Oregon Man Sues Walmart, Dick’s Over New 21-And-Over Long Gun Requirement

Well that didn’t take long. Tyler Watson of southern Oregon heard the news that both Dick’s Sporting Goods and Walmart had decided to implement their own 21-and-up age requirement to purchase a long gun after the retailers came under pressure from anti-gun groups and their willing stenographers in the media following the Parkland shooting. So the 20-year-old strolled into both companies’ stores and tried to buy a rifle. He was turned down.

Now he’s suing both retailers.

According to his lawsuit against Dick’s Sporting Goods, Watson went into a Medford Field & Stream, which is owned by the company, Saturday, Feb. 24 and asked to buy a .22-caliber Ruger 10/22 rifle. The clerk denied the sale because Watson was under 21.

Watson’s lawsuit against Walmart says he went into its store in Grants Pass on Saturday, March 3 and asked to buy a rifle but was denied because he was under 21.

Of course, it’s perfectly legal for anyone who’s at least 18 years old buy a long gun. But the civilian disarmament industrial complex has very effectively cranked up a post-Parkland campaign designed to push a new “assault weapons” ban, universal background checks and, of course, hiking the age for any gun purchase to 21.

For now anyway, federal and Oregon laws still allow anyone who’s at least 18 to buy a rifle or shotgun. So is it kosher for a retailer to refuse to sell a legal item to someone who’s at least 18 but under 21?

Lewis and Clark Law Professor Tung Yin said last week it’s perfectly legal for a business to set an age limit higher than the law.

“We recognize there are certain categories where it’s wrong to single people out. Race, gender, religion, national origin, and depending on the state, sexual orientation,” said Yin. “But age has never really been one of those.”

Oregon’s public accommodation law covers age restrictions as they pertain to marijuana sales and senior discounts, but say nothing about self-imposed seller age restrictions for other items. Then again, I’m not an attorney. So let’s consult UCLA school of law professor Eugene Volokh:

There are plausible arguments to be made about whether laws banning discrimination in public accommodations are generally a good idea, whether laws banning discrimination in retail sales are generally a good idea (federal law, for instance, doesn’t apply to most retail stores), whether laws banning discrimination in retail sales based on age are generally a good idea (most states don’t ban such discrimination), whether there ought to be exemptions to such laws for 18-to-20-year-olds, whether there ought to be exemptions to such laws for 18-to-20-year-olds who want to buy guns, and more. Those would be plausible arguments to make to state legislatures.

But this case isn’t a common-law tort case, or a constitutional case, in which courts make decisions about what should or shouldn’t be covered — it’s a case applying this particular statute in this particular state. And under this statute, the case seems open and shut for the plaintiff and against Dick’s.

Pop some popcorn and keep an eye on this.

comments

  1. avatar MiketheHopsFarmer says:

    I told the misses the other night when they announced this that I was waiting for the lawsuit. Grabbing my popcorn, should be fun to watch them walk back the policy while crying, “we tried to do something”

    1. avatar J.D.Fowlerton says:

      A bunch of young adults need to follow this guy and maybe get a class action or something going. I wish him luck.

      1. avatar Rick says:

        Yeah, as long as they pay by the hour, boon to lawyers.

    2. avatar JW says:

      The misses? You are a lucky man. 🙂

    3. avatar Anonymous says:

      I love everything about this lawsuit. Liberals tell conservatives not to discriminate, despite that everyone discriminates everything at any given moment. Regardless, Conservatives capitulate. Then liberals discriminate on the basis of age, which they wrote into law themselves. Conservatives call them out on it. Hilarious. They can’t even have the foresight to follow their own ridiculous rules.

      1. avatar Bob999 says:

        The left doesn’t follow their own rules because their agenda is not about rules that apply to all people equally. It is about subjugating We The People to an all powerful central government ruled exclusively by them.

  2. avatar jug says:

    Goose/gander!

    1. avatar Dog of War says:

      Hey, if the state of Oregon is going to force a Christian owned bakery make a wedding cake for a gay/lesbian couple then Dicks and Wally World have to sell guns to otherwise eligible person.

      1. avatar Rick says:

        Yup, you can force, or fine in this case, a baker who makes cakes, who refuses to bake cake because they’re gay. Because gay is a protected class in Oregon since 2007 and federally for the last 3 years.

        1. avatar Defenders says:

          Yep =, one big liberal here.

  3. avatar Cruzo1981 says:

    I hope some pro 2A lawyers step in a la pro bono…

    1. avatar Bob999 says:

      It would be unlikely if it is going to be heard by an Oregon State court. Oregon is so entrenched in leftist ideology, it would be a waste of time, for expecting a fair decision is impossible there. But, if someone sued from a red state….

      1. avatar Steve says:

        A court in southern Oregon is going to be very different than a court in northern Oregon. I live in Grants Pass and it is not a liberal town and Josephine county is not a liberal county.

      2. avatar raptor jesus says:

        You’ve clearly never been outside of Portland.

  4. avatar anonymoose says:

    If you can be forced to bake a cake for gay people who don’t have to get married, you should be forced to sell guns to someone who can’t instantly make themselves 3 years older.

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      @ anonymoose

      You just gave me a idea,with gay wedding cakes,gender neutrality,self identification ,what if a 18 year old self identifies as a twenty five year old or 65 year old.

      Out the window goes the 21 for alcohol,handguns,age limits for senior housing,ect.

      Whats good for the goose certainly is good for the gander

      1. avatar Rick says:

        Nope, not how laws work in America. You have to be in a protected class, gays are, 20 year olds aren’t.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Pretty sure discrimination based on age has been illegal for a while.

        2. avatar Rick says:

          Still nope, under federal law, age discrimination is only employment based, and only for those of us over 40.

          Some states have laws that expand it, Michigan the most extensive, mainly because its 40 years old, Oregon’s is only a couple of years old, has some exclusions that specify public, i.e. owned by the public, not commercial, place exclusions based on accommodation, which blah blah, you can read below, blah blah.

      2. avatar Bruce says:

        I had an idea too, but it was for a gay wedding cake decorated with guns.

        1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

          That should do the trick !

  5. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    We all knew it was coming.

    “We recognize there are certain categories where it’s wrong to single people out. Race, gender, religion, national origin, and depending on the state, sexual orientation,” said Yin. “But age has never really been one of those.”

