MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

Mostly law professors, blogging on whatever we please since 2002 · Hosted by The Washington Post, 2014-2017 · Hosted by Reason 2017 · Sometimes contrarian · Often libertarian · Always independent

Age Discrimination Suit Against Dick's Sporting Goods and Walmart for Refusing to Sell Rifle to 20-Year-Old

Oregon law generally bans discrimination in selling goods based on age, so this lawsuit looks like a winner.

The case against Dick's Sporting Goods -- which raises the claim discussed here last week -- is Watson v. Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc., just filed yesterday in Jackson County (Oregon) Circuit Court; the Oregonian (Aimee Green) reports that the same plaintiff also filed a lawsuit against Walmart. [UPDATE: Here's the Watson v. Walmart, Inc. complaint.]

Oregon is one of the states that bans retailers from discriminating based on age against customers age 18 and above. The Oregon statute says it generally applies to any person who is "of age," which appears to mean 18, the age of majority in Oregon, at least for those products that are legal to sell to 18-to-20-year-olds (as long guns are in Oregon). Indeed, the statute specifically mentions alcohol and marijuana sellers for special treatment, but makes no such special provision for gun sellers:

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.

(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 ... 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....

659A.406 Aiding or abetting certain discrimination prohibited. Except as otherwise authorized by ORS 659A.403, it is an unlawful practice for any person to aid or abet any place of public accommodation, as defined in ORS 659A.400, or any employee or person acting on behalf of the place of public accommodation to make any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older.

659A.409 Notice that discrimination will be made in place of public accommodation prohibited; age exceptions. Except as provided by laws governing the consumption of alcoholic beverages by minors, the use of marijuana items ... by persons under 21 years of age, the frequenting by minors of places of public accommodation where alcoholic beverages are served and the frequenting by persons under 21 years of age of places of public accommodation where marijuana items are sold, and except for special rates or services offered to persons 50 years of age or older, it is an unlawful practice for any person acting on behalf of any place of public accommodation as defined in ORS 659A.400 to publish, circulate, issue or display, or cause to be published, circulated, issued or displayed, any communication, notice, advertisement or sign of any kind to the effect that any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, services or privileges of the place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination will be made against, any person 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.

The statute provides (in sec. 659A.885) that, if the plaintiff wins, he shall be awarded reasonable attorney fees, and may also be awarded compensatory and punitive damages; the court may also issue an injunction barring the defendant from continuing to violate the law. The lawsuit indeed seeks such remedies (except for compensatory damages).

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.

Thanks to Eric Stahlfeld for the pointer.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • apedad||

    As someone who believes we should have more administrative controls (registration, insurance, mandatory training, etc.) in order to reduce gun violence, this age limit was a non-starter.

    It was simply a band-aid offered by weak politicians who had to 'do something' but didn't want to do anything substantive.

    It's a dumb idea, is a waste of time and money, and will fail.

  • PeteRR||

    How would insurance work exactly?

  • ||

    Completely transparently and generally ineffective at solving the problem it was imposed to solve while creating regulatory overhead and disenfranchising the poor... just like any other insura-penal-tax.

  • ||

    Hahahaha a perfect answer

  • MusketsForAll||

    How can someone who can plunk down $500 - 2000 for an AR-15, Bushmaster, etc., be considered "poor"?

  • David Bremer||

    I'm regularly surprised by how much people who I am confident don't earn much money spend on things I consider worthless. But the beautiful thing about a market economy is that they don't have to have the same values/desires as me. I'm sure many of them would be shocked at what I spend on my golf game.

    They can have the money because that's what they've saved up for. Even the poor can do it when they want something bad enough.

  • CE||

    Everyone has a 700 dollar cell phone that costs them 100 bucks a month.

  • Teddy Pump||

    And many of those have at least half their body tattooed, smoke a ton of cigs or vape!

  • Rossami||

    The same way that you can be "poor" and still decide that it's in your best interests to invest in a suit and good shoes.

    Regardless, handguns and off-brand rifles or shotguns are available for far less than a Bushmaster. But the insurance proposal taxes them all equally.

  • GeoffB1972||

    This is why we need gun subsidies so the poor have an equal opportunity to exercise their right to self-defense.

  • TangoDelta||

    The cheapest rifle at Dick's currently is $130. It's a Savage semi-auto, sure it's .22LR but then that is unlikely to lower the any tax because "evil".

  • ||

    How can someone who can plunk down $500 - 2000 for an AR-15, Bushmaster, etc., be considered "poor"?

    I gotta ask, do you have "Wealthy and privileged" stamped on your forehead? Do you seriously not know anyone who owns a $500-2000 car who drives around without insurance? Even in a "the old guy who lives down by the bridge" sense? Or do you genuinely live on a planet where poor people don't exist?

  • PeteRR||

    That's the answer I was looking for. Disarming the poor is the #1 consequence of requiring liability insurance for firearm ownership.

  • mad_kalak||

    Right now there are not insurance requirements for those who own firearms or who carry concealed weapons, with the insurance intended to be a disincentive the same as a prohibitive tax. One has been proposed by New York Representative Carolyn Maloney, with a $10,000 for those who don't obtain it, but it never went anywhere in Congress. It is actually recommended by firearms trainers to those who use their state's concealed carry law, that they voluntarily buy liability insurance for themselves through the NRA or other groups, such as the U.S. Concealed Carry Association, for a cost of roughly $22 to $47 a month to deal with the legal expenses of a use of the concealed firearm, should they have one. George Zimmerman did not have such a policy, and his defense bankrupted him.

  • retiredfire||

    That would, as with so many other "gun control" laws, only affect lawful owners, who use the weapon in a legal manner.
    IOW it would do nothing to stop someone like the school shooters. Isn't that supposed to be the intent?
    Almost every insurance policy will not be honored if the insured breaks a law.

  • mad_kalak||

    You, sir, are entirely correct. I just wanted to point out that, at the state and national level that there are no such laws mandating that gun owners get insurance. The insurance, of course, is meant to be a deterrent to ownership and nothing more. At the national level, the idea has never been taken seriously, and though there may be some state attempts I am unaware of to pass an insurance mandate, there are no laws anywhere.

    Now, various cities have put in small "violence" taxes on guns an ammo, and they have held up in court, with only a $1,000 tax being dismissed as excessive. These are a combination of a deterrent on gun ownership (that only hits the poor), rank money grubbing, and semi-legitimate attempts at recouping the costs of the negative externality of having an armed populace (with them ignore the positives of the trade-off entirely).

