Texas SOT

20 year old sues Dicks and Walmart

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • mtaylor

    Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 1, 2010
    51
    1
    Montgomery, Texas
    Federal Firearms Dealers are protected by ATFE rules in that dealers are allowed to refuse to sell a firearm to anyone, for any reason, at any time. His only hope for an argument is showing that the policy applies to age groups without any other basis (it does) and he gets a liberal California judge.
     

    moseschi

    New Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 10, 2014
    12
    11
    I don't know if this was talked about on this thread.
    Anyone can refuse service of baking a cake, buying alcoholic drink, cigarette, grocery. Why? Because it is not infringing on anyone's right.

    As long as the right to bear arms is in the 2nd Amendment, purchasing a firearm when a person meets all the necessary criteria (ie. over age 18 and have no felony etc...) is a RIGHT given by this country.

    No businesses (like Walmart) should take that right away from a citizen of this country. If they do... then lawsuits like this happen.

    Also the 14th Amendment protects us from the state making laws that are against the constitution of the United States. 14 Amendment states: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    I think I just opened a can of worms... Florida cannot just make their own gun law to infringe the 2nd Amendment of Floridians. When the State has no right, what makes a corporation like Walmart to make a "law" that infringes the right of a citizen?
     

    easy rider

    Summer Slacker
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 10, 2015
    31,489
    96
    Odessa, Tx
    I'm not going to argue what the court findings will be, but I am glad that someone stepped up, because I am interested to find out how this plays out and I do wish the 20 yo the best of luck.
     

    Younggun

    Certified Jackass
    TGT Supporter
    Local Business Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Jul 31, 2011
    53,619
    96
    hill co.
    This seems to be a frequent topic of disagreement on this site. Those who say "By golly, a business owner can do whatever he wants with his business!" And those who feel that constitutional rights trump the business owner's whims.

    There are those who say "By golly, a person can go wherever and do whatever he wants because "muh rights"" and those who believe a person has the right to choose what happens in or about a product of a persons own blood, sweat, and tears.

    See, we can both twist anothers argument in a way that we aren't obligated to actually refute it, instead acting as if it isn't deserving of consideration at all. This method doesn't actually validate or invalidate one argument or the other but takes very little effort and allows the author to sit back with a sigh of content satisfaction in making a strike against the troublesome opinion. And why risk discussing a subject honestly when such a discussion might lead to the undermining of ones own belief, especially when such a belief would lead to an advantagious situation whether truly justified or not?

    But of course, there is risk. You never know at which time the same tactic will be turned against you. And then your attempts at reason will be ignored because such archaic ideas are no longer necessary and only serve to harm the collective good of whichever mass as managed to obtain power at the time.


    I'd rather we just discuss the merits of both sides honestly, even if in dissagreement and if different conclusions are reached.
     

    sharkey

    Well-Known
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 25, 2013
    1,342
    96
    I guess if WM decides to quit selling guns you are going to sue for infringing on your rights???

    No you are missing the point. It IS because they decided to sell guns which means they sell them to ANYONE eligible by federal law.

    It is not a hard concept to grasp. If WM is so concerned, they should stop selling entirely, just not to 18yoas


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

    moseschi

    New Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 10, 2014
    12
    11
    I guess if WM decides to quit selling guns you are going to sue for infringing on your rights???

    Sir, if a store does not want to sell an item, they can do that. If they decide not to sell an item that is protected by the constitution, they have the right to do that. But if they start selling an item that is protected by the constitution, they cannot discriminate.

    Let's talk about the Christian baker in Oregon who decided not to sell an item (this time, it is an item [a cake] that is not protected by the constitution) to a certain "type" of individual. However, they lost their case and had to pay hundred of thousands of dollars. A cake is not protected by the constitution. A person does not have a right to own a cake. But the judge favored the couple who really had no right protected by the constitution to buy a cake.

    However, bearing a firearm is a right given by the country. And Walmart and Dicks' practice of discriminating 18-20 year old is against the right that was given by the constitution.
     

    AustinN4

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Nov 27, 2013
    9,853
    96
    Austin
    Sir, if a store does not want to sell an item, they can do that. If they decide not to sell an item that is protected by the constitution, they have the right to do that. But if they start selling an item that is protected by the constitution, they cannot discriminate.

    Let's talk about the Christian baker in Oregon who decided not to sell an item (this time, it is an item [a cake] that is not protected by the constitution) to a certain "type" of individual. However, they lost their case and had to pay hundred of thousands of dollars. A cake is not protected by the constitution. A person does not have a right to own a cake. But the judge favored the couple who really had no right protected by the constitution to buy a cake.

    However, bearing a firearm is a right given by the country. And Walmart and Dicks' practice of discriminating 18-20 year old is against the right that was given by the constitution.
    I see you are a new member with 4 posts. Welcome. Please introduce yourself in the introductions forum and tell about yourself and where you are from: https://www.texasguntalk.com/forums/introductions.16/
     

    moseschi

    New Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 10, 2014
    12
    11
    Given by this country? You might want to re-think that.

    If I am not mistaken, the first 10 amendments are called the Bill of RIGHTS. And Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution of United States.

    "Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

    Sir, ninth amendment "states that there are other rights that may exist aside from the ones explicitly mentioned, and even though they are not listed, it does not mean they can be violated." (Quoted from https://kids.laws.com/ninth-amendment). So Second Amendment explicitly mentions that we have the RIGHT to bear arm.

