They have the right to deny the sale, but not for the reason they gave. If they had said, "no, you look like you're up to no good," with no further elaboration, they wouldn't have run afoul of the law. But the no under 21 policy is against Oregon law. The lawyer wouldn't have taken a case against Wal Mart's notoriously savage legal team if he didn't think it'd be an easy win - and it will be.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53181433]No, they would just have to have a justifiable reason to not sell it.
Personally, I think Wal-Mart should have ever right to deny this sale, whether they actually have the right to do so I'm not so sure.[/QUOTE]
They'd need a justifiable reason, but in this guy's case, there's seemingly no justified reason.
To be clear, what I meant was, if Wal-Mart wanted to not sell a rifle to this guy, they'd have to invent some sort of excuse related to e.g. his behaviour, but he would have had to have acted out said behaviour in order for it to be a valid concern, and that'd be something that'd be documented.
If someone drunkenly staggers over to the Walmart gun section and hurls abuse at the cashier while demanding to buy a rifle, the cashier is entirely justified in not serving the guy and asking him to leave. But it would be on Wal-Mart to prove that this guy was disqualified from service for [I]any[/I] reason other than his age, as he apparently qualifies as a protected class under Oregon state law on that front.
Like getting away with firing someone for discriminatory reasons without officially documenting a discriminatory reason for termination, you need to find an actual excuse to grab onto to arbitrarily deny service to someone. There has to be some sort of consistent basis, and it must stand up to scrutiny. I wasn't in that Walmart when this guy walked in, so I don't know what went down, but I'm willing to bet he did not give the employee at the counter any reason to deny him except for age (or for another, undisclosed, protected reason, like he's black or something) and that's why he's suing.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;53181464]They'd need a justifiable reason, but in this guy's case, there's seemingly no justified reason.
To be clear, what I meant was, if Wal-Mart wanted to not sell a rifle to this guy, they'd have to invent some sort of excuse related to e.g. his behaviour, but he would have had to have acted out said behaviour in order for it to be a valid concern, and that'd be something that'd be documented.
If someone drunkenly staggers over to the Walmart gun section and hurls abuse at the cashier while demanding to buy a rifle, the cashier is entirely justified in not serving the guy and asking him to leave. But it would be on Wal-Mart to prove that this guy was disqualified from service for [I]any[/I] reason other than his age, as he apparently qualifies as a protected class under Oregon state law on that front.
Like getting away with firing someone for discriminatory reasons without officially documenting a discriminatory reason for termination, you need to find an actual excuse to grab onto to arbitrarily deny service to someone. There has to be some sort of consistent basis, and it must stand up to scrutiny. I wasn't in that Walmart when this guy walked in, so I don't know what went down, but I'm willing to bet he did not give the employee at the counter any reason to deny him except for age (or for another, undisclosed, protected reason, like he's black or something) and that's why he's suing.[/QUOTE]
I mean, yeah, that's the entire idea of a protected class. The state is saying that denying service for X, Y, and Z reasons isn't legitimate. So you can't deny services solely for those reasons.
You seem to just be defining what it means to have protected classes. I don't quite get your argument.
[QUOTE=Splash Attack;53181015]For those who are not aware. Age is only a protected class when you're over 40. He really has no case in this.[/QUOTE]
wow thats fucking stupid
[QUOTE=Protocol7;53181250]He might actually have a case, but it'll be insanely difficult to prove age discrimination beyond a reasonable doubt.
Regardless, instead of throwing away thousands of dollars by suing, why not... wait a year?[/QUOTE]
Because he's not doing this because he's deeply hurt by a big-box retailer not selling him the gun in particular, he's doing this because he thinks they're violating the law, and he's going to be the martyr to take them to court over it. It's a matter of principle.
My argument is, Walmart probably didn't have any valid reason to deny this guy's sale. You're suggesting they should have the right but don't know if they do, and at least from the source geel posted they in fact do [I]not[/I] have the [I]arbitrary[/I] right to deny service.
I might've needlessly paraphrased what's already above, but the situation seems fairly clear-cut to me.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;53181500]My argument is, Walmart probably didn't have any valid reason to deny this guy's sale. You're suggesting they should have the right but don't know if they do, and at least from the source geel posted they in fact do [I]not[/I] have the [I]arbitrary[/I] right to deny service.
I might've needlessly paraphrased what's already above, but the situation seems fairly clear-cut to me.[/QUOTE]
It seems I misunderstood your position. Based on your first post, I thought you were disagreeing with the lawsuit. My fault.
I fully recognize that my position probably doesn't line up with the current law.
[QUOTE=geel9;53181244]So, if they sell guns to white people and refuse to sell guns to black people, you think that'd be legal in Oregon?[/QUOTE]
No more or less legal than the private gun retailers who banned Muslims from even entering their stores that the further-right were so quick to cheer, I guess? Technically you can reserve the right to refuse service to anyone but still.
However, as justices and the general mood at the time seem to set legal precedents on a whim, there's this to consider:
I'm seeing multiple sources claiming that at least one (of many) gun stores that banned sales to Muslims in 2015 was sued for wrongful discrimination, as religion is covered by anti-discrimination bills, but the case was thrown out because of the owner's first amendment rights at best and because "it's not hurting any Muslims to not sell them a gun" in the more questionable sources, but even [url=https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/muslim-free-zone-gun-store-ruling_us_565d0170e4b079b2818b8dea]HuffPo[/url] has stated similar.
Much as I don't like it, geel9 is right, Oregon prohibits this sort of thing:
[quote]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.[/quote]
The age extends to anyone over 18 and the exceptions listed are things like alcohol and marijuana sales, nothing about guns.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53181630]No more or less legal than the private gun retailers who banned Muslims from even entering their stores that the further-right were so quick to cheer, I guess? Technically you can reserve the right to refuse service to anyone but still.
