Easy enough to test that theory. Tell her to put up "whites only" signs....Her take on the company policy
was that because they were a membership only store, the public
accommodation laws did not apply.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Easy enough to test that theory. Tell her to put up "whites only" signs....Her take on the company policy
was that because they were a membership only store, the public
accommodation laws did not apply.
He out grew his cricket now he's sporting a ruger 10/22 take downMy son has been drilled numerous times not to talk about firearms with anyone just for that reason he's 8 he received his first firearm when he graduated kindergarten a cricket
That's a good question. I do think there's a legitimate US and Oregon Constitutional challenge against those proposed licensing requirements. But I don't think the bill is likely to get through as it's currently stated. We'll see what happens, but I'd certainly be interested in looking into it. Honestly, the ideal plaintiff in most lawsuits where the underlying theme is liberal fear of gun violence, are women. Because they're very unlikely to commit gun violence, statistically.Are you up to task of challenging the license to purchase portion of IP17, assuming voters pass it (99.99% sure they will)? My belief is that FFLs and Customers will suffer damages because they won't have the licensing scheme in place by Jan 1st, 2023 which is when the law will take effect. This means FFLs will not be able to release firearms to customers since they won't have their license to purchase. At the very least there should be an injunction halting the license to purchase requirement until the licensing process is created and active? Ideally I would like to see the license to purchase requirement halted until the courts decide whether it's constitutional or not.
Edit: Assuming voters pass it and you think there is a good opportunity to challenge it. What will the ideal plaintiff and circumstances look like?
Won't age issues largely in part be 'null and void' if SP 114 passes?
I don't foresee a lot of younger people jumping through the hoops of whatever system may eventually be put in place to 'check off' all the requirements to buy a firearm IF SB 114 was to pass - and I am vehemently hoping it does NOT.
I firmly believe that is the exact intention. it's not about keeping guns away from bad actors... like they are trying to sell it. It IS about making so many hoops that it becomes too bothersome and too expensive for many to follow though with excercising their right.Won't age issues largely in part be 'null and void' if SP 114 passes?
I don't foresee a lot of younger people jumping through the hoops of whatever system may eventually be put in place to 'check off' all the requirements to buy a firearm IF SB 114 was to pass - and I am vehemently hoping it does NOT.
I firmly believe that is the exact intention. it's not about keeping guns away from bad actors... like they are trying to sell it. It IS about making so many hoops that it becomes too bothersome and too expensive for many to follow though with excercising their right.