    Age discrimination is still discrimination,finding plaintiff,next case.

  6. avatar DD says:

    Ok then change it to 21..while your at it change voting age to 21..selective service to 21..car insurance/health insurance to 21..sign up for credit card/bank loan to 21..yeah thats a good start

    1. avatar Bloving says:

      I might suggest 30 for voting… make people live in the real world for a while before they get a say in how the rest of us have to live.
      🤠

      1. avatar B-Rad says:

        Dude, you can only get 53% of registered voters to show up in presidential elections, about half that for off years, and if its an off year without a house seat, good luck with 20%. Only about 70% of all eligible are registers.

    2. avatar Art out West says:

      To be consistent, also raise the age for sexual consent to 21.

      That also “magically solves” most of the college date rape issues.

      Sex, the power of procreation, is far more powerful than a firearm. People who can’t be trusted with a firearm, can’t be trusted with sexual activity either.
      😄

      Also, to be consistent, we need to charge 18-20 year olds in the juvenile justice system.

      We probably shouldn’t allow them to work or drive cars either.

      Either 18 is an adult, or it isn’t.

  7. avatar DaveL says:

    What’s a statist to do, when byzantine laws and regulations are so thick on the ground that they get in the way of effective virtue-signalling?

  8. avatar MiserableBastard says:

    Where is that Johannes guy that did the legal topics, I miss his excellent posts. (Not disparaging Dan’s posts)

  9. avatar jwtaylor says:

    “But age has never really been one of those.”
    You mean other than the Age Discrimination and Employment Act of 1967?
    Age has been a protected class in this country for 50 years.
    This idiot got a law degree?

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      jwtaylor,

      That is the entire point of our laws and law degrees: they enable attorneys to “characterize” a case whatever way is necessary to hit pay dirt.

      At this point in time, our laws and precedent have been so abused and distorted that any attorney can make a solid case for anything that benefits the party with deep pockets.

      Saying it another way, there is always some “exception” to the plain text of sensible laws that give “lawful support” to blatantly wrong/illegal conduct.

    2. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

      He teaches this stuff. It doesn’t necessarily mean he knows how to do it.

      He’s been a professor since 2002. He only practiced law for four years before that. His bio didn’t mention whether he had any actual trial experience. I doubt he’s ever even seen the inside of a courtroom.

      1. avatar Steve S. says:

        He needs to go back for more practice. He certainly isn’t fit to PERFORM law; much less teach it if he can’t get the facts straight without inserting his personal biaes (if there were any. If not, the he is spewing out of pure ignorance of the topic.)

    3. avatar Felix says:

      Read the Volokh link. Federal age discrimination is explicitly limited to those over 40.

      This lawsuit is about an Oregon law which explicitly does not allow age discrimination except a very few enumerated cases.

    4. avatar Rick says:

      That is purely about employment law, hence the name. This lawsuit will be dismissed, as there is no standing to sue.

      1. avatar DDay says:

        No, you don’t understand. The lawsuit is in Oregon state court and based on oregon law. Oregon law does not allow businesses open to the public to discriminate based on age, gender, etc. The kid is going to win and it’s certain. The OR state law is very clear and what walmart and dicks are doing to discriminating against him because of his age. They cannot do that, the law doesn’t allow it.

        1. avatar Rick says:

          Oregon law, helps to read it, actually has explicit limits, which this wouldn’t be applicable to.

          So still, nope, will be thrown out in the initial hearing. You can file suit for nearly anything, getting past summary judgement is another thing.

        2. avatar DDay says:

          You are clueless. I’ve read the law and there is not exemption for firearms.

        3. avatar Rick says:

          The law is explicit, not implicit, everything is excluded EXCEPT for what’s specifically called out for in the accommodation.

    5. avatar Ralph says:

      @jwt, discrimination is legal unless it’s not. Meaning, in the absence of specific laws making discrimination illegal, people are free to do business or not do business, or associate or not associate, with whoever they choose.

      Even racial discrimination, which has risen to the highest form of prohibited discrimination, is legal in certain settings (private clubs are one example).

      Age discrimination laws, with some exceptions, generally protect older workers. In some cases, they protect workers of any age. But the plaintiff in this case isn’t claiming employment discrimination.

      It’s also noteworthy — but not determinative — that in NRA V. BATFE, the Fifth Circuit (in Texas!) upheld the federal prohibition against FFLs selling handguns to people under age 21.The case was brought on Second Amendment and Due Process grounds.

      1. avatar DDay says:

        federal law states handgun purchases must be 21. This kid is suing because the law in OR protects based on age, gender, etc. discrimination. If OR raises the age to purchase to 21, or exempts firearms, Dicks & Walmart would be fine legally. OR has not, there for it’s age discrimination to not sell the rifle to the kid when OR law and Fed law allows it. They are not singling people out and saying a certain person is a risk and they refuse to sell, it’s a blanket policy which is illegal under OR law

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          Repeating the plaintiff’s argument doesn’t make it true.

          While I hope the kid wins, I can’t say that it’s inevitable.

        2. avatar DDay says:

          Bringing up federal law which has no impact on a state law in OR has no impact.

        3. avatar Rick says:

          Supremacy clause says otherwise.

      2. avatar DaveL says:

        Meaning, in the absence of specific laws making discrimination illegal

        This is literally about a specific Oregon law making this sort of discrimination illegal.

        1. avatar Rick says:

          Making lack of accommodation a violation, those aren’t the same things.

        2. avatar DaveL says:

          No, making (inter alia) any discrimination by age against those “of age” illegal in any place of Public Accommodation, to include the denial of any advantage, facility, or privilege, with only a couple of enumerated exceptions. The definition of “place of Public Accommodations” makes clear that goods are an example of “advantages, facilities, or privileges” :

          Any place or service offering to the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges whether in the nature of goods, services, lodgings, amusements, transportation or otherwise.

  10. avatar fiundagner says:

    Frankly I hope he Tacks on some emotional damages to the suit. Get a couple million out of it.

  11. avatar Some Joe Shmoe says:

    No Freedom of Speech till age 21
    No Miranda Rights till age 21
    No Voting rights till age 21
    No rights against self incrimination till age 21

    See how stupid those all sound?

