20 year old sues Dicks and Walmart

[MuscleCarMan]

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/06/20-...mart-over-new-age-restrictions-on-rifles.html

This makes me so happy!

 

[AustinN4]

Hope he wins!

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Bravo!

:handclap:

 

[busykngt]

This is what I expected would happen. The states set the gun laws regarding age limits and the like. And when state law hasn’t been changed, I figured the retailers were just setting themselves for this kind of age discrimination lawsuit. And furthermore, I suspect the results of the lawsuit will go against them.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Is it different from a
"No shoes, No shirt, No service" type of rule?

 

[dermunkee]

Youth is not a protected class, I'd actually be surprised if this made it to trial. Then again, I was surprised that the whole wedding cake for a gay marriage thing made it to trial as well.

 

[easy rider]

I saw this coming, and no, it's not the same as no shoes, etc.

 

[TAZ]

Is it different from a
"No shoes, No shirt, No service" type of rule?

Yes, states that have pre-emption laws specifically forbid anyone aside from the state making more restrictive laws or policies on the topic pre-empted.

 

[Shotgun Jeremy]

Doesn't this fall under "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"?

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

[vmax]

Youth is not a protected class...

The 2nd Amendment is

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Doesn't this fall under "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"?

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

This is what I was thinking, but evidently not according to others .

 

[easy rider]

This is what I was thinking, but evidently not according to others .

It's one thing to refuse service to those that don't follow certain standards, it's another thing to refuse service to an adult age group.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

I thought 21 was adult age?

 

[jrbfishn]

To me, it descriminates against a certain age group. Whether previously legally protecred or not. The companies are basically saying that regardless of the law that they don't trust them to make a legal decision, so they are going to bypass the law and be more restrictive than the law. Despite the fact that thousands of long guns will be sold to that age group legally this year and the vast majority of those will not commit a crime using their lawfully purchased item. Yeah, that is pretty much descrimination.

But here is the rub. They win either way. If it goes to court and they lose, they are out a miniscule amount of money to them. Even if it turns into a class action suit, still not that much to them. And things go back to normal. The fact that they made the decision, win or lose, puts them in good with the bleeding heart soccer moms. In fact, they may score even more points for losing.
To coperate America, a no lose situation.

from an idjit coffeeholic

 

[easy rider]

I thought 21 was adult age?

For drinking yes, but there is a law for that. Unless the laws have changed, you are still considered an adult at 18.

 

[Big Dipper]

In regard to minors drinking alcohol in Texas, Texas PC says:

Sec. 106.06. PURCHASE OF ALCOHOL FOR A MINOR; FURNISHING ALCOHOL TO A MINOR
(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b) of this section, a person commits an offense if he purchases an alcoholic beverage for or gives or with criminal negligence makes available an alcoholic beverage to a minor.

(b) A person may purchase an alcoholic beverage for or give an alcoholic beverage to a minor if he is the minor's adult parent, guardian, or spouse, or an adult in whose custody the minor has been committed by a court, and he is visibly present when the minor possesses or consumes the alcoholic beverage.

(c) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.​

But I bet most taverns have a policy that prohibits selling a drink that would be provided to a minor even though it is purchased by the parent or guardian.

 

[locke_n_load]

Most people think of this as you can't discriminate based on age, gender, religion, etc. However, that is for employment.
But I believe Oregon state law goes one step further and doesn't allow businesses to discriminate customers based on age as well as other factors.

 

[SidewaysTA]

I really want to see Dick's nuts kicked...

 

[dermunkee]

The 2nd Amendment is

The 2nd Amendment is designed to restrict the Federal Government, not protect citizens against store policy. The kid's rights were not being violated. We allow FFLs to refuse a transfer even if the background check comes back correctly because they have a bad feeling about an individual. I don't consider that a bad thing.
They could state that they won't sell to anybody wearing camouflage overalls in their store and they still haven't violated anyone's rights. Instead of voting with his wallet somewhere else, this person and their lawyer went after a company that changed store policy in the wake of a tragedy. While I disagree with their policies, I'm not about to create a situation with intent to sue them.

 

[easy rider]

I guess that will be up to the courts to decide.