  • Tionico||

    Seattle imposed an unconstitutional tax on gun sales and a separate one on ammunitioin sales within the city (wouldn't they LOVE to make that statewide, those naughty gun grabbers, they....) The largest privately owned retail gun store in Seattle attended the city council meetings when they were "disciussing" this, and he threatened to move his business outside the city. They called his bluff and passed the law anyway. Except he wasn't bluffing. As soon as the law was passed, he terminated his FFL, secured a more suitable property in a neighbouring town, applied for his new FFL there, and moved. The city had bragged about the revenue they'd gain from the new tax...... other general retailers that also sold guns closed their gun counters, some moved out of seattle, too. Bottom line... the city that used to get some large amount of sales and business taxes from those businesses now gets a whole lot less...... because they've chased the business away. I say good on the rotters. They get what they deserved, for a change. So now former customers of those businessess drive a few minutes to the new locations and buy.. paying the sales and business taxes that now go to the new cities. Burn!!!

  • SteelDriver||

    While I don't disagree with you, I'm fairly certain the Seattle government expected that possibility (unless they are intellectually challenged - they may be many things, but stupid isn't one of them) and is more than agreeable with the outcome. I imagine it was a 'win-win' from their warped perspective.

  • FiftycalTX2||

    There should be a TAX on voters. Then we could make the socialists PAY for 8 years of obozo.

  • Jay Dubya||

    You know he's out of office right?

  • JungleCogs||

    Mandate insurance.... where have I heard that before?

  • JesseAz||

    Can you show one actual study that shows more gun insurance reduces gun violence? There is a reason your side has to lump in suicides to the numbers. We don't call hanging rope violence.

    How about an intelligent or rational proposal instead of one based on emotion?

  • MusketsForAll||

    Please propose one. Just one. Just one place where the gun safety and the anti-gun safety sides can find common ground.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Require people who have defensive guns in thin walled apartments to load with frangible ammo that won't penetrate the walls? Take suppressors off the NFA list, to help reduce deafness?

    I'm sure we could make at least a short list, if the anti-gun side weren't so focused on just disarming people.

  • Joe_JP||

    There is common ground as seen by many things that gun owners and so forth agree upon.

  • Joe_JP||

    Mind you, there are true believers on each side who will have problems, but there is loads of middle ground, as seen as the strong support by gun owners of the background check law put forth by two strong gun supporters (a conservative Democrat and a Republican) a few years back.

  • FiftycalTX2||

    The "strong support" for useless "background chex" FAILS once the specifics are laid out. And the "surveys" are cooked and booked for gungrabber propaganda.

  • CE||

    Let people buy body armor so they are safer from lunatics. No wait, body armor is banned too.

  • Junkie||

    Where is body armor banned?

  • Toranth||

    It's controlled at the Federal level - like other 'weapons', convicted felons are forbidden from owning armor.

    Additionally, some states have their own restrictions, like Kentucky or Louisiana. New York has tried to ban private ownership several times, and recently there have been multiple attempts Congressmen to institute a Federal ban.

  • Rossami||

    In addition, Illinois House Bill 1469 would ban civilians from wearing body armor - with exceptions for security guards (maybe plausible), kids with Kevlar backpacks (inconsistent but it keeps kids from getting arrested for their parents' fears) and actors (utterly irrational). Notably, "civilians" does not mean all those who are not police or military. Politicians are also defined as not "civilians" under this law.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    Wow. There it is. Just like we were forced to buy health insurance, we should be forced to buy and wear body armor. We need to get some relatives of armor manufacturers elected!

  • Bubba Jones||

    How many people are killed each year in such a scenario?

    Does frangible ammo meet fbi penetration specs?

  • Kroneborge||

    Well most of the non suicide gun violence is related to the war on drugs. (IE it's gang related as the fight over prohibition related profits). So ending the war on drugs would greatly reduce that violence as it would eliminate those black market profits, and the territory fights to protect them (see alcohol prohibition)

  • Arizona_Guy||

    " gun safety and the anti-gun safety sides"

    Interesting choice of words. Except no one is anti-safety.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    Gun control activists are generally not concerned with real gun safety issues, they just want to reduce or outright eliminate civilian gun ownership. This can not in good faith be called gun safety.

    Here's a proposal.

    Gun safety training for all kids. Real guns are not toys. If you don't know is not real assume it is. Assume any gun is loaded until/unless you've checked it yourself. Never point a gun at something you don't intend to shoot.

  • Leader Desslok||

    Sadly in my experience there are several adults who could use refresher training about guns not being toys.

  • great Unknown||

    This is also true about automobiles.

  • EvilWayz||

    Such training already exists, for free, from the NRA. The Eddie the Eagle program, complete with anthropomorphic eagle suit. Eddie teaches children if you find a gun STOP. Don't TOUCH. Leave the area. FIND AN ADULT.

    Very few schools take advantage of it cuz OMG NRA.

  • Tionico||

    except Eddie Eagle is not a very good programme... it teaches kids to mostly be afraid of firearms, and rather than properly dealing with them, to leave the area (unoprotected) go oass the buck off to some adult....... how about teaching the kids how to safely handle it, clear and safe it, then bring it to a responsible adult? Leave it there just where you found it, some OTHER kid can then come along, see it, take it, not know how to handle it, and shoot someone's eye out with it. Guns are only dangerous in two situations...... evil intent, and incompetent handling.

  • Jerry B.||

    Okay, let's ask an eight year old to learn how to clear various models of semi-auto pistols, revolvers, bolt action and semi-auto rifles, double barrel shotguns, etc.

    I personally think that " stop, don't touch, get away, tell an adult" is exactly what I'd want an eight year old to do. It's simple, it doesn't require more learning about firearms than most adults have, and it avoids any possibility of an accidental shooting by a child.

  • FlameCCT||

    I agree, partially. I was taught respect and how to properly handle a firearm before I started 1st grade by my father, who was a cop and had firearms with him at all times. We have too many children that are taught to fear firearms instead of being taught to respect firearms.

  • Rossami||

    Eddie Eagle is a very good program - for it's appropriate aged audience. Eddie Eagle is targeted to youth who are not yet ready to safely handle (much less, to clear and safe) an unfamiliar weapon.

  • JungleCogs||

    Get the Leftists out of our educational system and we will have fewer youth filled with hate in their mush-filled brains.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Exactly! We need fewer Harvards and Berkeleys, and more Biolas and Regents and Libertys, so that all of the half-educated, intolerant yahoos can compete economically with the marketably skilled, properly educated elitists in our modern, successful communities!

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    Dead thread-hosing AGAIN, artie poo. Pretty pathetic, bub!

  • Tionico||

    except take Biola off the list.... they are a pretty liberal bunch. I know a few children of friends who have graduated from there.. NOT impressive.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Biola is often ranked among the most conservative schools in America. Perhaps the issue is perspective?

  • epsilon given||

    Yes, the issue likely is perspective. I'm betting that the liberal rankers think Biola is conservative, while the conservative rankers question that.

  • Agammamon||

    You want a proposal?

    How about

    Banning private ownership of select fire weapons.
    Banning conversion of semiauto to select fire
    Require new designs to be intentionally difficult to modify to select fire
    Require a NICS check with every FFL purchase
    Require an FFL involved for every interstate transfer
    Limit minimum oa weapon sizes without special permission
    Limit firearms to no more than .5 in bore size

    How are those proposals - wait, they're not proposals, they're what we've already done.