    This is no different.

  12. avatar Jeff Mullett says:

    Anti discrimination laws don’t exist for an FFL under BATFE. Any FFL for any reason can refuse to sell a firearm without risk. This legal action is going no place.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      ” Any FFL for any reason can refuse to sell a firearm without risk.”

      That’s pretty much the way I understand it.

      And is it that way because of the “particular dangerous-ness” of guns, I wonder?

      1. avatar 16V says:

        I have a few FFL friends, and they have all been told by ATF, verbatim, that they don’t have to sell to anyone they don’t want to.

    2. avatar DDay says:

      This is OR we’re talking about, not BATFE rules. They are not selective in their denial, it’s a blanket policy based on age and yes, Dicks and walmart are going to lose. What BATFE allows has nothing to do with this suit.

      1. avatar Rick says:

        If wishes were fishes we’d all swim in riches

        1. avatar DDay says:

          If you were brighter, you’d make a point once in a while.

  13. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    They can make you bake a cake in Oregon…

    1. avatar Rick says:

      No, they can’t, unless you refuse service to a protected class. That’s why they call them protected classes.

      Jesus, this isn’t secret stuff here, the is purely legal basics 101, OK LAW265 I think the class was.

      1. avatar DDay says:

        Everyone over 18 is a protected class in Oregon FLAME DELETED

  14. avatar BlazinTheAmazin says:

    Young people’s brains really aren’t fully developed until around 25 so in light of that I would consider raising the age for everything to anywhere from 21-25.

    That being said if you are old enough to join the military, sign legal docs etc then you are old enough to enjoy ALL of your rights. If you are old enough to vote in elections that shape the future of this country you are old enough to handle a rifle (or pistol).

    1. avatar DaveL says:

      I think the “fully developed” talking point is a red herring. The question is not whether development is “complete”, but whether a person possesses sufficient faculties such that their interest in their own liberty outweighs any need to protect them from themselves.

    2. avatar Ralph says:

      Meh, I know a lot of older people whose brains aren’t fully developed, and one of them is the Chairman of Dick’s.

  15. avatar Huntmaster says:

    When the Government licenses you to do business in a heavily regulated business such as selling firearms, you can’t pick and choose your customers based on something as arbitrary as whether they turned 21 last month or will turn 21 next month as long as they are legally permitted to make the transaction. You are, after all, denying the State and Federal Government the tax revenue from that transaction. They are going to want their money.

    1. avatar Rick says:

      That’s 100% wrong, you absolutely can, in fact the actual wording of your FFL application and the legal framework for it allows for blanket refusal for any reason without justification, and that has been legally tested and validated many times.

      Plus, you can discriminate against a non protected class all you want any way.

      1. avatar DDay says:

        Yes under federal law. this suit is in OR state court and the claim is a violation of OR state law. So no, a business in OR cannot refuse to sell to someone based on age, it’s very clear from the text of the law. There is no question as to why they are not selling to him, they clearly have a policy of not selling to anyone under 21 which violates OR state law.

        1. avatar Rick says:

          You keep repeating this, it still doesn’t make it true, that’s not what the Oregon law says.

        2. avatar DDay says:

          Yes it is. You don’t understand the law and you keep displaying your ignorance.

        3. avatar DDay says:

          They’re a protected class you twit.

          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.

        4. avatar Rick says:

          Nope, still not true under Oregon law.

          By the way, 21year old restriction will be Oregon law within the month, so this is all moot. They already passed restrictions today, and this is on the way, with overwhelming democrat support, and they’re in control of both branches.

  16. avatar Ralph says:

    In Massachusetts, nobody can buy a gun (or ammo) of any kind without a firearms license, either a License to Carry (LTC) for handguns or a firearms Identification card (FID) for long guns only.

    With parental consent, a teen can be granted an FID at the age of 15; without parental consent, the age is 18 for an FID, at which time a teen can buy a long gun under state and Federal law.

    Teen FID applicants are subject to the same vetting and training requirements as adult LTC applicants, and MA is “may issue” for both and the police have discretion on issuing.

    So it strikes me as absurd that the anti-gun Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the local Chief LEO trusts 18-20 year olds with guns, but Dickhead’s and Walmart do not.

    1. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

      Please don’t remind of The People’s Republic of Massachusetts…The Very Definition of an “Authoritarian, Communist Police-State ! ” Yup, and not to long ago, before the 2014 Gun 🔫 control act by Obama acolyte ex governor Deval Patrick…MA. Residents had to do the same thing to get a “Restricted FID” just to purchase Mace and Pepper Spray–(if they could find any that was effective…)All Residents had to fill out an Application for an “FID Restricted”, get an appointment with the local licensing Authority at the local police station, then grarval to the licensing officer at the local police station on why the citizen needs to “purchase/own/ posess said item…” Then the poor MA resident had to wait 3-6 weeks, pay $25.00, see if the “Pepper spray permit” was approved and sent in the s-mail…What a Joke ! Because in Massachusetts, just like it’s always been…” Absolute power corrupts absolutely…”

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        Thanks for reinforcing my point.

        BTW, many (maybe even most) towns in MA are de facto “shall issue” for LTCs. The cities? No.

        The power of the Irish Mafia in the Commonwealth is pervasive.

        1. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

          The power of the (insert type or version here: Militant Liberal Pro-Aggressive, Socialist, Communist , Marxist, etc.) MA. DemoCRAPic Representatives, and RINOs….Knows no boundaries! As the same with the Local/State Law Enforcement Community in this State…(re: STASI, local LEO police gangs, Aggressive Union Police, etc…Some with personal or Left-Wing Political axes to grind. So much so that most MA gun owners, or licence applicants were afraid to fill out GOAL.Org complaints about mistreatment a local police stations. regarding 2nd Amendment issues…In fear their permits/licenses might be interfered with for said complaints…..) Also, very recently at a Massachusetts state committee on gun control. A female DemoCRAP exclaimed that there is NO 2nd Amendment rights in the state of Massachusetts. only a barely tolerated privilege by the politicians of Massachusetts and it’s local and state law enforcement community. I believe this demonstrates the very definition of authoritarian police-state…

    2. avatar DesertDave says:

      Dick’s … Says it all.