    Why did I say that it is a right given by this country? Because the founding fathers of our great country put it in the constitution to give us these rights. Other countries like Australia once allowed people to have firearms, but after 1996's massacre, they took it away. Why? Because for Australia bearing arms is not a "right." So they took all the guns away from law abiding citizens. And you do some research and study what this accomplished in Australia. Did mass shooting stop in Australia? Nope. Now the law abiding citizens has no means to protect themselves. This accomplished NOTHING but a waste of money and resources.
     

    AustinN4

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Nov 27, 2013
    9,853
    96
    Austin
    If I am not mistaken, the first 10 amendments are called the Bill of RIGHTS. And Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution of United States.

    "Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

    Sir, ninth amendment "states that there are other rights that may exist aside from the ones explicitly mentioned, and even though they are not listed, it does not mean they can be violated." (Quoted from https://kids.laws.com/ninth-amendment). So Second Amendment explicitly mentions that we have the RIGHT to bear arm.

    Why did I say that it is a right given by this country? Because the founding fathers of our great country put it in the constitution to give us these rights. Other countries like Australia once allowed people to have firearms, but after 1996's massacre, they took it away. Why? Because for Australia bearing arms is not a "right." So they took all the guns away from law abiding citizens. And you do some research and study what this accomplished in Australia. Did mass shooting stop in Australia? Nope. Now the law abiding citizens has no means to protect themselves. This accomplished NOTHING but a waste of money and resources.
    Pretty sure Ben was referring to it as a God given right.
     
    Last edited:

    Younggun

    Certified Jackass
    TGT Supporter
    Local Business Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Jul 31, 2011
    53,619
    96
    hill co.
    If I am not mistaken, the first 10 amendments are called the Bill of RIGHTS. And Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution of United States.

    "Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

    Sir, ninth amendment "states that there are other rights that may exist aside from the ones explicitly mentioned, and even though they are not listed, it does not mean they can be violated." (Quoted from https://kids.laws.com/ninth-amendment). So Second Amendment explicitly mentions that we have the RIGHT to bear arm.

    Why did I say that it is a right given by this country? Because the founding fathers of our great country put it in the constitution to give us these rights. Other countries like Australia once allowed people to have firearms, but after 1996's massacre, they took it away. Why? Because for Australia bearing arms is not a "right." So they took all the guns away from law abiding citizens. And you do some research and study what this accomplished in Australia. Did mass shooting stop in Australia? Nope. Now the law abiding citizens has no means to protect themselves. This accomplished NOTHING but a waste of money and resources.


    A right given by a governemnt can be taken by a governemnt. That makes it a privledge. We do not have a bill of privledges. Therefore the rights in the bill of rights are not given or granted by the governemnt, they are simply enumerated.

    Governemnts may and often do infringe on rights, but that does bot remove the existence of a right.

    I also believe that a person does have a right to cake. In that a person has the right to that which they may provide themselves so long as they do not violate the rights of another in the process of providing themselves said cake.

    The Constitution and BoRs should be considered sacred documents as they are the chains that serve as restraints on the necessary beast of government. However, we shouldn't make the mistake of becoming wholly dependent on those documents as to allow them be comsidered to fully encompass all that we as humans are privvy to. The founders of our nation knew this and even made it clear in the 9th amendment which you were kind enough to mention above. In that light, it is somewhat foolish to make the claim that the enumeration, or lack thereof, should be evidence of the rights existence. For example, the right to have cake.
     

    benenglish

    Just Another Boomer
    Staff member
    Lifetime Member
    Admin
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Nov 22, 2011
    23,933
    96
    Spring
    Because the founding fathers of our great country put it in the constitution to give us these rights.
    <sigh>

    Let me be explicit.

    They didn't put it in the constitution to give us anything. They put it in the constitution to protect a pre-existing natural right.

    That's a critical distinction. If you start thinking that governments give rights, then you must accept that governments can take them away.

    I don't accept that. I have a right to self-protection and that includes the right to own efficient tools for that purpose. The government can't take that away from me. They can change laws, call my guns illegal, and put a bullet in me when I refuse to give them up...but they can't take that right from me because they didn't give it to me.

    I was born with it.
     

    oldag

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Feb 19, 2015
    17,430
    96
    There are those who say "By golly, a person can go wherever and do whatever he wants because "muh rights"" and those who believe a person has the right to choose what happens in or about a product of a persons own blood, sweat, and tears.

    See, we can both twist anothers argument in a way that we aren't obligated to actually refute it, instead acting as if it isn't deserving of consideration at all. This method doesn't actually validate or invalidate one argument or the other but takes very little effort and allows the author to sit back with a sigh of content satisfaction in making a strike against the troublesome opinion. And why risk discussing a subject honestly when such a discussion might lead to the undermining of ones own belief, especially when such a belief would lead to an advantagious situation whether truly justified or not?

    But of course, there is risk. You never know at which time the same tactic will be turned against you. And then your attempts at reason will be ignored because such archaic ideas are no longer necessary and only serve to harm the collective good of whichever mass as managed to obtain power at the time.


    I'd rather we just discuss the merits of both sides honestly, even if in dissagreement and if different conclusions are reached.

    Fine. You want to discuss in depth? Discuss.

    Lay out your beliefs on a business owner's rights vs. the Constitution. I am all ears.
     
    Top Bottom