    You've already taken half the cake and now you want half of what is left?

  • Tionico||

    allow adults who are already AT the schools on a regular basis, and who ALSO have their Mother May I Cards, and also carry everwhere else they go, ALSO carry at the schools. No one but perhaps the sheriff and maybe some school supe sort, would know who is authorised to carry at the school.... word spreads that the teachers and staff at Such School can be, and are, armed and trained. Perps like this Douglass HS dirtbag will learn of it... and make an informed decision that perhaps THAT school mightn't be a good choice for a shoot-em-up. This is being done in Ohio and has been since shortly after Sandy Hook. It works.. NOT ONE incident at any school in Ohio since the plan was implemented. Further, the entire programme has been implemented without costing the taxpayers ONE NICKEL.

  • Jay Dubya||

    On campus school carry is already legal in 12 states in various capacities; some allow all adults in campus to carry, others only allow teachers & staff. All 50 states allow police to carry on campus & facilitate the presence of on campus SRO police. I'm highly skeptical of this "solution". I'm campus SROs have not reduced on campus shootings rates. They *have* dramatically increased the rate of arrests of children for bullshit. And of course we are all familiar with the brave SRO at Parkland & his nonresponse to the killings as well as various attempts to prevent that shooting.
    The vast majority of teachers & administration have no interest of experience with the use of firearms. Frankly I would be concerned about the judgement of a teacher who would be excited by this type of idea. Additionally, I suspect that a dramatic increase in the amount of firearms in schools would result in at least some of those children stealing firearms.
    Like every other "solution" to mass shootings this presents significant risk of unexpected consequences with little to no chance of preventing mass shootings.

  • epsilon given||

    Utah has been doing this for about a decade. If there are problems with it, why haven't they shown up?

  • FlameCCT||

    IMHO - mandate at least one firearm per adult to be kept in the residence, subsidized or even issued by government. These weapons would be mandatory registration and one could even mandate training and issue firearm/ammo cards that can be renewed like a drivers license every 4 years. That would meet both the 2A "regulated militia" interpretation of the Progressives and the 2A "keep and bear arms" interpretation of the Conservatives. Similar to Switzerland.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Explain how requiring insurance would deter gangbangers from doing drive-bys.

  • MusketsForAll||

    Okay. This is a common canard. So because we can't solve/do everything, we should do nothing? How does this fit in with the American creed of fixing problems?

  • Brett Bellmore||

    The problem is, insurance is just a horrible fit for the problem.

    Virtually all gun deaths in America, (Ignoring the police for the moment.) fall into two categories: Suicides and criminals.

    Who would the insurance pay off to in the case of the suicides? Their heirs? That's really going to deter them!

    And, why would criminals buy the insurance?

  • Bubba Jones||

    And insurance doesn't cover criminal acts.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Define the problem you are trying to solve.

    Then explain how your proposal addresses this problem.

    I am under no obligation to preemptively offer restrictions to address your unstated fears.

  • plusafdotcom||

    Bubba, what you described falls under the area I call "Critical Thinking."

    Congratulations on the way you stated it. Well Done!

    On the other hand, CT, imnsho, died several decades ago and the number of people capable of it today is nearly invisible.

  • Rossami||

    No more than your own common canard of "We must do something therefore we must do this thing" even when there is no evidence that "this thing" will do anything at all toward fixing the problem.

  • CE||

    Just because something won't work doesn't mean the government won't do it to make it look like they are doing something?

    See the War on Drugs, for instance.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    Your government mandated auto insurance doesn't cover you against intentionally running someone over with your car.

    It's absurd to suggest that mandatory auto insurance is a valid precedent for requiring gun owners to have mandatory insurance against intentionally shooting the wrong person.

    If you want to require concealed carry permit holders to have insurance against accidental (and only accidental) discharge, that might be reasonable. It would also probably be too inexpensive to deter anyone from owning a gun.

  • epsilon given||

    It might also be reasonable to require insurance for court costs in case one has to shoot in self defense...but really, why should the State care about the legal costs of someone acting in self defense? How is this going to make the world a safer place?

    And sometimes, just sometimes, someone doesn't have the time to get the insurance and training necessary to defend their lives. Police officer Massad Ayoob used to believe that these things are a good idea; among the things that changed his mind, though, were cases like a senior citizen who had already had one attempt on her life by her common-law husband, who came back to finish the job -- in the meantime, she had been given a .22 revolver, which she successfully used to defend her life.
    (to be continued...)

  • Nardz||

    "So because we can't solve/do everything, we should do nothing? How does this fit in with the American creed of fixing problems?"

    Solid reasoning.
    I suppose you support the wall then?

  • FiftycalTX2||

    Requiring "insurance" would keep the Po' from buying gunz that could be stolen. So, fewer gunz to steal. More unarmed Po' to rob. WIN-WIN for the gungrabbers.

  • flyfishnevada||

    I agree with administrative controls too. For instance, folks ought to be registered, be required to carry insurance and be forced into English (or your language of choice) classes before exercising their free speech rights. Have you seen some peoples' grammar? And what happens when you offend some SJW? You need to have insurance to pay them reparations or buy them tissues.

    And don't get me started on all the administrative controls that should be in place before folks are allowed to worship or exercise their right to remain silent or insist upon a warrant. Without those, it's just pure anarchy out there...

  • Bubba Jones||

    We should require a civics test prior to voting.

  • CE||

    Or only let woke people vote? Who's writing the civics test? Can we add something in there about having the appropriate attitudes to everyone and concern for the climate too at least?

  • Long Woodchippers||

    A candidate should have to prove the Guardian Council that xe has sufficient Progressive zeal before being allowed on the ballot.

  • BambiB||

    All your "administrative controls" are useless. We don't have a gun problem. We have a cultural problem.

    In America:

    Blacks: 13% of population, commit 51% of homicides.
    Hispanics: 17% of population, commit 36% of homicides.
    Overall, that's 30% of the population committing 87% of all homicides.

    Take these murderous populations out of the equation and the US homicide rate is less than half that of Canada. In fact, it's lower than the rate in Germany, Australia, Sweden and the U.K.

    93 countries have homicide rates higher than the US. 78 of the countries with higher national homicide rates are in Africa, the Carribean and South America ("shithole countries"). Note: These are the countries from which Demoncraps want to import your new neighbors.

    America's violence doesn't stem from firearms. It is an issue of culture. American culture is basically peaceful. It is black and Hispanic culture that drives up American homicide statistics.

  • PRussell||

    Those numbers are true, but not entirely complete. You can restrict the demographic to males 16-35 and the capture nearly all the homicides to which you referred.

    It is a truly horrifying statistic that so few could cause so much misery.

    Your larger point is entirely correct. This is a crisis of culture not tools.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    That stat is hardly ever mentioned, excellent point.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    That stat is hardly ever mentioned, excellent point.