  17. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    “We recognize there are certain categories where it’s wrong to single people out. Race, gender, religion, national origin, and depending on the state, sexual orientation,” said Yin. “But age has never really been one of those.”

    That’s funny. I recognize the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, which states in part: …nor shall any state… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    And under this statute, the case seems open and shut for the plaintiff and against Dick’s.

    That can’t possibly be true. Right here in the TTAG comments, when I asked an earlier question about the legality of such a policy, I was told that such policies are legal, because they are legal (and subsequently castigated for pointing out the tautological nature of such argument).

    It seems Eugene Volokh, at least, sees some validity to the argument.

    1. avatar Rick says:

      Yeah, because a man with a blog in California, blogs about something that he’s never going to have to actually back up.

      He’s wrong, pure and simple, if it really believes that, that might be a reason he’s never practiced law.

    2. avatar Ralph says:

      Chip, the NRA based it’s case in NRA v. BATFE (contesting the prohibition on 18-20 year olds from buying guns from FFLs) on 2A and Due Process.

      The NRA lost.

      Besides, Dickhead’s and Walmart are private actors; they are not the government.

      1. avatar DDay says:

        They are businesses open to the public. Who cares about the NRA v. BAFTE suit, that’s a suit challenging a federal law and has nothing to do with a state discrimination suit in OR. The only thing that matters is OR state law which very clearly says you cannot discriminate based on age.

        1. avatar Rick says:

          Well judges do, that’s called precedent, i.e. existing case law.

      2. avatar Nanashi says:

        The NRA is also the reason that law got passed in the first place, so they may have intentionally flunked that case.

      3. avatar RalphThePuke says:

        Hey Puke if you hadnt dumbly dismissed your teachers as “the stupidest” you might not be so ignorant of basic civics and law and history, you might have some rudimentary understand of how math works and so be able to deal meaningfully with the crime stats you are so fond of…

        You might have cultivated your intellectual and emotional maturity and have something interesting to talk about instead of this ceaseless vacuous gun-blather… I cant think of anything more boring and childish, only “the stupidest” of the stupid would make this the center of their parochial lives…

    3. avatar DipstickBennettRacistLiar says:

      You picked the topic Dipstick Bennett namely yalls racist trope (endlessly repeated without evidence) that a disproportionate number of criminals being black accounts for/explains the police disproportionately shooting unarmed black folks

      And I cited indisputable evidence in the form of a peer reviewed study (what you stupidly dismiss as the ““substance” (such as it is) of this comment”) correcting your racist excuse/delusion:

      “There is no relationship between county-level racial bias in police shootings and crime rates (even race-specific crime rates), meaning that the racial bias observed in police shootings in this data set is not explainable as a response to local-level crime rates.”
      http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141854

      The reality of racism/implicit bias in policing remains:

      “The results provide evidence of a significant bias in the killing of unarmed black Americans relative to unarmed white Americans…”
      http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141854

      And so there is of course nothing admirable or “remarkable” as you say that the police are not even more disproportionately killing unarmed black folks

      Chip Bennett says:
      December 13, 2017 at 13:24
      Ballpark, according to FBI UCR data, the rate of black-perpetrated violent crime is eight times the rate of white-perpetrated violent crime. In that context, it is remarkable that the rate of police-involved shootings of black suspects is a mere 2-2.5 the rate of police-involved shootings of white suspects.

      Chip Bennett says:
      March 2, 2018 at 08:49
      Clean up on aisle seven…?

      And no, I’m not even going to address the “substance” (such as it is) of this comment, because it is entirely off-topic.

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        Whomever you are, you seem to have a crush on me. Kindly troll someone else, please.

        1. avatar NameCallingWontChangeDocumentedRealityRacistLiarChipBennett says:

          We already covered this Dipstick:

          “… dismissing educated reality-based folks like me as “trolls/commies/terrorists/monkeys/” and ignoring the evidence we favor you with : D”

          You picked the topic Dipstick Bennett namely yalls racist trope (endlessly repeated without evidence) that a disproportionate number of criminals being black accounts for/explains the police disproportionately shooting unarmed black folks

          And I cited indisputable evidence in the form of a peer reviewed study (what you stupidly dismiss as the ““substance” (such as it is) of this comment”) correcting your racist excuse/delusion:

          “There is no relationship between county-level racial bias in police shootings and crime rates (even race-specific crime rates), meaning that the racial bias observed in police shootings in this data set is not explainable as a response to local-level crime rates.”
          http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141854

          The reality of racism/implicit bias in policing remains:

          “The results provide evidence of a significant bias in the killing of unarmed black Americans relative to unarmed white Americans…”
          http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141854

          And so there is of course nothing admirable or “remarkable” as you say that the police are not even more disproportionately killing unarmed black folks

          Chip Bennett says:
          December 13, 2017 at 13:24
          Ballpark, according to FBI UCR data, the rate of black-perpetrated violent crime is eight times the rate of white-perpetrated violent crime. In that context, it is remarkable that the rate of police-involved shootings of black suspects is a mere 2-2.5 the rate of police-involved shootings of white suspects.

          Chip Bennett says:
          March 2, 2018 at 08:49
          Clean up on aisle seven…?

          And no, I’m not even going to address the “substance” (such as it is) of this comment, because it is entirely off-topic.

        2. avatar RacistLiarChipBennett says:

          This is how the racist liar Chip Bennett et al operate, they post racist bullsheet and when they receive a documented correction they ignore it in favor of smearing me as a “troll” etc.

          Naturally the documented fact remains:

          “There is no relationship between county-level racial bias in police shootings and crime rates (even race-specific crime rates), meaning that the racial bias observed in police shootings in this data set is not explainable as a response to local-level crime rates.”
          http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141854

          Dipstick Bennett and the rest of the racist liars on The Lies About Guns will endlessly repeat the contrary but that will NOT magically change this documented reality

  18. avatar DaveL says:

    A quick reading of Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act suggests that such a lawsuit would also have traction here. The Gun Control Nutters are going to just love the non-retaliation / non-interference provisions.

  19. avatar CLarson says:

    Bottom line is the pro-property rights / seller discretion argument is defunct. We had those rights pre-1960s but no longer. There are dozens of laws from the Federal level down to local statutes that tell business to whom they must buy and sell. If you live in a locality where corporations are attempting to discriminate against firearm customers tell your legislators to pass laws to make them stop.

