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

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: neo96

Neo? I can imagine these same people arguing that Rosa Parks should have just kept her mouth shut and rode in the back.

yea she shouldda caught another bus and if no other bus available then she should have started her own bus company.jk

is ats some kinda backwards land where the more we put down our enemies the stronger they get?

if so then let me say now that hillary should not be prosecuted and i hate freedom

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: DBCowboy

Were the ones defending that bakery's decision also telling Rosa Parks to sit down and shut up?

Interesting. So you do equate it to the bakery case.

And for the record? No.

I can agree that the Public Accommodation rule has to be observed, but it is an infringement on religious beliefs.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Why would I when you just used examples to prove my point? Is it legal to deny a 21 year old liquor then sell it to only 40+? No one does that, it's not legal.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: neo96

Your point?

Dick's hasn't broken any laws with their decision. If they did you'd have government regulating what a business can and can't do. I thought you guys were against that kind of thing? Small government right?

They violated Oregon state law if they refused to sell a gun to a 20 year old based solely on their new policy. They violated another Oregon state law by publishing the policy.

Have you read the Complaint? Link

a reply to: howtonhawky

What is silly is that 2 months ago, everyone was okay and in agreement that 18 was an appropriate age.

But one 19 year old goes evil so we have to punish all 18-20 year olds.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Tell that to alcohol and tobacco sales.

Tell that to weed sales.

a reply to: DBCowboy

But one 19 year old goes evil so we have to punish all 18-20 year olds.

And it does nothing to fix the psychos.

This snip is what's crazy.

Why didn't they raise the age limit to buy pressure cookers after the Boston Marathon bombing?

NEONE?

originally posted by: neo96
Why didn't they raise the age limit to buy pressure cookers after the Boston Marathon bombing?

NEONE?

Because sales haven't slumped on pressure cookers, so there was no easy "PR" win with something you are planning on removing from your shelves eventually, any way.

Ironically, this suit, due to the punitive limits Oregon has placed on it, is going to turn into a massive win for Dick's and Walmart.

originally posted by: antar
18 can go to war or even be drafted.

18 can vote.

18 should be the age to purchase.

At a business that chooses to sell to that age group. Why is that difficult to understand? If people think that cake shops should be able to refuse service to people they do not want to do business with, then Dick's is totally within their rights to do the same.

This is basic core Republican freedom-to-choose-how-to-do-business bulls#, and every single one of them is being an idiot on here about it. Goes to show how committed they are to that business "freedom".

Edit: Ya know, come to think of it, if it was a gay person screaming & hollering, they'll tell 'em "Tough. Buy somewhere else then". It's amazing they can't see they've turned into the SJW snowflakes they abhor.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Fair case then. If it's against state law then they should win the case.

a reply to: Nyiah

According to Oregon state law it is illegal to discriminate based on age other than with alcohol, tobacco and weed. Seems as though this kid's parents did their homework.

a reply to: peck420

Ironically, this suit, due to the punitive limits Oregon has placed on it,

monopolies protection laws

a reply to: Nyiah

dicks walmart killed mom and pop

so now we should just bow to the new master cause they are too big to fail

a reply to: howtonhawky

A business can refuse serving someone if they refuse everyone for similar reasons.

They cant sell guns to some younger people and not others under 21.

It is thin ice. If you sell guns, you have to sell guns to everyone legal enough to by them according to the law, not your internal rules.

This is technically discrimination based on age.

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: Nyiah

dicks walmart killed mom and pop

so now we should just bow to the new master cause they are too big to fail

You know what your feet are for, right? Walking to another business.

If you're too stupid to shop wisely & in accordance with your beliefs, it's not my fault.

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: Nyiah

dicks walmart killed mom and pop

so now we should just bow to the new master cause they are too big to fail

You know what your feet are for, right? Walking to another business.

If you're too stupid to shop wisely & in accordance with your beliefs, it's not my fault.

lol words mean things

if you control all the businesses then where is one to go

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: Nyiah

dicks walmart killed mom and pop

so now we should just bow to the new master cause they are too big to fail

You know what your feet are for, right? Walking to another business.

If you're too stupid to shop wisely & in accordance with your beliefs, it's not my fault.

lol words mean things

if you control all the businesses then where is one to go

Show us again how dicks controls the gun market.

originally posted by: dothedew
a reply to: JoshuaCox

There is no precedent set.... but it takes a lawsuit to set a precedent. Depending on how this goes, if it's shown to have merit and go to court, it could potentially work it's way up the system. If it's shown to have no merit and the case is dismissed, then that's that. Boom, this case will set precedent either way you look at it. It has a chance, as stated that he is legally allowed to purchase a firearm. Purchase/ownership of a firearm is a constitutionally protected right. Hell, Purchasing a Cake isn't a protected right, but that still went to court.

We'll just wait and se how this all goes.

We all know it will be dismissed if it makes it to the 9th circuit court of appeals, however, seeing how the rest of the Court judges read case law while the 9th circuit judges read Dr. Seuss Books.........

Sorry, but that's not precedent. A lawsuit doesn't set precedent, except for the parties to that lawsuit. But that is called res judicata and not precedent. Precedent only comes from reported appellate cases. So, if the kid wins, and the store appeals and it goes through that whole process, and the appellate court renders a decision, and further orders that the opinion be published, then, and only then, does the appeals court opinion and order become precedent. And only some precedent becomes binding. A Washington state case is not precedent in Montana, unless the opinion is that of a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and both cases are in the same circuit. And the precedential value of a case is very narrow. If the kid wins on appeal because the store had its appellate brief printed in 6 point type instead of 8 point, it has no effect on the question of whether 20 year olds can buy guns from a store that decides not to sell to him.
FWIW, my opinion as a retred lawyer, judge, and law school professor, the kid is going to lose.

So cute to see the amount of non lawyers posting here.

Dicks and Walmart are going to lose. Period end of story.