  • vek||

    I bring this up EVERY SINGLE TIME anybody talks about how guns themselves cause all the problems in the USA, Europe is sooo much better etc. Because it is 110% incorrect. Black and Hispanic gang bangers are the entire problem in the USA. Incidentally now that Europe has some countries with like half the minority population the USA has always had (and faaar less than we have in recent years), they're starting to have the exact same issues with crime.

    When will libtards learn...

  • epsilon given||

    It (potentially) gets even better. I have heard a rumor (and have not seen an actual study or data set to back this up) that if you compare each racial and ethnic group of the United States, with the same racial or ethnic group from the rest of the world -- Asian-Americans with Asians, African-Americans with Africans, Hispanic-Americans with Hispanics, and so forth -- that each and every American group has a lower rate, than the rate of that group in the rest of the world.

    It's only potentially better, though, because I haven't been able to confirm it. I'd love to see the data that confirms this.

  • Steve S from CT||

    If this statute prohibits Dicks from refusing to sell certain items (such as firearms) to adults under age 21, could they bundle the firearms with some product that can't be sold to those under 21, i.e., alcohol? That is - I presume a retailer can package its products however it likes, so could they merchandize their firearms such that the only way to buy a rifle is if you also buy a beer? (assuming they have the required liquor license, of course) Please consider this as a conceptual matter, and if possible don't reply with a bunch of technical objections.

  • Jerry B.||

    I realize your proposal is conceptual, but I imagine Dick's wouldn't get much love from the nanny staters when it started advertising its "Hunt wild turkey while you drink Wild Turkey" shotgun and 750ml combo pack.

  • Chip Woodier||

    This deserves several LOL emojis.

  • JesseAz||

    750 won't even last the weekend.

  • Ridgeway||

    They'd probably get even less love for the "Suicide Solution" valu-pak: a Cobra .380, one bullet and a pint of Popov Vodka.

  • MusketsForAll||

    Ludicrous on both sides, granted. Do you have a concrete proposal where the gun safety and anti-gun safety sides can find common ground?

  • Jerry B.||

    Pass the current legislation requiring States and the military to timely report those who are banned by law from possessing weapons.

    Pass "Red Flag" laws that allow police, family, schools, or mental health professionals to petition a judge to remove firearms from, and block sales to, those they can show are a danger to themselves and others.

    Almost half of criminals caught with guns got them from straw purchasers. Straw purchase is a Federal felony, yet the DOJ has averaged less than 100 prosecutions a year for this crime. This needs to change.

    Tens of thousands of firearms background checks are rejected each year because the applicant is on the NICS database. Lying on the application is also a Federal felony, but, once again, less than 100 cases a year are prosecuted. This should change as well.

    How to pay for this? Legalize, regulate, and tax most currently illegal drugs. Release non-violent drug offenders and expunge their records so they can get jobs. Use the money saved from ending the "War on Drugs" to go after violent criminals and those break the law to provide them with firearms. Use the tax on drug to fund substance abuse treatment.

  • EvilWayz||

    Where did hell did you get this info? Almost none of its true. Only a couple thousand people fail the NCIS check. And most people get their guns from friends or stealing them. There's fewer than a thousand straw purchasers a year, and only about 6% of them are prosecuted. It was 8 under Bush, and dropped to 6 under the Messiah, let's see if Trump goes higher or lower. My guess is higher because that idiots Sessions is in charge,

  • BambiB||

    You're wrong.

    Try http://freebeacon.com/issues/p.....l-new-low/

    Or just google, "NICS rejection prosecution" and take your pick.

    The number of failed NICS checks is in the 60,000 to 80,000 a year range. And prosecutions are consistently under 100.

    As for straw purchasers - there were a lot more under Obozo. It was called "Operation Fast & Furious" and it resulted in over 2000 "assault weapons" going to Mexican drug cartels. The aim of the operation was apparently to amp up the number of people killed with guns "from America" to justify Obozo's calls for more gun control. (He'd claimed "90% of the guns used in crime in Mexico come from the United States" - when reality was more like 17%.)

  • Jerry B.||

    Here's where I get my data on straw purchases.

    ATF Study

    It's on page 11.

  • Naaman Brown||

    The study was about guns entering illegal channels from retail sources.

    It reads to me that about half of crime gun acquisitions from retail sources are straw purchases.

    But retail sources are about 12% of crime gun acquisitions. 88% are not from retail sources.

    So 6% of total crime gun acquisitions would be straw purchases.

  • Naaman Brown||

    On that 90%, on the first report, DHS pointed out that ATF had records on guns legally made in, or legally imported into, the US. ATF told Mexican authorities to submit for traces firearms that appeared to be US manufacture or US imports (marked with the maker or importer's name). Of the set of the 30,000 guns in that Mexican sample, 7,200 appeared to be US origin, 4,000 were in ATF records and 3,480 actually traced to US origin, or 87% of the 4,000 (NOT 87% of the 30,000 total). A majority of a subset was misrepresented as a majority of the whole. DHS sent out a letter protesting the claim that 90% of Mexican crime guns come from the US.

    What helps confuse is that Chinese sources supplied the drug cartels with guns made in China but stamped with North Korean, US and other markings.

  • BambiB||

    Rejected NICS is 70,000+. Prosecutions are about 2 dozen. Until current laws are properly enforced, I see no need for any additional laws.

    National Concealed Carry (CCP) Reciprocity is a winner. After all, CCP holders are less likely to commit a serious crime (felony) than the legislators who enact the laws or the police who enforce the laws. Police are SIX TIMES more likely than armed citizens to shoot the WRONG person at the scene of a crime so CCP holders are safer for the innocent than cops too. With a little luck, and a lot more CCP licensees carrying, the cost of enforcement would go WAY down. (Doesn't cost nearly as much to bury a bad guy as it does to try, convict, sentence and incarcerate him.)

    In the final analysis, our homicide rate is 87% driven by the 30% of the population that is black and hispanic. So for starters - slam the door on immigrants that match those descriptions - especially from the "shithole" countries where the average IQ is at "mental retardation" levels. If we import trouble - we get more of it.

    How to pay for it? Confiscation of property belonging to the criminal... AFTER conviction. Adherence to a post-release payment plan being part of the condition of any parole.

    One final note: We need to prosecute those who have run guns to Mexico. Seem to recall a couple of clowns named Obozo and Holder who have so far gotten away with shipping over 2000 "assault weapons" to Mexican drug cartels. They should be in prison for...ever.

  • PRussell||

    All your statements about CCP is true.

    However, are you sure you like the idea of National Concealed Carry?

    I mean, I'm not sure the answer is federally overriding state law for an outcome WE like. That kind of logic can come back around and take a large chomp out of our backsides at some point.

  • Naaman Brown||

    Almost half of criminals caught with guns got them from straw purchasers.

    Retail Purchase is about 12% of criminal gun sources; even if they were all straw purchases, 12% is one eighth, not one half.*

    ATF instructs gun dealers to refuse to sell if they suspect the purchaser is a strawman for the true buyer. Or to report suspected straw purchasers so their future transactions (if any) can be tracked for a pattern of dealing in guns without a license.