  20. avatar Higgs says:

    This young man might have a pretty solid case against Dicks. Based on all the stories I have seen he tried to make the purchase on 2/24. Dicks announced there policy 4 days later. The optics will look horrible for Dicks if these dates are correct.

  21. avatar neiowa says:

    said Yin. “But age has never really been one of those.”

    Yet we have an entire amendment (stupid) giving the vote to 18yr olds

    1. avatar J.T. says:

      Ya. That never should have been an amendment. A federal law, maybe, but not an amendment.

  22. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

    Like my senior citizen Dad said…It won’t take long before some “Authoritarian A******” decides old folks and old people shouldn’t be able to buy Firearms or other self-defense items…Next thing you know, No one over the age of 60 yrs can purchase/own /posess/carry, anything…..Then America is swimming up schitt’s creek without a paddle…

  23. avatar ironicatbest says:

    That lawsuit will go over like a turd in a salad bowl, my business, my rules, you don’t like it don’t shop here

    1. avatar DDay says:

      Oh yeah? Open a business and try to have that policy and deny service based on gender, race, religion, etc. If it’s a private golf club, etc. you can set the rules and who can join. If it’s a business open to the public, you cannot.

      You are ignorant of the law.

      1. avatar Rick says:

        THOSE ARE PROTECTED CLASSES AHHH!! That’s the difference here, 18-20 year olds are not.

        1. avatar DDay says:

          they are protected under OR law you twit. There is an age protection for anyone over 18 in OR and 19 other states. There is something wrong with your brain.

        2. avatar Rick says:

          Nope, go fish

          2015 ORS 659A.009 states:

          It is declared to be the public policy of Oregon that the available workforce should be utilized to the fullest extent possible. To this end, the abilities of an individual, and not any arbitrary standards that discriminate against an individual solely because of age, should be the measure of the individual’s fitness and qualification for employment.

          EMPLOYMENT LAW All of these “experts” quoting the law should read the text, that is the text.

          Wait, I know the law on accommodation.

          2015 ORS 659A.403
          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.

          (2) Subsection (1) of this section does not prohibit:

          (a) The enforcement of laws governing the consumption of alcoholic beverages by minors and the frequenting by minors of places of public accommodation where alcoholic beverages are served;

          (b) The enforcement of laws governing the use of marijuana items, as defined in ORS 475B.015 (Definitions for ORS 475B.010 to 475B.395), by persons under 21 years of age and the frequenting by persons under 21 years of age of places of public accommodation where marijuana items are sold; or

          (c) The offering of special rates or services to persons 50 years of age or older.

          (3) It is an unlawful practice for any person to deny full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation in violation of this section. [Formerly 30.670; 2003 c.521 §1; 2005 c.131 §1; 2007 c.100 §5; 2015 c.614 §27]

          So does that mean sales, well what is a Reasonable Accommodation?
          A reasonable accommodation is an adjustment made in a system to accommodate or make fair the same system for an individual based on a proven need. That need can vary. Accommodations can be religious, physical, mental or emotional. Academic, or employment related and are often mandated by law. Each country has its own system of reasonable accommodations. The United Nations use this term in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, saying refusal to make accommodation results in discrimination. It defines a ‘reasonable accommodation’ as:

          “Reasonable accommodation” means necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments not imposing a disproportionate or undue burden, where needed in a particular case, to ensure to persons with disabilities the enjoyment or exercise on an equal basis with others of all human rights and fundamental freedoms.

          Could the legal language in Oregon have been better worded, sure, I guess, if you aren’t writing it in legal language which defines the meaning. But as written, Dick’s is fine and dandy on legal footing for being dicks.

        3. avatar Rick says:

          Dick’s isn’t denying access to, or accommodation to their facilities, or Walmart too I guess, just denying sales, which they are free to do.

        4. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Dick’s isn’t denying access to, or accommodation to their facilities, or Walmart too I guess, just denying sales, which they are free to do.

          Just like a certain baker was free to do, too?

        5. avatar Rick says:

          AHHH!!! GAY IS A PROTECTED CLASS, under both federal and state law.

          It’s like you don’t want to know things because FEELZ.

        6. avatar DaveL says:

          Rick, you’re trying to take the definition of “reasonable accommodation” from employment law and morph it into “public accommodations”. It’s kind of vicariously embarrassing to watch, actually.

        7. avatar Rick says:

          2015 ORS 659A.400¹
          Place of public accommodation defined

          (1) A place of public accommodation, subject to the exclusions in subsection (2) of this section, means:

          (a) Any place or service offering to the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges whether in the nature of goods, services, lodgings, amusements, transportation or otherwise.

          (b) Any place that is open to the public and owned or maintained by a public body, as defined in ORS 174.109 (“Public body” defined), regardless of whether the place is commercial in nature.

          (c) Any service to the public that is provided by a public body, as defined in ORS 174.109 (“Public body” defined), regardless of whether the service is commercial in nature.

          (2) A place of public accommodation does not include:

          (a) A Department of Corrections institution as defined in ORS 421.005 (Definitions).

          (b) A state hospital as defined in ORS 162.135 (Definitions for ORS 162.135 to 162.205).

          (c) A youth correction facility as defined in ORS 420.005 (Definitions).

          (d) A local correction facility or lockup as defined in ORS 169.005 (Definitions for ORS 169.005 to 169.677 and 169.730 to 169.800).

          (e) An institution, bona fide club or place of accommodation that is in its nature distinctly private. [Formerly 30.675; 2013 c.429 §1; 2013 c.530 §4]

          2015 ORS 174.109¹
          “Public body” defined

          Subject to ORS 174.108 (Effect of definitions), as used in the statutes of this state “public body” means state government bodies, local government bodies and special government bodies. [2001 c.74 §2]

        8. avatar DaveL says:

          Yes, that’s the text of the statute, supporting my interpretation and refuting yours.

        9. avatar DDay says:

          Rick is a twit.

          Also, there is no federal protection for gays in law. There is a ruling from an appeals court in 2017, long after the baker cases in CO, WA and OR. But keep making stuff up, you’re doing great.

        10. avatar Rick says:

          So you missed Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015, its kinda famous.

