Discussion:
Oregon man, 20, sues Walmart, Dick's over raising gun-buying age
(too old to reply)
#BeamMeUpScotty
2018-03-07 16:54:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
(Reuters) - A 20-year-old Oregon man has sued Walmart Inc and Dick’s
Sporting Goods Inc. challenging their decisions to stop selling
firearms to people under 21 following the Florida high school
shooting massacre, an Oregon newspaper reported.
A 19-year-old former student fatally shot 17 people in the deadliest
mass shooting at a high school in U.S. history, prosecutors said,
using a legally purchased assault-style rifle. The killings inflamed
the long-running debate on gun rights, enshrined in the Second
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Tyler Watson of Gold Hill, Oregon, filed two lawsuits on Monday in
separate state courts in counties after he tried unsuccessfully to
buy firearms. He asked the courts to order the retailers to halt the
new policies, according to court documents published online by the
Oregonian newspaper.
Watson said in a lawsuit filed in Jackson County, Oregon, he tried
to buy a .22 caliber rifle at a Dick’s Field & Stream store on Feb.
24, four days before the company said it will not sell guns to
people under age 21.
He then attempted to purchase a rifle at a Walmart on March 3,
according to a lawsuit filed in Josephine County.
Employees at both stores told Watson he could not purchase firearms
because of his age. He accused both retailers of violating Oregon’s
age discrimination law.
“We stand behind our decision and plan to defend it,” Walmart
spokesman Randy Hargrove said in a statement.
Dick’s officials did not respond immediately to a request for
comment.
The shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland,
Florida, spurred a youth-led wave of protests, demanding that
lawmakers in states including Florida raise the minimum age to buy
guns of any kind to 21 from 18.
While federal age discrimination laws and those in most states apply
only to people over 40, Oregon’s law generally prohibits age
discrimination against the selling of goods to anyone above the age
of 18, said John Donohue, a professor at Stanford Law School.
“It is only because of this unusual state law that there is even an
opportunity to bring this claim,” he said.
Watson’s attorney, Max Whittington, told the Oregonian his client
had not planned a lawsuit when he entered the stores.
“He was really just trying to buy a rifle,” the newspaper quoted
Whittington as saying. “He didn’t know about the policy.”
Whittington did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for
comment.
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
.
There is a precedent here; this is CLEARLY an offense of Oregon's anti-discrimination law.
There is also a precedent regarding the fine; $135,000 against each of the two offenders.
I think he's going to lose.
The law in question, from his lawsuit (https://reason.com/assets/db/15203198626160.pdf)
Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is of age, as described in this section, or older.
I suspect they will find this violates the rights of the company.
.
I am not going to make a prediction, BUT the anti-discrimination law is the SAME law that the Lesbian couple used to sue the bakers.
Not quite, although it is similar.
Under Oregon law, age discrimination (if over 18), is a protected class.
Yes, but there is always the issue of society over individual. I won't be terribly surprised either way, but I think he's going to lose.
Wal-Mart doesn't decide what is in societies best interest, the laws do
and the laws say that an 18 year old can buy a .22cal rifle. Wal-Mart is
violating the laws.

I don't pay wal-mart to make laws, I pay the Legislature to make laws.

If the Christian Bakery "violated the law" by not selling a gay wedding
cake, why is wal-mart too BIG to break the law, when the law says an 18
year old has a legally right to buy the rifle?

wal-mart can write out the "blank check" now and fire the dumass
Liberals that put that company policy into motion.
--
That's Karma