    The feds are reluctant to prosecute NICS background check denials of sales because the database is full of false positives. Dems want to add more bad data like the non-fly list or all social security recipients with fiducuaries, people never adjudicated as actual GCA prohibited persons.

    ______________________________
    * BJS FUO
    US Department of Justice
    National Institute of Justice
    Bureau of Justice Statistics
    Firearms Use by Offenders
    (Sample: nationwide sample of prison inmates who possessed a firearm during the offense for which they were imprisoned)

    2004 Source of firearms possessed by state prison inmates at time of offense

    11.3% Retail Purchase or trade
    7.3 - Retail store
    2.6 - Pawnshop
    0.6 - Flea market
    0.8 - Gun show

    37.4% Family or friend
    12.2 - Purchased or traded
    14.1 - Rented or borrowed
    11.1 - Other

    40.0% Street/illegal
    7.5 - Theft or burglary
    25.2 - Drug dealer/off street
    7.4 - Fence/black market

    11.2% Other source

  • Bubba Jones||

    Who is anti gun safety?

    I am anti bullshit excuses to curb civil rights.

  • Naaman Brown||

    "Gun safety" and "ant-gun safety" sides?

    The Brady Campaign condemned the NRA Eddie Eagle gun safety program.

    In the NewSpeak of the Brave New World Order, "gun safety" really means gun bans.

  • CE||

    it started advertising its "Hunt wild turkey while you drink Wild Turkey"

    Sales would probably go up.

  • Long Woodchippers||

    I've seen the signs for Coors sponsoring the Gun Raffle down at the fire hall.

  • Naaman Brown||

    I'll presume this is meant to be humorous.

    Locally a sporting goods store was denied a license to sell guns because they were located under the same roof as a convenience store that sold beer for carryout. The state justified it as part of the guns and alcohol don't mix nonsense.

    On the way to the mountain, I had to leave my carry handgun in my truck when I went into the superette to pay for gas because they sold beer. As though the presence of beer in a refrigerator would inspire me to shoot the place up. Of course, leaving the gun in the truck while I went inside made it vulnerable to theft.

  • Rossami||

    Applying the logic used in other civil rights cases, the court would (or at least, should) reject that tactic as a transparent pretext made with the discriminatory purpose of evading an otherwise-applicable law.

  • jph12||

    "That is - I presume a retailer can package its products however it likes"

    I doubt that. I'm betting there are agreements with the manufacturers that limit packaging.

  • Tionico||

    Terms of the FFL prohibit such silliness. Firearms are in their own category per FedLaw.... otherwise some silly retailer would have bundled a handgun with a long gun as a package deal

  • Naaman Brown||

    I bought a revolver and a shotgun for my wife on one 4473 transaction, one NICS background check.

    My son bought two M70AB2s, one for himself and one as a birthday gift to me, on one 4473 transaction, one NICS background check.

    The current federal firearms form 4473 has blanks for four guns (make, model, caliber, serial number). If the dealer had a gun collection on consignment from estate sale, I could buy multiple firearms with a list of the fifth through whatever attached to the 4473, one 4473 transaction, one NICS background check.

    A local gun shop had a deal, buy a high dollar gun and get a .22 Heritage Rough Rider revolver free.

    Yes, there are package deals.

    And NICS background checks may be a proxy for gun sales, but it is not a proxy for the number of guns sold.

    The background check is run on the buyer, not per the gun(s) sold. With Bloomberg Everytown Universal Background Check laws with fees hiked up to $55 dollars per check, that is an incentive to bundle.

  • QuantumBoxCat||

    Clearly Dick's needs to adopt the contemporary language of individual rights and respond that it it's decision not to sell firearms to those under 21 is based on its sincerely held religious beliefs. Civil rights v. Civil liberties round ????

  • great Unknown||

    That would be beautiful, since Oregon is where bakers were severely fined for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding based on their religious beliefs. I am a connoisseur of hypocrisy, and this would be a lovely tidbit.

  • TwelveInchPianist||

    Bakers aren't claiming that they have a right to refuse to serve gay customers. Perhaps if Dick were being forced to sell guns for a school shooting, there might be an analogy.

  • great Unknown||

    My point is that refusing to sell to under-21s is discrimination under Oregon law. Oregon courts have explicitly rejected religious beliefs as an excuse for discrimination. The type of sale is irrelevant, as long as there is discrimination.

  • Rossami||

    Unlike all the entities that have successfully argued for a collective interpretation of religious beliefs, Dicks Sporting Goods is a publicly held entity, traded on the NYSE. They have a market capitalization of $3.4 billion with ownership distributed across a wide population - not just nationally but internationally. While it's an interesting hypothetical, I don't think courts would have much trouble distinguishing between Dicks and the much smaller, closely-held, family-run businesses that were the plaintiffs in the other cases.

  • ||

    While it's an interesting hypothetical, I don't think courts would have much trouble distinguishing between Dicks and the much smaller, closely-held, family-run businesses that were the plaintiffs in the other cases.

    True but, at the same time, it would reinforce the notion that the christian cake-baker is much more like Hobby Lobby than Target.

  • BambiB||

    Sweet! The purpose of PUNITIVE damages is to inflict pain on the target. If they're worth $3.4 billion, an award would have to be in the tens of millions to achieve that end, would it not?

  • great Unknown||

    Professor, you are assuming an honest court system. If this is even allowed to come to trial, I suspect, a la the CJ, it will be redefined as a tax or whatever.

  • JesseAz||

    State issue, not federal. So don't think the definition of tax matters here. But it is Oregon, so will probably dismiss it saying the 18 year old wasn't harmed somehow. 150k for refusing to bake a cake, 0 for refusing to sell a gun. Sounds like something Oregon would rationalize.

  • ||

    You missed the joke

  • regexp||

    It was a bad joke.

  • loki13||

    I agree with QCB.

    Dicks should just say that they have a sincere religious belief that they shouldn't help minors kill people. It's in the Bible, or something.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The Congregation Of Exalted Reason could be a handy vehicle for the spiritual aspirations of Dick's Sporting Goods.

    The Congregation saw this before it occurred. A miracle?

  • JesseAz||

    Your understanding of the Hobby Lobby case is as ignorant as most of your case citations. Sincere religious belief isn't just saying you have one.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    You assert that courts determine -- or should determine -- the sincerity of religious claims and beliefs?

    Most religious claims are 'just saying you have one,' if measured by conduct rather than by hollow mouthing of words.

  • ||

    Yes, that's their job.

    But they like to fail at their job often, and you cheer when they do.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    The problem here isn't determining whether the claim is sincere, the problem is that Dicks is a publicly traded company. The owners don't have anything in common except owning stock in Dicks.

    Not like tightly held family companies and single proprietorships, where "the company" comes down to one or a handful of people who actually could be in agreement about a religious question.

