Oregon 20-Year-Old Sues Dick’s Sporting Goods

[Jcon268]

My Walmart equals internet ammo prices at times. It's only 2 miles from my house, I pay cash only and buy as much, or as little as I want. Example: Federal .45 acp 230gr.FMJ, aluminum cased, 200 count box for $56.84, or $14.21 a box of 50. They shoot fine in all my various 45s and I can only beat that price by reloading my own.
If I do internet sales, they only seem to pay off if there is free shipping.

I'd still rather purchase from a place like Sportsmans Warehouse even over a Dick's or Walmart if there wasn't a LGS nearby. Their prices aren't that much higher and I'm around people who likely share the same interests.

 

[3MTA3]

I'd still rather purchase from a place like Sportsmans Warehouse even over a Dick's or Walmart if there wasn't a LGS nearby. Their prices aren't that much higher and I'm around people who likely share the same interests.

I've seen some outstanding deals on their ad as well.

 

[RVTECH]

I'd still rather purchase from a place like Sportsmans Warehouse

I shop at Sportsman's mostly only for reloading supplies and due to convenience but sometimes I see prices a bit higher on some things than say the same at Bi-Mart. Regardless the Bend Sportsman's has made some changes lately am am not so sure I like - specifically in the hunting department where I see many new faces behind the counter - but I don't have to talk to them so I grab what I need and head out.

 

[BillM]

I'm a bit disappointed that Bi-Mart jumped into this. Dicks, Wally World, Freddies----all mega-corps
with a row of corporate lawyers and PR hacks driving policy.

Bi-Mart is an employee owned company with a fairly small footprint and the home office here
in Oregon. I would normally check there first for whatever--kind of support the little guy. Guess
I need to reconsider that.

 

[11Charlie]

-kind of support the little guy.

Go smaller call @LuckySG

 

[LuckySG]

Go smaller call @LuckySG

I would be happy to help you get what you want, at a price reasonable enough to make it feel more like a need.

Jeremy

 

[11Charlie]

I would be happy to help you get what you want, at a price reasonable enough to make it feel more like a need.

Jeremy

I have heard nothing but great things about you my friend. I was going to have you order me my 10/22 until Jon got one on trade that I couldn't pass up.

 

[LuckySG]

I have heard nothing but great things about you my friend. I was going to have you order me my 10/22 until Jon got one on trade that I couldn't pass up.

A great deal is great wherever you find it, and a bonus if it is closer to home.

 

[KKG]

Why didn't he Sue when he was 16 and couldn't buy until he was 18??? It's the same thing.

 

[wired]

The law says he can buy at 18 but the store is refusing the sale. It's not the same thing.

 

[Argonaut]

The law says he can buy at 18 but the store is refusing the sale. It's not the same thing.

It is age discrimination.....

 

[BillM]

Why didn't he Sue when he was 16 and couldn't buy until he was 18??? It's the same thing.

Because Federal law sets 18 for long guns and 21 for handguns as the minimum age? As does Oregon
state law. Oregon also has a "non discrimination based on age in buildings accessible to the public"
statute that I believe is the main basis of the lawsuits.

Heck--I remember when I was 8 or so buying 22 shells at the local hardware store. And was
PISSED post gca '68 that I couldn't buy 22 shells at age 18 because "they could be used in a handgun"

 

[wired]

I remember going to the store when I was 6 years old to buy my dad a 6 pack of Busch Light and a pack of Kool Ultra Lights. It was OK because I had a note from my dad.

 

[ma96782]

well I think an ar15 is much more effective at mowing down school children or concert goers than stopping a tank, drone, or guided missle, so there is a point to that.

Can't say im interested in using my ars for either though.

Were you even aware that at one time.......Germany had a law against "war weapons"* for civilian ownership? The "war weapon" was a deliberate term they used in the language of the statute. It had the general population thinking, that those war weapons were especially evil. It's just like today......the Liberals have termed the AR as a "weapon of mass destruction" or "a weapon of war."

Well.....that German law was used to disarm the population of bolt action rifles. Rrrrright, "Bolt Action Rifles." The end result (after much more anti-gun legislation, piled on one after another) was that millions of Jews were led to the gas chambers with hardly a fight.

Aloha, Mark

*"War Weapon" my mistake. It was suppose to be "Military Weapon." Same difference.....it still included "bolt action" rifles.

 

[wired]

The German law was mandated by the treaty of Versailles . Hitler's 1938 gun law actually dramatically deregulated German gun laws.

 

[turbo_vanner]

Were you even aware that at one time.......Germany had a law against "war weapons" for civilian ownership? The "war weapon" was a deliberate term they used in the language of the statute. It had the general population thinking, that those war weapons were especially evil. It's just like today......the Liberals have termed the AR as a "weapon of mass destruction" or "a weapon of war."

Well.....that German law was used to disarm the population of bolt action rifles. Rrrrright, "Bolt Action Rifles." The end result (after much more anti-gun legislation, piled on one after another) was that millions of Jews were led to the gas chambers with hardly a fight.

Aloha, Mark

I suppose liberals are looking at the issue in terms of what actually happens, today, in this country... (all legal uses aside, of course) people use ar15's to mow down school children and concert goers. How many ar15's have been used to keep our government from acting tyrannically or throwing people in gas chambers? None, or at least, none that succeeded, or none that liberals care about or agree with.

Sure they can arguably do both, but they only have a history of doing one. Also, one is exponentially easier than the other, and can happen on a whim.

 

[KKG]

The law says he can buy at 18 but the store is refusing the sale. It's not the same thing.

Certainly it's the same thing. It's just like this website. There's no Law that says you have to be so old to access this site but there is a "Policy" that sets the minimum age. Store Policy has Simply changed and he doesn't like the change. I will be very surprised if he wins and most likely it won't be decided before he turns 21 or maybe even 25! Courts do take their own sweet time.

