Oregon Let BiMart know how you feel.

[LowerRiver]

I emailed when they first announced the change and have yet to get a response. The law is the law and they should follow that.

 

[Member 34319]

Of course he is entitled to his opinion and so are the anti-2a people. It is very disturbing that we are discussing this between supposed 2nd Amendment supporters. 26 years old to buy a gun, are you serious? I am very very troubled by this attitude. It doesn't give me warm and fuzzy feelings about where we are headed on gun rights if our very own supporters are going to start handing over our rights willingly. And sorry to all you baby seal lovers but baby seals aren't as important as our 2A rights.

I guess this is kind of where I'll leave it.

Gun owners are simply not united as folks of liberal mentalities.

I don't know if liberals eat their own, but lately I feel that gun owners do.

It's as if I am a liberal in your eyes for having an opposition in views on today's youth.

I'm not as much of a "from my cold dead hands" type.

I feel that today's youth is different and changed.

If you want to hang me for my thoughts and opinions, so be it.

 

[arakboss]

I emailed when they first announced the change and have yet to get a response. The law is the law and they should follow that.

Thank you for beating the rest of us to the punch. And you would think that the law is the law but unfortunately Comm Brad Avakian of BOLI who is in charge of enforcing this law doesn't feel that way. He is giving all of these stores a pass since he is anti-gun himself.

 

[Ura-Ki]

Show me where in the constitution firearms rights starts or are called out by age! Able bodied could easily be applied to mind as it does to body! While it sucks these retailers have done this to young adults, and it pizzes me off to no end to have rights stripped from us with out consideration, this fight needs to be won at the State level first, then apply it across the board to any and all businesses!
Sadly, I agree the age limit increase isn't a bad thing, but I'm not happy about it ether! I havnt made up my mind about Bi-Mart and continuing to shop there, but I have made my opinion of this known to them!

 

[Kristina]

I guess this is kind of where I'll leave it.

Gun owners are simply not united as folks of liberal mentalities.

I don't know if liberals eat their own, but lately I feel that gun owners do.

It's as if I am a liberal in your eyes for having an opposition in views on today's youth.

I'm not as much of a "from my cold dead hands" type.

I feel that today's youth is different and changed.

If you want to hang me for my thoughts and opinions, so be it.

FWIW I appreciate that you share your opinion, whatever the topic may be. I don't always agree but it always gets me thinking critically about why. Examining one's own feelings and opinions is never a bad thing in my book.

 

[arakboss]

I guess this is kind of where I'll leave it.

Gun owners are simply not united as folks of liberal mentalities.

I don't know if liberals eat their own, but lately I feel that gun owners do.

It's as if I am a liberal in your eyes for having an opposition in views on today's youth.

I'm not as much of a "from my cold dead hands" type.

I feel that today's youth is different and changed.

If you want to hang me for my thoughts and opinions, so be it.

Nobody wants to hang anybody. My concern is how can 2A supporters convince anti-gun, fence sitters, middle of the road people of the importance of our 2A rights when you guys are discounting and willing to give them up yourselves. What other rights would you want to take from the these young people? 1st Amendment rights, 4th Amendment, what about their 8th Amendment rights. Why any US Constitution loving American would want to take these rights away from our future leaders just boggles my mind, especially when we are talking about all the infringement on our rights from the anti-gun crowd that we are going to be dealing with in the near future. We should be looking out for all of our citizens 18 to death, when it comes to protecting our Constitutional Rights.

 

[Ura-Ki]

Here is the crux of this whole thing, Age is a STATE mandated infringement in OryGun, not at the fed level, and not Constitutnally, so, were all mad about "infringement" but it's not! Once that young person reaches the age of 21, they can enjoy the full volume of the 2nd on their own. Until then, they are going to have to have Family assist them in making a purchase! Yes, it sucks big time, I'm mad as hell, but it's only against State Law, to discriminate against one bcause of age, it's not unconstitutionl, and that's how they get it to stick ( except the whole pesky state law thing) so I doubt any complaints will do any thing. Now the law suits against these businesses may change all this, because they have been denied the 2nd rights in the context of the Constitution, but again, that document does not call out a specific age, so that's going to be a fight, and in the Oregon and 9th supreme court's, that's not going to be upheld!