  • Sigivald||

    Yes, and there's no alternative if we're going to exempt only things that are "sincerely held".

    Example from text: Suppose someone claims a religious objection to eating broccoli, but that same person knowingly eats broccoli each week. A court, without asking whether there is any moral truth behind a religious objection to broccoli consumption, may nonetheless ask whether the claimant actually holds that religious belief.

    Some claims of sincerely held religious belief are trivially falsifiable, in that we need not accept "sincerity" when actions go against it every time it's inconvenient. That's our operative definition of "sincere".

  • RPGuy16||

    Yes, just like we expect the courts to determine state of mind in countless other situations. Somehow a court was able to determine Trump's state of mind when he signed the travel ban. Determining whether something is a sincerely held religious belief should be easy.

  • Milmowk||

    18, 19, & 20 year old minors?

  • Sigivald||

    And ref. below the Court would investigate whether or not Dick's had ever claimed or acted on that alleged belief before this recent kerfuffle and convenience of posturing so.

    Unless Dick's had done so, the Court would almost certainly decide "no, this is not a plausible sincerely held religious belief".

    Even more importantly, Dick's is a publicly traded company, with the founder holding only - as far as I can tell - about 5% of shares.

    The "Hobby Lobby exception" applies only to closely held companies, IIRC; "Dick's Board of Directors and the votes of all the shareholders" is not comparable case to "the family that owns and runs Hobby Lobby" as far as the Courts are concerned - the former probably literally can't have a "sincerely held religious belief" as a committee.

    The latter can.

  • Careless||

    loki knows quite well there's nothing legal about his post. this is him just being angry and out of arguments.

  • BambiB||

    Shouldn't help kill them... unless the killer is over 21?

  • Naaman Brown||

    As a minor I had a .22 rifle and a 7mm Mauser, which I used to target shoot and hunt with my dad and my uncle. I never killed anyone. And I assumed most minors were like me.

    So Dicks assume that all 18, 19, 20 year olds acquire guns to kill people and should be treated as suspected murderers (even though a NICS background check is required to buy a rifle).

    18-20 year olds should boycott Dicks.

  • Junkie||

    While I think Dick's is a crappy company that deserves a boycott for their policies, I don't think that it should be illegal (but then again, I don't think bakers should be forced to bake cakes either).

    Everyone who supported the gay couples in various bakery cases should support the plaintiffs here - especially as there's no question of whether it's art.

  • ragebot||

    As Marshal McLuhan said "Art is anything you can get away with.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrJRSf55zsE

  • ||

    While we may support the plaintiffs, we can't help but enjoy the schadenfreude of their rules being used against them.

  • NoVaNick||

    I don't have any legal background, but it seems that if a court were to rule in favor of Dick's in this case, then the bakers who don't want to prepare a wedding cakes for gay couples could certainly have grounds for appeal.

    More generally, I don't like age restrictions for anything (booze, tobacco, or guns). If you are considered old enough at 18 to be sent to war or death row, then you should have access to products that can carry a possible risk of death. However, we keep hearing about research that shows human brains are not fully developed for decision making until age 25 or so. So maybe the age for everything, including voting, should be raised to that.

  • damikesc||

    Agreed Nova. If you cannot be trusted to drink or own a gun, the vote should be pulled post haste.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Not if one subscribes to Mencken's definition of democracy; the theory that the common man knows what he wants and deserves to get it good and hard.

  • Bored Lawyer||

    The US Supreme Court interpreted the federal anti-discrimination provisions based on age, as only discrimination based on being older than a particular age, IIRC 40. Meaning, you cannot sue for being discriminated against as too young, only too old.

    Perhaps the Oregon courts will follow suit.

  • Bored Lawyer||

    Case was:

    General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc. v. Cline, 540 US 581 (2004)

  • Eugene Volokh||

    Bored Lawyer: The federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act expressly says, "The prohibitions in this chapter shall be limited to individuals who are at least 40 years of age"; that was a deliberate choice on Congress's part. The Oregon statute has no such provision -- indeed, it provides express exceptions as to some products for which the cutoff age is later (marijuana and alcohol), but not as to guns or other products. Hard to see how the Oregon courts can create any such new exceptions.

  • Jett's Pop||

    State laws that protect everyone over 18 from age discrimination are unlikely to be interpreted in the same way. (If they were, 18 years olds would only be protected against discrimination in favor of 17, 16, and 15 years old, which seems particularly odd in an employment anti-discrimination statute.) See Ace Elec. Contractors Inc. v. Int'l Broth. of Elec. Workers No. 292, 414 F.3d 896, 901 (8th Cir. 2005) (holding that collective bargaining agreement favoring older workers violated Minnesota Human Relations Act).

  • JesseAz||

    Too bored to read the cited clause from Oregon?

  • Bob from Ohio||

    Ha ha!

  • Reverend Draco||

    If the law allows purchase based on age, that's the age.
    A store which arbitrarily and unilaterally changes the age limit is in violation of the law.

  • Eugene Volokh||

    If the law simply allows over-18-year-olds to buy rifles (in the sense of not forbidding it), that itself does not require stores to sell to 18-year-olds. See this post. That state law allows a transaction doesn't mean the store must engage in it. There's no law banning car rental companies from renting to 20-year-olds, for instance, so the law allows that; but many car rental companies decline to rent to under-21-year-olds. (I'm told that many used to not rent to under-25-year-olds, and some still charge more to under-25-year-olds.)

    But the matter is different, at least as to gun sales, in those jurisdictions (apparently about a third of all states plus some cities and counties) in which the law affirmatively forbids discrimination in retail sales based on age, with a threshold of 18 rather than 21 or higher. That law does more than just allowing purchase -- it forbids age-based refusals to sell.

  • JoeGoins||

    What are the odds that this case will be delayed until the plaintiff is 21 at which point the suit becomes moot?

  • Soronel Haetir||

    That's why you see cases with multiple plaintiffs, and they just add another one as the first is about to age out. Although if damages are sought such delay would likely increase the eventual price tag.

  • Eugene Volokh||

    The suit asks for damages, so mootness won't be a problem.

  • BambiB||

    It wouldn't be moot, as the plaintiff will still have suffered injury up to the age of 21 - AND the purpose of punitives is to punish those who violate the law.

    It would be a bit like a statutory rape case where the victim was 16, but the case was delayed until she was 18 and then the defense argues, "Well, she's legal now!"

  • Sigivald||

    I just find it amusing that subsection 2) allows for Senior Discounts, but not for Kiddie Menus.

    If an Oregon restaurant refuses to sell you something off the kids' menu, they're breaking the law!

  • FlameCCT||

    One can always claim they self identify as a child to get a Kiddie Meal, even though science is clear that one is not. Just like Sean (I'm Too Fly For A White Guy) King or Rachel Dolezal.

  • Sebastian Cremmington||

    Car rental companies sometimes require the renter to be 25.

  • Flyover||

    Then according to this, if they're operating in Oregon they are violating state law.