          In which the Supreme Court ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The ruling meant that all fifty states must lawfully perform and recognize the marriages of same-sex couples on the same terms and conditions as the marriages of opposite-sex couples, with all the accompanying rights and responsibilities.

          Knowledge is not your enemy, or maybe it is YOUR enemy, but generally not everyone’s enemy.

  24. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

    How about Retailers stop selling alcohol 🍸 beverages to anyone who is age 44-50 yrs of age because of a potential of middle life crisis! How about Retailers screen potential customers of alcohol 🍸 to see 👀 if they are having family, marital, divorce, Etc…And Prohibit them from purchase if they fear 😱 that customer is going to cause a drunk driving incident 🚗….or worse….Right?!

    1. avatar Huntmaster says:

      Why don’t we require a license to buy alcoholic beverages and suspend it if you become involved in too many alcohol related incidents within, say two years. Imagine the reductions in alcohol related health care costs, traffic fatalities, lost work hours , birth defects, etc. Hell, that would save a hundred times more lives than whatever fictitious number the gun control lobby is claiming that stronger gun laws would save.

      1. avatar B-Rad says:

        Dude, we have that all the time, at least legally, there’ no NICS for beer, but get busted for DUI, much less several of them, and you can get banned for life from alcohol. You can’t really enforce it beyond drug tests, which if you don’t do daily you can’t really do anything about. There have been talks about ankle monitors that do that too, but I don’t know if any jurisdiction has actually used them.

        I’m an old, so its not like I’m ID’d anymore.

        I have a loser cousin that had something like 12 DUI’s by 30, half were plead down to something else, but he had his DL canceled for life at 28 or so, still has cars, still gets DUI’s, spends a week or two in jail, then they boot him for overcrowding, he inherited a bunch of money, so he doesn’t care.

  25. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    Applicable Oregon state statute:

    659A.403 Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited. (1) 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.

    There really isn’t any wiggle room there.

    1. avatar DDay says:

      Chip, you are completely correct. These people who say the suit has no merit keep talking about BATFE allowing dealers to refuse sale or thinking about private groups who restrict who can join their club. Neither of those apply here, this is purely an OR law issue and what BATFE allows has nothing to do with what OR law says businesses must do. And these businesses are open to the public, it’s not a private college or golf course. If you are open to the general public, you MUST follow OR discrimination laws which as you said are very clear. You cannot discriminate against anyone over 18 in oregon based on age. Dicks and Walmart denied the sale based solely on his age. This is a very open and shut case.

      There are 19 states who have similar anti discrimination laws for anyone over 18. In those states, Dick’s and Walmart are going to forced to sell to those under 21.

      1. avatar 16V says:

        Please read some settled law, it will help your incredible naivte.

        Lemme give you the abridged version – the court can do whatever it wants, and justify it with precedent.

        The highest law in the land says “shall not be infringed”. Let me know how your slam dunk case against the GCA goes…

        1. avatar Rick says:

          And the age today of handgun vs long gun? So we already discriminate, and so far the supreme court is perfectly fine with that.

        2. avatar Huntmaster says:

          News Flash…. The law is never settled

    2. avatar Rick says:

      Yeah, read the whole thing, public ACCOMMODATION, doesn’t mean what you think it means in this context. An 18 year old has access, and can be accommodated, but doesn’t mean you have to actually sell them X product.

      1. avatar DDay says:

        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.

        Rick, you’re dense.

      2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        Yeah, read the whole thing, public ACCOMMODATION, doesn’t mean what you think it means in this context.

        Which explains why a Christian baker successfully defended against a lawsuit, since he allowed the gay patrons the accommodation of entering his bakery, right?

        In the case of Oregon, accommodations means, “…full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges…

        1. avatar Rick says:

          Nope, because gay is a protected class. Good lord.

        2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Nope, because gay is a protected class. Good lord.

          Klein v. Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries was argued over ORA659A.403, not federal statute:
          http://www.oregon.gov/boli/siteassets/pages/press/sweet%20cakes%20fo.pdf

        3. avatar DaveL says:

          The text he just quoted, in bold no less, explicitly identifies age as a protected class under the statute. Seriously, I don’t understand your major malfunction on this. When shown definitively that the statute includes age, you claim retail doesn’t count as public accommodation. When confronted with the expansive definition of “public accommodation” under the statute, you come full circle back to claiming age isn’t a protected class, as if nothing had ever happened.

        4. avatar Rick says:

          Right because gay is a protected class under both state and federal law.

        5. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Right because gay is a protected class under both state and federal law.

          I’ve already linked it. Klein v. Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries was argued over ORA659A.403, not federal statute. And under ORA659A.403, age is equally protected as sexual orientation.

          Federal statute is utterly irrelevant.

        6. avatar Huntmaster says:

          He didn’t just allow them into his shop. He welcomed them enthusiastically. Was happy to sell them anything in his shop and or offered to custom make them just about anything. Just didn’t want to participate in the celebration of a same sex wedding by baking the cake.

    3. avatar Ralph says:

      This is really a “shoe on the other foot” type of case.

      In the past few years, anti-discrimination laws have been used to bludgeon Christians in favor of non-Christians, gays and transgenders.

      It will be interesting to see whether this particular law also protects us. Somehow, I think that courts will find a way around this law to protect Walmart and Dickhead’s and to give us the finger.

      Judges and politicians are both part of the same hypocrisy.

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        This is really a “shoe on the other foot” type of case.

        Indeed, it is. And the schadenfreude is delicious.

      2. avatar Indiana Tom says:

        I think that courts will find a way around this law to protect Walmart and Dickhead’s and to give us the finger.
        Sad but possibly true.
        See how things turn out.
        A long time ago, dick’s could easily get away with this, now things are more complicated.

  26. avatar Derringer Dave says:

    A year or two ago, when a gun store owner declared they wouldn’t sell guns to Muslims, liberals got up in arms and forced him to repeal his policy. But now when an entire chain of stores declares they won’t sell to a certain age group, “No guns for 18 to 20-year-olds,” liberals have no problems with that? How hypocritical!

    What if that gun store owner, whoever he was, reinstates his “No guns for Muslims” policy, but this time claims he’s doing it “For the children! For the survivors of Parkland, Florida!” That ought to confuse liberals, at the very least, get them thinking, “Wait, am I for this or against this? On the one hand, ‘No guns for Muslims’ is anti-gun, so I should be for it, but on the other hand, it’s anti-Muslim.”
    Or what about, “No guns for gays”? Would liberals be for or against that?
    It would make an interesting court case, at the very least.