Remember when Obama said "that's NOT who we are" well *this is* who
Democrats are.....
e***@hotmail.com
2018-03-07 17:34:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
If this is a store-wide policy, then it comes from Corporate headquarters in Arkansas. Hardly a bastion of liberality.
#BeamMeUpScotty
2018-03-08 19:05:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
(Reuters) - A 20-year-old Oregon man has sued Walmart Inc and
Dick’s Sporting Goods Inc. challenging their decisions to stop
selling firearms to people under 21 following the Florida high
school shooting massacre, an Oregon newspaper reported.
A 19-year-old former student fatally shot 17 people in the
deadliest mass shooting at a high school in U.S. history,
prosecutors said, using a legally purchased assault-style rifle.
The killings inflamed the long-running debate on gun rights,
enshrined in the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Tyler Watson of Gold Hill, Oregon, filed two lawsuits on Monday
in separate state courts in counties after he tried
unsuccessfully to buy firearms. He asked the courts to order the
retailers to halt the new policies, according to court documents
published online by the Oregonian newspaper.
Watson said in a lawsuit filed in Jackson County, Oregon, he
tried to buy a .22 caliber rifle at a Dick’s Field & Stream store
on Feb. 24, four days before the company said it will not sell
guns to people under age 21.
He then attempted to purchase a rifle at a Walmart on March 3,
according to a lawsuit filed in Josephine County.
Employees at both stores told Watson he could not purchase
firearms because of his age. He accused both retailers of
violating Oregon’s age discrimination law.
“We stand behind our decision and plan to defend it,” Walmart
spokesman Randy Hargrove said in a statement.
Dick’s officials did not respond immediately to a request for
comment.
The shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in
Parkland, Florida, spurred a youth-led wave of protests,
demanding that lawmakers in states including Florida raise the
minimum age to buy guns of any kind to 21 from 18.
While federal age discrimination laws and those in most states
apply only to people over 40, Oregon’s law generally prohibits
age discrimination against the selling of goods to anyone above
the age of 18, said John Donohue, a professor at Stanford Law
School.
“It is only because of this unusual state law that there is even
an opportunity to bring this claim,” he said.
Watson’s attorney, Max Whittington, told the Oregonian his
client had not planned a lawsuit when he entered the stores.
“He was really just trying to buy a rifle,” the newspaper quoted
Whittington as saying. “He didn’t know about the policy.”
Whittington did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for
comment.
-- Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then
he'd have to audit liberals  & wire tap reporters' phones.
.
There is a precedent here; this is CLEARLY an offense of Oregon's
anti-discrimination law.
There is also a precedent regarding the fine; $135,000 against each
of the two offenders.
I think he's going to lose.
The law in question, from his lawsuit
(https://reason.com/assets/db/15203198626160.pdf)
Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons
within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and
equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any
place of public accommodation, without any distinction,
discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion,
sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if
the individual is of age, as described in this section, or older.
I suspect they will find this violates the rights of the company.
What rights?
The company has the right to sell to any GROUP they wish to.
How did you reach that conclusion?
I think jayne is correct.  It is the same law as in the baker case.  The
legislature can easily change the law to exempt gun purchases for those
between 18 and 20.
They could, and probably should. As I said, the law appears to be on
his side, but I don't think he's going to win this one. The baker case
is essentially the same, I will agree. Things being what they are,
I'll bet this one either gets settled (he doesn't care about buying a
gun, he wants to sue deep pockets) or appealed forever.
That would be after the fact law....

They need to change the gun law, NOT a discrimination law. Because it
won't fix the problem if you change the discrimination law. because that
would be discrimination wouldn't it? If the law fixed discrimination
then removing would create discrimination and that would be
unconstitutional. Otherwise the law was not protecting from
discrimination and was unconstitutional for being there all along. To
remove the discrimination law is a catch-22 and admitting that the law
was unconstitutional to begin with and thereby making the entire law
unconstitutional. Liberals are in a real PICKLE HERE.... damned if they
do and damned if they don't. This is why Liberalism is a flawed and
failed ideology....

*Liberalism is unsustainable, self destructive and contradicting*

And as I said before the legislature makes laws NOT Wal-Mart (that's the
issue) and that's still true since the law for setting the age of gun
ownership will have to be changed. Otherwise it's still violating the
18-20 year old persons right to buy and own a gun they are legally
allowed to buy and own.

The problem is Wal-Mart ignoring the constitution and the laws and
trying make their own law. When it's a constitutional right, they can't
just ignore the law. They might as well wright the blank check to this
guy and fire the idiot Liberals that created that unconstitutional and
totally Fascist policy and make sure that store policy doesn't violate
the constitutional rights of their shoppers.

To phrase it a little differently, wal-mart and Target and others were
willing to make their bathrooms Constitutionally acceptable. If they
see the need to be within the constitution for RIGHTS of transgenders to
toilet access in their stores why would they think they don't have to
meet the constitutional and legal requirements of the RIGHT TO KEEP AND
BEAR ARMS?


This is why the Stock Market will continue to be volatile, Liberals
trying to muck things up are making for some real chaos with their logic
free ideology.

*Liberalism it's unsustainable, self destructive and contradicting*

Liberals try to make up their own laws and special rules on the fly.
It's part of that elitist and ideological supremacist, self image they
have. As if their Fascism is better than anyone else's Fascism.
--
That's Karma

"Of The People"
"By The People"
"For The People"
Loading...