  • ThomasW||

    That was my question -- Any challenge on the basis of car rental ages might show how this might play out from a strictly legal (no gun control political baggage) standpoint.

  • Joe_JP||

    Seems open & shut -- if there is an age discrimination law that draws the line at 18 and specifically has exceptions for alcohol and so forth, everything else would be covered. So, the state itself would have to change the law and then we would have the question if that itself is constitutional as applied.

  • Jerry B.||

    Wonder when Dick's will stop selling knives, since over four times as many people are murdered with knives as with rifles of any kind.

  • flyfishnevada||

    That's the issue. You can't have it both ways. You can't decide baker's must bake cakes or photographers must take photos and then ignore other forms of discrimination, whether it's currently codified or not. It is the classic slippery slope and like all such slopes, it's fraught with unintended consequences the feel good crowd never intended or imagined.

  • Eugene Volokh||

    flyfishnevada: 1. I take it you're making a policy argument about what the law should be, not an argument about what the law is -- states do indeed distinguish different kinds of discrimination (as does the federal government). Am I understanding you correctly?

    2. Even as a policy matter, why shouldn't the law treat different bases for discrimination differently? Why do you think age discrimination against under-21-year-olds is the same as sexual orientation discrimination?

    3. Finally, the slippery slope / unintended consequences is different still: It simply suggests that it's empirically likely that one kind of ban will over time lead to another, regardless of whether it's a good idea (or whether it's the law today). Is that all you're claiming? If so, you're right to some degree -- some bans on discrimination based on certain criteria (e.g., race) have led in some places to bans on other discrimination. But at the same time, most states haven't ban age discrimination in retail, so the slope's slipperiness shouldn't be overstated here.

  • bc15||

    I think the slippery slope begins when deciding that economic freedom can be regulated more strictly than "fundamental" freedom. That allows government to require non-discrimination in commerce but not in speech. For example, the government cannot require that, if one makes public statements about whites, then one must also make the same statements about blacks. As we've seen in many cases, commercial activity overlaps with expression. Examples include decorating wedding cakes and creating photographs as artistic expressions, BDS boycotts as political speech, and boycotting gun customers under 21 as political speech. One could also imagine expressing opposition to Obamacare by trying to boycott ACA-compliant health plans but having such political speech censored by the individual mandate. So, infringing "merely" economic liberty such as freedom of contract is simultaneously infringing "fundamental" liberty such as freedom of speech. Once one starts down the slope of trying to define economic liberty as less protected than "fundamental" liberty, then one won't know where to stop. Maybe, it's more a case of "opening a can of worms" rather than "slippery slope".

    Is there a precise definition somewhere that delineates the distinction between economic liberty and fundamental liberty? I haven't seen it

  • BambiB||

    I always wondered why the bakers and the photographers didn't just tell the plaintiff that their "hearts wouldn't be in" the artistic effort - then just bake a really horrible cake or take really unflattering photos.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    This one hit the conservative trifecta -- guns, god, and gays -- relatively quickly, and has proceeded apace from there.

    I didn't notice anyone tying this issue to the outrageous shortcomings of strong liberal-libertarian schools; if it isn't part of this exchange yet, it should be along shortly.

  • CE||

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

    ...

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

    So they still allow senior discounts? Why give lower prices to your richest customers?

  • jslinner||

    how convenient

  • Flyover||

    The legal age to purchase a rifle/shotgun is 18.
    Dick's, Walmart, Fred Meyer, etc. have stated that they will continue to sell rifles/shotguns, but are raising the age to purchase them from the legal age of 18, to the arbitrary age of 21.
    Why not 25 or 30?
    What would stop a cake baker, florist, or any other business to say something to the effect of "Due to the current political environment, we will no longer sell any gay themed wedding cakes (flowers, photos, or whatever) to anyone under age 99"?
    (Standard cakes, etc., of course could not be affected by this).

  • Eugene Volokh||

    Flyover: In the many states that don't ban sexual orientation discrimination or age discrimination by providers of goods or services? Nothing would stop that at all -- other than most businesses' desire to make money.

    In those states that ban either form of discrimination (or both forms), that would be impermissible. (Discrimination based on a forbidden basis plus a permitted basis is still forbidden.)

  • Flyover||

    The purchaser's sexuality doesn't matter. They would just have to be 99 years old, or whatever arbitrary age the proprietor feels comfortable selling such a politically charged product to.

  • Flyover||

    After rereading your (EV's) post, I stand corrected.
    Thank you for agreeing that any retailer can do what I suggested.*

    *Unless they have a presence in Oregon or any other state with similar law.

  • jslinner||

    "Due to the current political environment, we will no longer sell any gay themed wedding cakes (flowers, photos, or whatever) to anyone under age 99"?

    if the maturity of the buyer is important, why would it only be important for gays?

  • Flyover||

    See my reply to EV above.
    Gay themed wedding cakes are a legal product.
    But retailers have opened this can of worms by refusing to sell to someone based on an arbitrary age number.
    Why can't any other retailer do the same?
    (Excluding Oregan, or any other state with a similar law).

  • jslinner||

    "Oregon is one of the states that bans retailers from discriminating based on age against customers age 18 and above." "...against customers age 18 and above." "...against customers age 18 and above."

    yo dawg, i heard you like age discrimination, so we put age discrimination in your law against age discrimination.

  • Bruce Hall||

    I think there should be a mental health test: anyone who believes people do not have the right to certain firearms because the weapon looks scary, despite the 2nd Amendment, are judged mentally deficient and cannot purchase a firearm.

  • Flyover||

    Thumbup

  • FlameCCT||

    Exactly. I would note that with little modification, an AR platform rifle can be reconfigured to the appearance of a "normal" rifle used for hunting.

  • Bruce Hall||

    I think there should be a mental health test: anyone who believes people do not have the right to certain firearms because the weapon looks scary, despite the 2nd Amendment, are judged mentally deficient and cannot purchase a firearm.

  • 1allen23||

    All of these posts are misleading as far as the reason for the government wanting to disarm us. The history of Hitler's gun control is exactly what is happening here. Hitler gained power by using the media to scare the H E L L out of the German people. He promised safety and security if elected. Once he gained power, he immediately required all civilian firearms to be registered with the government, for their own safety mind you. Once that was accomplished he sent his Nazi storm troopers out to confiscate guns since he now knew who and where to find them. Then he went after his opposition and had them killed. Next was the rounding up of the Jewish people. All the while using the media of the day to keep the people scared. This plan of action is now taking place. The globalists are using the media to scare the public. WAKE UP AMERICA!!!

  • FiftycalTX2||

    UPVOTE! The totalitarians cannot promise a "socialist utopia" as long as we are armed.

  • BambiB||

    It wasn't just Hitler. The JPFO has long cited 170+ million people slaughtered in the 20th Century BY THEIR OWN GOVERNMENTS. In each case, the massacres were preceded by gun control and confiscation. Do the math: That's 4600+ people a day, every day for 100 years.

