PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) - A 20-year-old man in southern Oregon has filed a lawsuit against Dick's Sporting Goods and Walmart after he says they refused to sell him a rifle.

The Oregonian/OregonLive reports Tyler Watson's lawsuit filed Monday claims he faced age discrimination when he tried to buy a rifle in February at a store owned by Dick's in Medford.

Watson says he was also refused when he attempted to buy a gun at the Grants Pass Walmart.

Dick's and Walmart restricted gun sales in the wake of the Feb. 14 Florida high school massacre. The lawsuit is believed to be the first filed over the new gun policies.

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

Walmart spokesman Randy Hargrove told The Oregonian/OregonLive that the retailer will defend its new policy. A representative from Dick's hasn't responded to a request for comment.

http://www.koin.com/news/orego...olicies-1/1011679335

He should crowdsource his legal fund.

I’m glad this didn’t take too long. Will be interesting how it plays out.

I'm hoping this spreads like a wildfire.

I cringed this morning when I heard the teaser for the story on the radio. Can someone explain to me how this is a good thing?

These are private businesses run by private corporations. Do they not have the right to set their own policies or to do business with whom they please?

Or does that right only apply if they're bakers who don't want to provide material support to the celebration of a gay wedding? Or perhaps employers who terminate employees whose vehicles bear Obama or Hillary stickers?

Now, I understand from what I heard this morning (if it was being reported correctly) that Oregon has a particular state law that prohibits any kind of age discrimination, such that this gentleman's case is likely covered. In states which have no similar laws, however, why should the courts step in and create them? Are we really prepared to argue that judicial activism is a good thing as long as it works in a direction we perceive as a good one?

Serious question, and as always, I'm willing to be convinced that I'm wrong.

-Rob

Rob:

I think that the difference is one of superseding rights. The First Amendment trumps anti-discrimination laws. The baker's case is built on the fact the he can not "create" to celebrate a gay wedding because that act would violate his religious beliefs. He offered to sell the couple a cake off the shelf. So the act in question isn't a sale, it's an act of creativity.

In this case, there is no religious or other claim by the merchant that they are not able to comply with the law for a legally valid reason. They simply have a store policy that discriminates on the basis of age. And, as you note, it appears that the case is brought under an Oregon age discrimination law, not a federal law, and the cases seem to be filed in state court.

I'm not saying I agree with either the position of the merchants or of the activist purchaser, but I think you can reasonably distinguish these cases from the baker's case.

If you are a private business and set a policy of not selling to blacks, have you violated the law? It's the same thing. Dicks can stop selling the guns, or comply with the law. You can't set arbitrary standards.

quote:

These are private businesses run by private corporations. Do they not have the right to set their own policies or to do business with whom they please?

Unless their policies are discriminatory. State law says he can buy a gun. Their store policies are in violation of state law. Seems simple enough.

The left pulls this crap all of the time. It's good to give them a dose of their own medicine.

quote:

The left pulls this crap all of the time. It's good to give them a dose of their own medicine.

+1. Good to see our side using the court system offensively for a change.

Did anyone read my whole post? (Except for ArtieS, and yes, these examples are clearly distinguishable, but I don't believe the baker should have to rely on 1st amendment protections to prevail, so I wasn't looking at it from that angle.)

If there's a state law that covers this kind of age discrimination (federal law does not), fine. It sounds like that's the case in Oregon and that's not what I'm talking about.

Obviously, there are federal and state laws that cover discrimination based on race, and to a slightly lesser degree, gender. This isn't what I'm talking about.

Fredward - you can absolutely set arbitrary (and even capricious) standards as to whom you will do business with as long as you're not discriminating against a legally protected class.

Big Bore, Chuck Perry, etc. - You guys scare me a little. I get the emotional reaction, but judicial activism is either good, or it's not. If that's what we're talking about, is that really what you're advocating for? It can't be good government when you're winning and bad government when the other guy is winning. Do you not think it's a much better policy to let the legislature do the legislating (within the confines of the authority granted them by the federal and state constitutions, respectively, lest I be misunderstood)?

-Rob

State law already set the age limit - I don't think they can override that.

I wouldn't doubt that the dicks at Dick's, Walmart, etc., already knew that, but went ahead anyway for the publicity.

Lawsuits like this will keep the issue in the news, and when they get shot down by the courts, then the libs will be crying for the laws themselves to be changed.

I wouldn't want to take away a private business' right to refuse service to anyone for mostly any reason, but the issue I see with what places like Walmart and Dick's are doing is that they are not refusing to sell to individuals on a case by case basis but to a whole group of people outright based on age.

It'll be interesting to see how this case proceeds. I wouldn't be surprised though if some of these states change their laws before this ever even goes to court.

BurtonRW, if there's no law on the books a judge can't enforce what's not there. If a judge makes a ruling without any law on the books, any new laws that address the issue will render his ruling moot moving forward. That's the way I understand it anyways.

quote:

Originally posted by Echtermetzger:
He should crowdsource his legal fund.

There is no mention of it in the article but I am guessing the legal fund is being paid for or done probono.

quote:

Can someone explain to me how this is a good thing?

These are private businesses run by private corporations. Do they not have the right to set their own policies or to do business with whom they please?

Private businesses should be able to choose whom they do business with but are hindered in multiple ways by different laws.
The positive, maybe these big companies will lobby harder to the states and they will begin to repeal these discrimination laws?? Maybe?

quote:

Originally posted by StayFrosty:
BurtonRW, if there's no law on the books a judge can't enforce what's not there. If a judge makes a ruling without any law on the books, any new laws that address the issue will render his ruling moot moving forward. That's the way I understand it anyways.

Welcome to the forum.

You're essentially correct, and that's my point. If there's no particular state law protecting 18-20 year old individuals from this particular kind of consumer age discrimination, then there's nothing a judge can do to force a business to engage in commerce with them unless said judge engages in outright judicial activism, which is what some here seem to be advocating and what I find particularly disturbing.

Black - exactly. This is a situation where the left's own anti-discrimination policies (see Oregon re: age) may turn around and bite them in the ass. That will be thoroughly amusing.

-Rob

If the headlines read 'Walmart refuses to sell birth control to people under 21', the left would explode.

quote:

Originally posted by 4x5:
If the headlines read 'Walmart refuses to sell birth control to people under 21', the left would explode.

Solid analogy.

quote:

If there's no particular state law protecting 18-20 year old individuals from this particular kind of consumer age discrimination, then there's nothing a judge can do to force a business to engage in commerce with them unless said judge engages in outright judicial activism

I agree with BurtonRW.

Besides the legal issue, I believe in private property. I generally support the idea that business owners, not judges, should decide who a business will accept as a customer. As a matter of principle, I believe in voluntary transactions, entered into freely, without coercion on either side.

Economically speaking, they are only hurting themselves, but let them. If it's legal to sell to an 18-20 year old, someone else will make that sale and benefit.

And I have learned something again. Federal law has no age discrimination except for employment situations for people over 40. States may vary. As far as judicial activism goes, the right has been fighting it since the Warren court without success, as the left establishes "laws" thru precedent (i.e. abortion.) If we cannot eliminate the bad, use it for good.

By the way....not that it matters here, but...

Article 1, Section 27 of the Oregon Constitution states: “The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power.”