 

[arakboss]

FWIW I appreciate that you share your opinion, whatever the topic may be. I don't always agree but it always gets me thinking critically about why. Examining one's own feelings and opinions is never a bad thing in my book.

I really appreciate that, I was starting to feel like I am in some Bizarro world or it's opposite day

 

[Ura-Ki]

I really appreciate that, I was starting to feel like I am in some Bizarro world or it's opposite day

It's All good!
Some times a different opinon is a good thing, makes folks think, and some times folks need a shake up that they didn't see or think of, that't what this is all about!
Don't worry, as long as you don' start beating that dead horse, were all good! Lol

 

[arakboss]

Here is the crux of this whole thing, Age is a STATE mandated infringement in OryGun, not at the fed level, and not Constitutnally, so, were all mad about "infringement" but it's not! Once that young person reaches the age of 21, they can enjoy the full volume of the 2nd on their own. Until then, they are going to have to have Family assist them in making a purchase! Yes, it sucks big time, I'm mad as hell, but it's only against State Law, to discriminate against one bcause of age, it's not unconstitutionl, and that's how they get it to stick ( except the whole pesky state law thing) so I doubt any complaints will do any thing. Now the law suits against these businesses may change all this, because they have been denied the 2nd rights in the context of the Constitution, but again, that document does not call out a specific age, so that's going to be a fight, and in the Oregon and 9th supreme court's, that's not going to be upheld!

I am not disagreeing with the points you made. We agree that the stores are breaking Oregon law and the stores know it. I agree the stores policy is not violating any US Constitutional law. But it will weaken the support for the 2nd Amendment in other ways. That is why I described it earlier as a slippery slope. One thing leads to another. I would not have a problem with any of these stores, if they came out and said because of the bad publicity we are getting from anti-gun groups and for liability reasons we are going to quit selling guns and ammo period in our stores. I would be bummed but not super pissed at the stores like I am now. Instead they decided that they could put on a show for the anti-gun crowd and partially ban sales on a small segment of the population who is least able and/or willing to fight it. This 18-20 group likely amounted to a tiny fraction of their sales. And they wanted to deflect the anti-gun groups hostility towards them. I am not arguing that it wasn't a wise business decision especially given how many of you here are supporting them. The problem in Oregon still exist. Cake bakers suffered immensely for violating the same law. So far the stores have not suffered any repercussions from the State.

 

[Joe13]

OK, so personally I have never understood why you can go to war and smoke tobacco at 18 but can't drink (and now smoke weed) until your 21.

Maybe because mind altering substances are more damaging to growing brains but I think and have always thought that it should all be one age limit for everything. Period. Now your an adult and you have full adult rights.

I also think everything should be legal and let it sort itself out but that's a side bar.


Punish the abusers and not everyone.




My daughter just finished her 3rd year in college on the way to becoming a neurologist and is smart as it gets in most things. I see her and her friends who are also all very intelligent but not one at 21 is as world smart as my wife and I were at 17-18.

Things have changed and I think to some extent we should change with it.

If 18-21 is an issue, then why 18 to begin with? Why not 13 or no age limit at all?

 

[Member 34319]

Cake bakers suffered immensely for violating the same law.

That was a civil rights thing for a protected class.

Unfortunately gun ownership is not considered a civil right, nor are gun owners a protected class.

It goes even further where states have already decided it is ok to discriminate for political beliefs.

So if they associate gun ownership with politics, they will start discriminating on those grounds.

Then they will just point out there are no laws against political discrimination.

Ironic, yes, hypocritical, yes.

Same thing, no.

Edit: I'll give it some familiarity, the law states that legal long gun ownership is set to 18 years of age. So yes their is some civil rights infringement, but the court will ultimately decide if the store had the right to refuse service. Which I will go ahead and guess they will say yes to.

 

[arakboss]

OK, so personally I have never understood why you can go to war and smoke tobacco at 18 but can't drink (and now smoke weed) until your 21.

Maybe because mind altering substances are more damaging to growing brains but I think and have always thought that it should all be one age limit for everything. Period. Now your an adult and you have full adult rights.