    Makes something like 23 people a year killed in school shootings, or even a Las Vegas massacre, seem like round-off error.

  • drisco304||

    He should claim he's gay and transgendered. That should add a few million to the take.

  • susanpub||

    Yep... 1st time here, probably last time here. Off to delete my account. Enjoy yourselves.

  • ||

    Yep... 1st time here, probably last time here. Off to delete my account. Enjoy yourselves.

    I don't know drisco304 but I don't assume him to be a lawyer. So, yeah, if the mere suggestion that the plaintiff *might* get different legal treatment by being gay or transgendered offends you terribly, you should probably avoid these forums, maybe the internet as a whole, probably the East and West Coasts, and all the flyover states as well. Best just to find a hole, get inside, and pretend people treat gays and transgendered people however you think they ought to be treated.

  • Chumby||

    You think Susanpub supports government mandated separate bathrooms for gun owners?

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    Dick's deserves to be sued back into the Stone Age.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    It might be easier to just compel Dick's Sporting Goods to move to Alabama, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, or just about any conservative-controlled state.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    Clearly we need common sense Troll Control, but then what would artie poo do with all his free time?

  • susanpub||

    They are already here.

  • Ben_||

    The legal question seems simple. The Walmart spokesman saying they stand by their (illegal) policy and will defend it must have made that statement without considering the laws in any way. They won't defend it.

    Practically, the policy is just ridiculous. An 18-year-old can't buy a hunting rifle? I got my first rifle when I was 12. Teenagers hunt in rural areas. With rifles. Walmart should know better. (Dicks is a lost cause. No outdoor sportsmen or sportswomen should shop there. They don't understand their customers at all.)

  • susanpub||

    "Regular" hunting rifles aren't really the problem. Automatic ones should be in a separate legal category.

  • Ben_||

    "Automatic ones" have been illegal for 50+ years.

    Are you just trolling? Or are you very dumb/ignorant? Or are you being deliberately dishonest?

  • ||

    Not illegal, but certainly in their own separate legal category.

  • Chumby||

    Based on what data?

  • ||

    Dicks is a lost cause. No outdoor sportsmen or sportswomen should shop there. They don't understand their customers at all.

    Polite disagree. They sell yoga pants and kid's soccer shin guards. If you don't have a need for them, you aren't their customer.

  • Chumby||

    They don't sell woodchippers. Tractor Supply for the win!

  • BambiB||

    Nice to see someone in such a strong position to punish the morons pushing political correctness.

  • santamonica811||

    I'm surprised that Oregon law definitely permits discrimination in favor of the elderly (defined as 50+ years old) . . . BUT does not seem to permit similar discrimination in favor of children. Is it really true that in Oregon, you cannot give lower-priced tickets to children to, say, movie theatres? For entrance to sporting events or zoos? For airline tickets flying into/out of the state (unless federal law would somehow trump that) or inside the state. In California, Denny's has a kiddies menu, with low-price meals only for people below a certain age. Do Oregon Denny's not have this?

  • jdgalt1||

    I suspect the plaintiffs are really gun control advocates. Because if they win, the only way for Dick's to comply with the law will be to stop selling long guns in Oregon entirely.

  • Sarcastr0||

    Why chalk up to shortsightedness what you can to secret conspiracy?

  • vek||

    Only got through about half the comments, but I have to say that at this point I am totally into patriots and libertarians suing the shit out of these dirty communist fucks that are trying to ruin our country for any and every reason they can come up with.

    Maybe they'll finally learn their lesson on public accommodation laws if we use them against them. If we use their own bullshit logic they use to push their crap agenda, maybe it'll finally sink in. I doubt it because they're mostly all just mush for brain morons, but perhaps a few of them might wake up and smell the coffee.

    Even worse than this nonsense, look up the LOVELY new Seattle gun confiscation program! Stealing peoples guns who didn't commit a crime, are known to have not even been threatening in any way... Basically if someone just knows you own a gun they can arbitrarily say they're scared just because you own a gun, and it will be taken by force with no due process. America in the 21st century, ain't it grand! My ancestors must be rolling over in their graves over this kind of shit...

  • Sarcastr0||

    Looking it up on a site that isn't Gateway Pundit, it looks as though you need a protection order. So not quite the tyrannical terror you make it out to be.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Maybe they'll finally learn their lesson on public accommodation laws

    Let your bigotry flow!

    (until you take your stale thinking to the grave, and are replaced in America's improving electorate by a better person)

  • susanpub||

    Maybe I don't want an account on this site after all...

  • Chumby||

    Huffington Post welcomes all types of slavers. Enjoy your groupthink.

  • etsneroj||

    You can't say this case is "open and shut" until you make sure there are no other Oregon statutes (which must be read in harmony with this one) and no decisions by Oregon courts interpreting this statute that open the door for Dick's to do what it did.

  • Chem_Geek||

    There was also a similar suit filed in Michigan, due to similar State-level anti-age-discrimination law.

  • Pat001||

    You can't rent a car unless you're 21 or even 25 in some states so would that practice be disallowed? Also some car rental companies attach surcharges to people over 70 who rent cars. When it comes to laws in individual states, the U.S. is a like a psychotic with 50 different personalities.

  • Frank Thorn||

    Smart kid. Sue's Dick's for breaking the law> wins a $50,000 judgment > buys a transferable $35,000 Class III belt fed M-60 and a dozen boxes of ammo > spends the rest on beer and hookers.

  • susanpub||

    So, any 10 year old can legally demand to be sold an automatic rifle? I like Oregon, but that's NUTS. Though I admit there are probably a lot of 10 year olds I'd rather see w/ such guns than a lot of adults out there who have them.

  • ||

    So, any 10 year old can legally demand to be sold an automatic rifle?

    Demand? Sure. Seal the deal? Nope. First, you said 'automatic' which means (at least) an FFL and you have to be 21 and older. Assuming you meant semi-automatic, the answer is still 'No' in Oregon. Federal law requires licensed dealers to perform background checks and state law requires private sellers to do the same. Both would require state/federal ID and/or commensurate paperwork.

    Even in states where private sales don't require background checks, in the event of a shooting, there is an onus on the owner to demonstrate legitimate ownership and/or declare guns stolen when they are discovered missing. Which usually means, for expediency (both before and after purchase), the rifle is owned by the parents (This is how I got "my" pistol at age 12). It wouldn't surprise me to learn that there are 10 yr. olds who own guns, but they're a niche and generally aren't shooting up any grade schools.

  • Chumby||

    So any two year old can demand to vote? Or buy beer? Strawperson much?

  • FlameCCT||

    Does it hurt being that ignorant?
    Or is it just normal for a Progressive serf?

  • gibbongirl||

    That's one way to force Dicks to stop selling rifles to everyone.

  • jweaks||

    Wouldn't it be nice if business owners could follow their own beliefs, and if customers didn't like it they could shop elsewhere?

  • ||

    Yes. But the leftist totalitarians long ago did away with that concept.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online