Another really dumb law suit. I wouldn't be surprised if they tossed this one. Places of business have the Right to set Policy as long as it doesn't conflict with the Law. And this Policy doesn't. Now if Dick's had said "We are going to sell to 10 year old kids". Well, then there would be a cause of action.

 

[3MTA3]

Certainly it's the same thing. It's just like this website. There's no Law that says you have to be so old to access this site but there is a "Policy" that sets the minimum age. Store Policy has Simply changed and he doesn't like the change. I will be very surprised if he wins and most likely it won't be decided before he turns 21 or maybe even 25! Courts do take their own sweet time.

Another really dumb law suit. I wouldn't be surprised if they tossed this one. Places of business have the Right to set Policy as long as it doesn't conflict with the Law. And this Policy doesn't. Now if Dick's had said "We are going to sell to 10 year old kids". Well, then there would be a cause of action.

Except for

1. Statutes that prohibit age discrimination.
2. The right to bear arms is a right and not a privilege.

 

[wired]

Certainly it's the same thing. It's just like this website. There's no Law that says you have to be so old to access this site but there is a "Policy" that sets the minimum age. Store Policy has Simply changed and he doesn't like the change. I will be very surprised if he wins and most likely it won't be decided before he turns 21 or maybe even 25! Courts do take their own sweet time.

Another really dumb law suit. I wouldn't be surprised if they tossed this one. Places of business have the Right to set Policy as long as it doesn't conflict with the Law. And this Policy doesn't. Now if Dick's had said "We are going to sell to 10 year old kids". Well, then there would be a cause of action.

Oregon has robust age discrimination laws so it is different than many other states in that regard.No different than if Bi Mart decided they weren't going to sell rifles to black people. Discrimination is discrimination. He has standing, which is key, when the case is filed so it makes no matter how old he is when the case is decided. It won't affect him personally but in the end Dicks and other retailers will be forced to sell rifles to anyone of age in Oregon who wants to buy a rifle and Dicks will probably have to pay the guy out as a punitive measure. That is until the legislature decides to change the age to 21 which they certainly can do or it gets changed at the Federal level. The fact that it is a rifle and this is a 2nd amendment issue won't even come into play.


Civil Rights Division ENFORCING CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS


"Discrimination in Public Accommodation
A place of public accommodation is defined in state law as any place that offers the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges, whether in the nature of goods, services, lodging, amusements or otherwise. It is illegal to discriminate in places of public accommodation on the basis of race, sex (including pregnancy), sexual orientation, national origin, religion, marital status, physical or mental disability, or age (18 years of age and older)."

 

[ma96782]

The German law was mandated by the treaty of Versailles .

From Wikipedia.....
Regulation after the 1919 Treaty of Versailles
The Treaty of Versailles included firearm reducing stipulations. Article 169 targeted the state: "Within two months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, German arms, munitions, and war material, including anti-aircraft material, existing in Germany in excess of the quantities allowed, must be surrendered to the Governments of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers to be destroyed or rendered useless."

In 1919 the German government passed the Regulations on Weapons Ownership, which declared that "all firearms, as well as all kinds of firearms ammunition, are to be surrendered immediately." Under the regulations, anyone found in possession of a firearm or ammunition was subject to five years' imprisonment and a fine of 100,000 marks.

On August 7, 1920, rising fears whether or not Germany could have rebellions prompted the government to enact a second gun-regulation law called the Law on the Disarmament of the People. It put into effect the provisions of the Versailles Treaty in regard to the limit on military-type weapons.

In 1928 the Law on Firearms and Ammunition was enacted. It relaxed gun restrictions and put into effect a strict firearm licensing scheme. Under this scheme, Germans could possess firearms, but were required to have separate permits to do the following: own or sell firearms, carry firearms (including handguns), manufacture firearms, and professionally deal in firearms and ammunition. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to "... persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit."

Mind you that I don't agree that the gun rights slide was solely because of the Treaty Of Versailles.

"Article 169 targeted the state: ....."

But let's move on......

Reading that....Wow.....nice and clean.* Special note: "persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need"

Yup.....it will be later used to exclude those who are deemed, "enemies."

Wait! I seem to recall that Hillary said that, the NRA is an enemy? Wow. Because I'm an NRA member........does that mean? OMG! OK, Ok, ok.......get back to the subject.....

So, on the street level......what was happening post WW1 Germany? Massive inflation, strikes, riots, political discourse, killings, people calling for CHANGE.

Humm....the rich and powerful (like anywhere) want to stay in their positions. They like it there, life is so good for them. Why not use their positions to squash the opposition? It's easier, if only the Govt (the ones in power) has the guns. So why not? Rrrrright. The excuse of the Treaty Of Versailles.

So then, this guy who was a rabble-rouser in the Munich beer halls starts becoming popular. He's offering CHANGE. Well, the rest is history.....

And in his post WW1 German Govt....he/they gives a $#@^ about the Treaty of Versailles? Rrrrreally?

+++++

OMG.....look at this piece of paper....."Peace in Our Time."



+++++

BTW (speaking of treaties).......
The UN would like nothing better than for the USA to follow their world views on private gun ownership. Remember the last election? Yup, someone was all for getting the USA on board with the UN.

Thankfully.....it didn't happen. And, we in the USA have the 2nd A.

Course, there are some that want to re-interpret the words of the 2nd A. Perhaps, adding a clause for, "reasonable and common sense" restrictions. Rrrrright.....reasonable and common sense according to who happens to be in power at the time.

Aloha, Mark

*reports said that people were shot in the streets due to the strict interpretation of the early German Law. And BTW, handguns were not covered by the early laws. That, came later.