Fine enough. However, "Oregon law" =/= "Constitution." There is no constitutional right to be sold a firearm. Now this begs the question why nobody has gone after Walmart and Bi-Mart, Big-5, Dick's and all the others who are violating this state law. Also, for point of reference, would you mind citing that specific law in ORS? Thank you.
Thank you for the citation. As I read that statute, it would appear that any seller would indeed be unable to refuse to provide a product or a service based on age -- at least in context of the federal laws that specify a person must be 18 to purchase a long gun and 21 to purchase a handgun -- and especially in a state where a cake baker is compelled by force of law to bake a cake they wish not to bake. Such are the pitfalls of statism. Normally I am loathe to support the state intruding in commerce, but then again what's good for the goose is good for the gander.ORS 659A.403 – Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited
Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full…www.oregonlaws.org
Firearms and ammo not their only sales. Sportsman's also not bad?
Exactly why our freedoms will continue to be eroded. It only affects thee and not me so go ahead....
Many firearm owners share your attitude when it comes to firearm restrictions being infringed upon by governments. They seem to be fine with infringements if it doesn't impact them.
Your freedom is not eroded by the actions of a private party, however. Bi-Mart also has freedom -- to engage in commerce on its own terms. I do not like that they caved to the anti-gun hysteria, but if you are going to argue freedom, I would recommend acknowledging that it is a two-way street. In fact, you are free to obtain a FFL and sell guns to whomever you'd like provided that they are lawfully eligible to purchase a firearm.
Yet we are not talking about an infringement by government. Straw man.
Believe me, many here share this same attitude towards government regulations. It's especially prevalent when discussing rights of younger folks.
Perhaps. But not relevant to this topic. A private party -- a Bi-Mart or Sweet Cakes By Melissa -- compelled to act by the state is as much of an infringement on their rights as is a prohibition on a citizen imposed by force of law. Frankly, as a 2A originalist, I don't see any stipulation to age when I read that torn parchment. We the people have permitted our agents of the state -- through our "just consent" -- to impose upon us these strictures thus we acquiesce to the infringement of our rights "for our own good." A man far smarter than me once said "we get the government we deserve." Another said "careful what you wish for... you just might get it."
Again, I'm not ok with any government infringements. I'm a will not compromise, will not negotiate, will not yield kind of a guy. I am ok with businesses being allowed to run their businesses as they see fit. If they make desistions I don't agree with I vote with my check book. I'm an ammunition manufacturer, licensed and legal. You were selling ammo in kit form for more than I sell loaded ammo for. Did I whine and complain, no. Did I buy any of your kits even though I really needed the components, no. I voted with my check book and spent my money elsewhere. Your business, your way, my business my way. It really is just that simple.