    1. avatar Rick says:

      Religion is a protected class. 18-20 is not. Again, not rocket science.

      1. avatar Cam says:

        Age is a protected class. You can not fire or refuse to hire someone because of their age

        . So why would you think it’s ok for you to refuse to sell someone a legal item because of their age.

        1. avatar Rick says:

          In federal law, you can as long as they’re not over 40, we are a protected class. States have made it so that employment discrimination is impermissible at any age, Oregon for example.

    2. avatar Rusty Chains says:

      If liberals didn’t have double standards, they would have none at all.

  27. avatar Chris Mallory says:

    We will have to see if Federal FFL rules end up trumping state law under the Supremacy Clause.

    From 2016:
    “Ginger Colbrun, public affairs chief for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, says licensed gun dealers have broad discretion to deny sales, such as in instances where a buyer appears to exhibit erratic behavior.

    “As private business owners, [Federal Firearms License holders] can and do use discretion in determining to whom they will or will not provide service,” Colbrun says.

    Suspected straw purchases – in which one person illegally buys a gun for another person – are the most common reason a gun store owner would refuse a sale and alert authorities. But the reason can also be used as an excuse.

    “I can refuse a gun sale for any reason whatsoever, I don’t even have to like the color shoes you have on and I can refuse a gun sale at that point, and I don’t have to disclose the reason,” says Tim Wolverton, owner of Downrange Sporting Goods in Jackson, Mississippi.

    If a gun store owner wanted to discriminate against a customer named Muhammad, Wolverton says, they could simply say, “at that point I believe it’s a ‘straw purchase,’” though even that explanation is not required.” https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-06-17/dealers-choice-gun-store-owners-can-deny-anyone-they-want

    1. avatar DDay says:

      There is no question as to why the sale was denied here though. They have a policy of no sales to 18-20 and they told him that’s why they won’t sell to him.

      1. avatar Rick says:

        So “any reason” means a different thing to you.

        1. avatar Rick says:

          So, your FEELZ doesn’t affect my right, see what I did there?

  28. avatar John in Ohio says:

    “So is it kosher for a retailer to refuse to sell a legal item to someone who’s at least 18 but under 21?”

    Under current law, is it legal to refuse someone service based on age, race, religion, gender, or disability? What if these places refused to sell a long gun to anyone over 65 years old? How would that pan out?

    1. avatar Rick says:

      For age yes, not a generally protected class unless over 40 under federal law, and only then for employment law.

    2. avatar Huntmaster says:

      A gun isn’t just some legal item. In order to commercially sell firearms you have to have an FFL issued by the government. That FFL is by the way, issued by the government on the behalf of and on the authority of the citizens of the United States of America. Those citizens, through their legislative representatives have determined the appropriate age for purchasing a firearm. Pull their license.

      The real issue here, is it appropriate for the entity granted that license to deny the purchase of firearm to one of those citizens who has every legal right to purchase it, for something as arbitrary as not having been alive for the seller’s preferred number of days? I would suggest that this does not support public policy and the FFL does not have that right.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        I do not disagree.

        Put another way, if the private entity is going to sell under the privilege of government authority then it is acting as a third party agent of government.

  29. avatar little horn says:

    age discrimination is still discrimination. but that doesn’t mean he has a chance of winning. it will be interesting to see what happens.

  30. avatar Joe Brown says:

    This kind of thing makes us all feel good emotionally like we’re getting revenge on the left for their attack on our rights but in reality, we’re playing right into their hands. We argue that a baker shouldn’t be forced to bake a cake for an event they disagree with, that the government has no right to tell a business how to do business, but at the very first opportunity we jump on the bandwagon to get the government to force a private business to do something we agree with because it feels good. It’s hypocrisy. This proves that the left is in fact winning the culture war because the voice for limited government is disappearing rapidly and politics has devolved into two very divided groups arguing for the exact same bad policy as long as the government wields their unconstitutional executive authority with something only their one side agrees wiith. How about we let WalMart, Dick’s, bakeries, and every other private entity decide how they do business and if we don’t like it, we go spend our money elsewhere. The free market solution is always the right answer but it isn’t even talked about anymore… Go give your money to every other gun store that doesn’t cave to political pressure.

    1. avatar Rick says:

      That’s my biggest critique about some on the modern conservative movement, whataboutism, goose/gander, etc. Those are ridiculous arguments. Let’s make things better by doing more of the things the other guy did, but for our side.

      Or more simply, it should be this, because…FEELZ

      Our side is just as full of snowflakes looking for a safe place as democrats.

    2. avatar DDay says:

      No, it’s not any baker. The few bakers in question have deeply held religious objections, so they have 1st amendment protection. Just like the hobby lobby case from SCOTUS and the little sisters of the poor abortion mandate.

      A store refusing to sell because they set an arbitrary age limit is very different than a person objecting because of their deeply held religious convictions.

      1. avatar Rick says:

        Now, in California Kern County Superior Court Judge David Lampe ruled a christian baker can continue to discriminate against same sex couples, this in the last month, so that’s been in the news. But in reality both California and the 9th circuit has ruled otherwise, Oregon being in the 9th circuit, hence the Supreme Court is currently reviewing Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The Supreme Court of the United States, SCOTUS, will decide it once and for all, or at least for a while.

        So, in the 9th circuit, which includes Oregon, its against the law, but once the SCOTUS decides, this year, that will settle the law for the United States, Kern County doesn’t decide for California, Oregon (which also specifically prohibits discrimination since 2007), or the US.

        To be clear, Colorado isn’t in the 9th, but SCOTUS is ruling on fundamentally the same case.

  31. avatar John in Ohio says:

    If I would’ve been one of those involved in drafting the Constitution and somehow saw all of this today, I would be asking, “We gave you shall not be infringed, how could you fook that up?!?!”

    1. avatar Huntmaster says:

      This^. They kept it simple for a reason.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        Yep. So simple even a leftist could understand. That’s why I know they are feigning ignorance. They are down-right dirty thieves and they bloody well know it.

