Jeep Patriot Forums banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,009 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/06/20-year-old-sues-dicks-walmart-over-new-age-restrictions-on-rifles.html

An Oregon man filed suits Monday claiming Dick's Sporting Goods and Walmart discriminated against the 20-year-old when they refused to sell him a rifle.

Dick's and Walmart restricted gun sales to adults 21 and older in the wake of the Florida high school massacre. The 19-year-old accused in the school slaying bought the AR-15 used in the attack legally.

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

Tyler Watson's lawsuits filed against the retailers in two separate counties claim he faced age discrimination from Dick's and Walmart, The Oregonian/OregonLive reported . The lawsuit is believed to be the first filed over the new gun policies enacted on Feb. 28.

The lawsuit claims a store owned by Dick's Sporting Goods in Medford, Oregon, refused to sell Watson a .22-caliber Ruger rifle on Feb. 24. The suit says Grants Pass Walmart in Oregon refused to sell him a gun on March 3.

It's not clear if Watson knew at that point of the restrictions.

"He was really just trying to buy a rifle," said his attorney Max Whittington.

Watson is asking judges to force Dick's and Walmart "to stop unlawfully discriminating against 18, 19, and 20 year-old customers at all Oregon locations." Additionally, he is asking for unspecified punitive damages.

Walmart spokesman Randy Hargrove said the retailer plans to defend the new policy.

"We stand behind our decision and plan to defend it," he said. "While we haven't seen the complaint, we will respond as appropriate with the court."

A representative from Dick's hasn't responded to a request for comment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrMischief

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,009 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
Key point in bold - private company going against state law.
This will start popping up now that companies are feeding into sensationalism and emotions following devastation.
The PR stunt that was meant to appease some has backfired?
 

·
Unsponsored Baja racer
Joined
·
4,557 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,009 Posts
Discussion Starter #4

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,612 Posts
And he called attention to the high likelihood that killers come from a broken home, which he connected to the growing welfare state and the abortion industry, and how hardening schools could be a practical, proactive step.
Wait, so school shooters are created in broken homes because of welfare and abortion, and the solution is teachers with guns?

Seems to me that if you stopped legislating against abortion, you'd have fewer mouths on welfare, fewer broken homes, and fewer school shootings, and then my kids wouldn't have to worry about armed teachers (who may or may not be potential shooters as well).

He nails nothing. He is legislating morality, not reason.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,009 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
And don't forget fatherless homes with non-existent values with morals taught from the television ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: jack.allwardt

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,612 Posts
And don't forget fatherless homes with non-existent values with morals taught from the television ;)
Family values are a must. A family is not. We need to stop forcing women to bear the burden of the bad choices of men. If we could get past that, we could fix a lot of things.

But when a young woman is date raped, or enters into a relationship where the man exits as soon as the child appears, and said woman is forced to bear the child into this world only to face the prospect of welfare, absentee parenting as she tries to now feed two people by herself, and a society that tells her it's her fault for sleeping around in the first place, a church that damns her no matter her choice to keep or abort the baby... we should totally just pile on more blame and tell her that it's also her fault that kids shoot up schools.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
129 Posts
Key point in bold - private company going against state law.
This will start popping up now that companies are feeding into sensationalism and emotions following devastation.
The PR stunt that was meant to appease some has backfired?
I agree this sounds fishy, but don't private companies release store policy against local or state laws all the time? Is there some information I missed? For example, many states/towns do not have a public smoking ban, but stores can (and do) prohibit smoking on their property. Same goes for dress codes - the whole 'no shoes, no shirt, no service' may not be a state, county, or local law, but businesses can apply that rule whenever they see fit as it's a private establishment. Same goes for restaurants/clubs that turn away people for not wearing proper attire. Some churches do it too, and they don't even pay taxes. Seems like setting an age on a purchase of an item is really an internal matter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jack.allwardt

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,453 Posts
So let me get this straight...you can't buy an assault rifle unless you're now over 21 in certain stores...but you could be a police academy graduate at 18-19, or you could have had military active duty before the age of 21--shouldn't these folks be allowed an exception--they've already and obviously had training with the weapon? I know many small police departments that do not have assault rifles, and the individual cops buy their own.

We've really opened a Pandora's box with this whole age thing. While I personally don't see any real NEED to own an assault rifle--if you're a good hunter, you can be successful with a single shot 30.06, according to my Lions club brothers that keep their freezers stocked with venison, elk, boar, etc. But, if the 2nd amendment allows us to own, and without diluting the provisions and intent of the 2nd, how can we adequately, and federally, determine saneness to own such a weapon?

Altho I'm a veteran, and have been trained (50+ years ago...) on high-powered weapons, I probably won't own one--just like I have a concealed carry permit, but no longer own a handgun--there's just too much liability if you exercise your rights.

We're never going to find a happy medium on this topic, and now the latest shootings are no longer in the daily news, this topic is now dormant until the next incident. Luckily I live in a senior's housing area where probably 75% have concealed carry permits, so I know chances that my neighbors are armed. My most deadly weapon could easily be my Patriot....
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,009 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Not at all, here we have conceal carry however anyone can post a sign stating its against their rules to carry at their establishment (lets say a clothing store) however this is for insurance liability as if it went to court for a violation in said store would be overruled as there is no state law. No organization can go against state or federal law.

The smoking thing only gets tricky when you get into public versus private areas - you cannot enforce local/state policies in a private setting and I think that is where you are confused. At my private soccer club we can allow smoking even tho it is publicly banned in our city/county/and state. Into your other examples everything is specific, you cannot paint a broad brush.

I agree this sounds fishy, but don't private companies release store policy against local or state laws all the time? Is there some information I missed? For example, many states/towns do not have a public smoking ban, but stores can (and do) prohibit smoking on their property. Same goes for dress codes - the whole 'no shoes, no shirt, no service' may not be a state, county, or local law, but businesses can apply that rule whenever they see fit as it's a private establishment. Same goes for restaurants/clubs that turn away people for not wearing proper attire. Some churches do it too, and they don't even pay taxes. Seems like setting an age on a purchase of an item is really an internal matter.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,009 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
And at he same time you need to hold those women accountable for their bad choices - remember women are not always automatic helpless victims. If we did hold them accountable more than we do - we could fix a lot of things.

Aside from the small percentage of cases where women are raped or are otherwise forced into a relationship - the majority of women that play the victim card equate to the majority of cases. Its both the man and woman whom are at fault for sleeping around and men are required to pay and play for their fun time in creating a child. You also fail to note the cases of women that do not want the father around and simply want the paycheck both from the state and the father. Men can only be blamed for so many things.

Family values are a must. A family is not. We need to stop forcing women to bear the burden of the bad choices of men. If we could get past that, we could fix a lot of things.

But when a young woman is date raped, or enters into a relationship where the man exits as soon as the child appears, and said woman is forced to bear the child into this world only to face the prospect of welfare, absentee parenting as she tries to now feed two people by herself, and a society that tells her it's her fault for sleeping around in the first place, a church that damns her no matter her choice to keep or abort the baby... we should totally just pile on more blame and tell her that it's also her fault that kids shoot up schools.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,009 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
  • Like
Reactions: RossoRacer
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top