I also think everything should be legal and let it sort itself out but that's a side bar.


Punish the abusers and not everyone.




My daughter just finished her 3rd year in college on the way to becoming a neurologist and is smart as it gets in most things. I see her and her friends who are also all very intelligent but not one at 21 is as world smart as my wife and I were at 17-18.

Things have changed and I think to some extent we should change with it.

If 18-21 is an issue, then why 18 to begin with? Why not 13 or no age limit at all?

I can only answer to the 18 age for mil duty and why it won't likely change. A lot of young people who decide to sign up for the military probably would not after going to college for a few years. The military would have a heck of a time with recruiting smart young people.

 

[arakboss]

That was a civil rights thing for a protected class.

Unfortunately gun ownership is not considered a civil right, nor are gun owners a protected class.

It goes even further where states have already decided it is ok to discriminate for political beliefs.

So if they associate gun ownership with politics, they will start discriminating on those grounds.

Then they will just point out there are no laws against political discrimination.

Ironic, yes, hypocritical, yes.

Same thing, no.

Edit: I'll give it some familiarity, the law states that legal long gun ownership is set to 18 years of age. So yes their is some civil rights infringement, but the court will ultimately decide if the store had the right to refuse service. Which I will go ahead and guess they will say yes to.

The Bimart (and other stores) discrimination violations are about a protected class, that being age. Oregon law provides that places of public accommodation (stores) can not discriminate based on age or any of the other protected classes. No one class is more important than another. They are all equal under the law. So it doesn't matter whether it was a gun or a head of lettuce. If the store refused to sell it to somebody because they weren't 21 then they are breaking the law. The law currently provides three exemptions to this law. Alcohol, weed and the senior discount. They should have tobacco in there but they screwed up and that exemption should get put in there next session. If a court approved this discrimination based on current Oregon law then we are in a world of hurt because there is no factual disputes here.

 

[Member 34319]

Yep, I agree.

I should have said that age discrimination isn't treated the same in today's world as racial or sexual discrimination.

We age discriminate all the time and it is socially accepted.

 

[arakboss]

That was a civil rights thing for a protected class.

Unfortunately gun ownership is not considered a civil right, nor are gun owners a protected class.

It goes even further where states have already decided it is ok to discriminate for political beliefs.

So if they associate gun ownership with politics, they will start discriminating on those grounds.

Then they will just point out there are no laws against political discrimination.

Ironic, yes, hypocritical, yes.

Same thing, no.

Edit: I'll give it some familiarity, the law states that legal long gun ownership is set to 18 years of age. So yes their is some civil rights infringement, but the court will ultimately decide if the store had the right to refuse service. Which I will go ahead and guess they will say yes to.

One more thing, this is the exact same law that was violated in the gay cake case. Instead of Bimart it was a bakery, instead of a rifle it was a cake and instead of a 18-20 person it was a gay couple. The only difference in the gay cake case was the bakers thought they were also a protected class because of their religion. But the courts decided the law only protected the customer in the case. Bi-mart and the other store have no defense. I think they will ultimately just pay out a settlement and it will go away quietly or they will run the plaintiffs out of money through appeals. If anti-gun legislatures have the majorities next year you can be sure that they will add firearms to the list of exemptions under the discrimination law and then all you guys who don't trust the 18-20 or 18-26 person will have your wishes come true. This will not help the overall Pro2A cause. I hope some of you will reconsider your stance on this. These young people do not all have "minds of mush" like I have been told over on reddit when having a similar discussion.

 

[arakboss]

Yep, I agree.

I should have said that age discrimination isn't treated the same in today's world as racial or sexual discrimination.

We age discriminate all the time and it is socially accepted.

You can lobby to have age removed from the list of protected classes but until then it is equal under the eyes of the law. I would advise that you learn to trust this younger generation instead and enlist their help in our 2A fight. We need more people who care about our 2A rights, not less.

