly or wrongly, like the cake baker, decide whom they will or won't sell their products to.

And Trump has been busy dismantling anti-discrimination protections. So I think the kid will have a long, hard slog to prove his point.

But it's just my opinion, and again, I am not a lawyer. Just my thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with the age discrimination argument is that there is no protection based on age in privately owned businesses that provide public accommodation and services. This would fall under the Civil Rights Act, which does provide some protections from being discriminated against as a customer by a business but not based on age. I don't know if there are local laws that would cover age discrimination against customers, but even there were it doesn't appear that this would be discrimination since the business could state a basis for the restriction that isn't merely based on a bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
×