  32. avatar Tim says:

    What would they have done if he had a military ID? Its ok for me to use and M249 but I cant buy a 10/22? and disabled Veterans are Protected class!

    1. avatar Rick says:

      Disabled is a protected class, veteran is specifically one as well, hence all employment asks about it.

      And you can’t buy an M9 if you’re not 21 either, in any state, under any circumstance.

      1. avatar DDay says:

        the handgun age is a law, not a policy from a store which violates a state law on age discrimination. You really have a very poor understanding of legal issues.

  33. avatar Rick says:

    Look, all of this is going to be moot in Oregon, their very liberal governor and state legislature is already well into restricting long guns to 21. If they do, even a tenuous standing that this guy has would have that rug pulled out. They just passed this one https://goo.gl/aWUpyL

    So, someone is going to have to find a state that is so liberal that they’d pass laws adding specific discrimination language to add more protected classes, a very liberal viewpoint, and conservative enough to not cave to pressure to raise the age to match handguns.

    Guns are very specific, we already discriminate based on handgun vs long gun, which seems like a dumb distinction. We used to have this exact situation with alcohol, beer 18, not beer 21, and you know how that went.

    1. avatar Huntmaster says:

      Believe it or not beer is not an enumerated right, although it probably should be.

      1. avatar Rick says:

        Hello, did you miss the 21st Amendment? No it didn’t discriminate between alcohol types. Kind of like how the 2nd Amendment doesn’t say musket vs cannon.

        1. avatar Huntmaster says:

          Still not an enumerated right.

      2. avatar B-Rad says:

        Hah, that’s a pretty big miss. Alcohol in the constitution, never happened, what are you talking about? There are twice as many beer amendments than firearm amendments. And I’m for that, I love beer.

  34. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

    With all the “Fake Conservatives, Fake Gun Owners, Fake Constitutionalists, Fake Libertarians, and Fake Armchair lawyers…” We should most likely be able to “Reason away” all our Constitutional Rights within a few years …Don’t worry folks…When the Globalists take over you probably won’t have to worry about any lost civil rights…My guess they won’t even send any NWO troopers…Theyll just lockdown all the Urban centers and starve everybody out….Let nature take it’s course in “survival of the fittest…” People would be croaking each other for crumbs and stagnant water…Just like everyone is fighting here to depose free freedom and liberty…Then it will move put into the countryside…Then the fighting will start…NO, Not a pretty future I see….Hopefully, everone will band together and fight this dystopian future…Help preserve our Liberties and NOT piss it away though petty bantering…

    1. avatar B-Rad says:

      Exactly, pass laws, and enforce them, based on reality on the ground. Oregon looks like its going to be North Northern California, or West Massachusetts. Lots of rural area, overwhelmed by the I-5 corridor.

  35. avatar Danny L Griffin says:

    A lawsuit was filed against Dick’s in Michigan as well.

  36. avatar blimey says:

    Rick, the Oregon legislature ended session on Saturday. No new legislation until January of 2019.

    You are so cosmically wrong it is funny. Federal law sets the floor on discrimination. States are free to make other forms of discrimination illegal. Oregon has done so. You are just trolling at this point to maintain your bull-headed disagreement.

    Age in Oregon—all age—is protected the same as sexual orientation. Employment law only applies in employment cases. This is a public accommodations case, and Dicks is assuredly a place of public accommodation, which includes selling to people, as the Sweet Cakes case illustrates (they were in fact willing to sell the lesbian couple a cake, they just didn’t want to design one—too bad for the cake makers, unfortunately).

    Your final objection—“courts can do whatever they want” is a red herring. Of course a judge can go rogue, but that can happen in either direction. It doesn’t matter. The law says Dicks will be forced to reverse their policy, at least until the next legislative session.

    You’re wrong; admit it like a man and move on.

    1. avatar Rick says:

      Um, except for the law passed yesterday, signed by the governor today. http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2018/02/oregon_passes_gun_control_bill.html

      1. avatar blimey says:

        “Updated Feb 23; Posted Feb 22”

        You don’t read too well, huh?

        The governor signs a bill when she signs it. No new laws are coming out of the legislature until January 2019.

    2. avatar Rick says:

      ORS 659a.400 for the definition of “accommodation” in Oregon. ORS 174.109
      “Public body” defined

    3. avatar DaveL says:

      I actually think it’s highly likely a judge in Oregon would go rogue on this issue. They’d simply say “you make a good point, but you fail to consider this statute caselaw constitutional provision steaming turd fresh from my anus.” With the Supremes denying cert even to egregious violations of Heller, Steaming Turd Jurisprudence is the order of the day on gun rights.

      1. avatar blimey says:

        Yeah, it’s not unlikely, but state court judges in Oregon are elected every few years. The last thing they want is a challenger, and Grants Pass is pretty conservative. The worry is there, but not as bad as if it was Portland.

  37. avatar Hannibal says:

    “We recognize there are certain categories where it’s wrong to single people out. Race, gender, religion, national origin, and depending on the state, sexual orientation,” said Yin. “But age has never really been one of those.”

    Literally a federally protected class… at least as much as ‘sexual orientation.’

    1. avatar Rick says:

      Not a federally protected class outside of employment law aged over 40.

      1. avatar blimey says:

        Go away already, “Rick”. You’ve been proven wrong again and again. When Eugene Volokh tells you you are wrong, you are wrong. When Brad f***ing Avakian says he will accept these complaints, and then seek to change the law in 2019, you are wrong.

        https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/03/06/us/ap-us-gun-sale-policies-lawsuit-the-latest.html

        Stop trolling.

  38. avatar Red Forman says:

    Hope he takes them to the cleaners.

  39. avatar Gunr says:

    I’m in Oregon, and I’m happy to see this lawsuit. If we don’t suppress this type of bull shit, the next thing that will happen is that they try to keep folks over the age 65, 0r 75, or whatever age, from buying firearms.

  40. avatar Wally1 says:

    Either way, the publicity nationwide will hurt liberal businesses like “Dicks Sporting Goods” and others in their pockets. I hope this young adult wins. I am really tired of making concessions to the crazies based on what they believe is “Common sense”. I would hope that another FFL dealer in Oregon would step up to the plate and give this young man a new AR-15 just for his efforts to stand up for himself. It would be a great advertising for them.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email