I am biased since my son works in the Tigard High publications dept but please read this great news article about the high school kids supporting the 2A maybe you will have an ounce more of respect for the younger generation: Stand for the Second

 

[Member 34319]

One more thing, this is the exact same law that was violated in the gay cake case. Instead of Bimart it was a bakery, instead of a rifle it was a cake and instead of a 18-20 person it was a gay couple. The only difference in the gay cake case was the bakers thought they were also a protected class because of their religion. But the courts decided the law only protected the customer in the case. Bi-mart and the other store have no defense. I think they will ultimately just pay out a settlement and it will go away quietly or they will run the plaintiffs out of money through appeals. If anti-gun legislatures have the majorities next year you can be sure that they will add firearms to the list of exemptions under the discrimination law and then all you guys who don't trust the 18-20 or 18-26 person will have your wishes come true. This will not help the overall Pro2A cause. I hope some of you will reconsider your stance on this. These young people do not all have "minds of mush" like I have been told over on reddit when having a similar discussion.

Same law yes, same situation no.

In recent times there has been a large push for sexual freedom. It is something, like racial freedom, that had been condoned for a long time and only recently had gained its freedom.

We have age discriminated for a long time. The 18 year old limit is an age discrimination, as is the 21 year old thing.

I'm not saying the same law doesnt protect the two parties, just the background behind each situation is completely different. To not merit this, doesn't help the comparison.

This comparison is similar to the car deaths vs gun deaths.

The comparison isn't going to work, what you need to point out is that anti gunners don't see the car deaths as deaths vs gun deaths. IE they call gun deaths an epidemic while the greater number of car deaths is normal and justifiable.

 

[Goosebrown]

Dear Sir/Madam that is not 2nd Amendment talk. That is the same speech we hear from the Anti-2nd Amendment groups. It leads down a slippery slope. I am sorry you don't trust the 18-20 year old citizens who fight for our country, marry our children, have our grand kids, sign our contracts, etc. to shop at Oregon stores and get the same treatment protected by Oregon law for all other customers 18 and up. I am truly disheartened by your lack of trust in them.

Nope.

We have reasonable limits on all rights. Same for the second amendment sir or madam.

We have a complex, tried and true system of laws regarding guns. We have things that are protected And things that are not protected. Pistols, rifles and shotguns are protected. Machine guns are not.

There are only really two issues in discussion at the moment.

Is there a right to carry outside the home ?(there should be) And are assault weapons protected? (they should be)

That is where the fight is. Not the age at which someone can buy a gun.

That argument is bubblegunerbation.

If there is not a right to have a pistol at 18, and the Supreme Court found years ago there was not, then the same logic and law would be able to be applied here.

That sir or madam is what you sign up for when you say you support the Constitution. The Supreme Court interpretation IS the law of the land and it is YOU that is on the slippery slope when you deny that because THAT is exactly what the liberals do. They think that the parts they like apply and the rest does not. That sir or madam is sophistry and the basis of totalitarianism.

I believe in the Constitution and it's Supreme Court interpretations. That makes me an American. I support our laws not some tarted up pig in a dress of a fantasy of what rights should be.

Sir or madam, I also support your right to believe what you like, but avoiding reality sounds more like an antifa wet dream to me than a real plan of action.

And no I don't trust 18 year olds to vote or defend the country either FWIW.

 

[arakboss]

Same law yes, same situation no.

In recent times there has been a large push for sexual freedom. It is something, like racial freedom, that had been condoned for a long time and only recently had gained its freedom.

We have age discriminated for a long time. The 18 year old limit is an age discrimination, as is the 21 year old thing.

I'm not saying the same law doesnt protect the two parties, just the background behind each situation is completely different. To not merit this, doesn't help the comparison.

This comparison is similar to the car deaths vs gun deaths.

The comparison isn't going to work, what you need to point out is that anti gunners don't see the car deaths as deaths vs gun deaths. IE they call gun deaths an epidemic while the greater number of car deaths is normal and justifiable.

We can agree to disagree on that (i agree with car vs gun deaths) but I still hold the belief that we need more people supporting the 2nd Amendment and not less. By discriminating against the 18-20 group with or without cover of law is not going to incentivize them to help the 2A cause and in fact may cause us to loose more of them to the anti-gun side which already dominates this age group. The vast majority of mass shootings have been committed by the way over 21 crowd anyways so I am not sure what people feel we'll be gaining by making people wait.