However, as justices and the general mood at the time seem to set legal precedents on a whim, there's this to consider:
I'm seeing multiple sources claiming that at least one (of many) gun stores that banned sales to Muslims in 2015 was sued for wrongful discrimination, as religion is covered by anti-discrimination bills, but the case was thrown out because of the owner's first amendment rights at best and because "it's not hurting any Muslims to not sell them a gun" in the more questionable sources, but even [url=https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/muslim-free-zone-gun-store-ruling_us_565d0170e4b079b2818b8dea]HuffPo[/url] has stated similar.[/QUOTE]
So your argument is "some right-wing people were discriminatory, so this isn't bad"?
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;53180914]Walmart and Dicks tend to be good at block busting every Ma N' Pa gunstore. It's either you buy from them or you are forced to purchase outta state and get a buddy with FFL to transfer for you.[/QUOTE]
I've never seen Walmart shut down a gun store. We got a Walmart super center and like 3 or 4 stores that sell guns and have a much better selection and much more knowledgeable staff. Only thing Walmart probably one ups them with is cheap ammo and hunting licenses. I'd never buy a gun at a chain store. Except maybe Bass Pro or Cabela's or Gander Mountain.
[QUOTE=geel9;53181339]Do you not understand the term "protected class"?
[editline]6th March 2018[/editline]
Except age over 18 is a protected class in Oregon, so refusing to sell to people between the ages of 18 and 21 but selling to people over 21 would violate that protection.[/QUOTE]
oregon's age laws don't pertain to sale of controlled products
[quote]
The Civil Rights Division of the Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) enforces Oregon´s civil rights laws. These laws ban discrimination against individuals because of characteristics that make them part of a protected class. Anyone claiming to have been discriminated against at work, in a place where the public is served such as a restaurant or a hotel, when buying or renting housing or when applying for or attending a career school can file a complaint with the BOLI´s Civil Rights Division.
[/quote]
plus basically every adult is considered a protected class in oregon if that is the case which has to have come up in a case by now given that they list age >=18 as a protected class
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;53181414]
Just my opinion but maybe Wal-Mart should stop selling powerful rifles and stick to moderate hunting rifles. What's someone going to do about it then, sue to override a corporation's private right to decide what it does and does not sell at its business? Boycott when it's the only store for 30 miles? :v:[/QUOTE]
Just a question, what do you think a "moderate hunting rifle" is? Just so you know, the average hunting rifle is way more powerful than an AR-15 (which uses the .223). Basically any hunting rifle you'd use to hunt uses a larger caliber. The only difference between the hunting rifle and "powerful rifles" is the way they look. One looks like it came from a modern military, the other looks like it comes from grandpa's gun safe. It has nothing to do with its actual performance as a weapon or the damage it could inflict to someone.
[QUOTE=Sableye;53182503]oregon's age laws don't pertain to sale of controlled products
plus basically every adult is considered a protected class in oregon if that is the case which has to have come up in a case by now given that they list age >=18 as a protected class[/QUOTE]
Everyone is apart of a "protected class." (ex. gender, race, etc) It just means their reasons for denying you service cannot be because of your membership in a "protected class."
So Oregon's law does apply to this case. Because these businesses specifically said outright that they denied the sale because of his membership in a "protected class."
[url]https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/659A.406[/url]
[quote]Except as otherwise authorized by ORS 659A.403 (Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited), it is an unlawful practice for any person to aid or abet any place of public accommodation, as defined in ORS 659A.400 (Place of public accommodation defined), or any employee or person acting on behalf of the place of public accommodation [b]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.[/b] [/quote]
[url]https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/659A.400[/url] - Definition of a place of public accommodation.
[url]https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/659A.403[/url]
[quote](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, as defined in ORS 475B.015 (Definitions for ORS 475B.010 to 475B.395), 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. [Formerly 30.670; 2003 c.521 §1; 2005 c.131 §1; 2007 c.100 §5; 2015 c.614 §27][/quote]
See, the only exemptions to the law are alcohol, marijuana and giving discounts to seniors. There are no other exceptions (like allowing age discrimination for a firearm purchase).
p.s., This law also prohibits someone from denying a sale of a wedding cake because the people buying are gay.
p.p.s., Obviously I'm not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. This is just me searching up publicly available information.
[QUOTE=Sableye;53182503]
plus basically every adult is considered a protected class in oregon if that is the case which has to have come up in a case by now given that they list age >=18 as a protected class[/QUOTE]
Correct, every adult is part of multiple protected classes.
[QUOTE=geel9;53182016]So your argument is "some right-wing people were discriminatory, so this isn't bad"?[/QUOTE]
It sets a legal precedent for future legal proceedings, yes. Like the time the Supreme Court rules for anything that is believed at the time to have any possible credibility in illegally infringing your right to own a gun, ie DC v. Heller.
[editline]6th March 2018[/editline]
[QUOTE=Kigen;53182562]Just a question, what do you think a "moderate hunting rifle" is? Just so you know, the average hunting rifle is way more powerful than an AR-15 (which uses the .223). Basically any hunting rifle you'd use to hunt uses a larger caliber. The only difference between the hunting rifle and "powerful rifles" is the way they look. One looks like it came from a modern military, the other looks like it comes from grandpa's gun safe. It has nothing to do with its actual performance as a weapon or the damage it could inflict to someone.[/quote]
As has been pointed out at least once on Facepunch that I can remember and as is confirmed [url=https://www.nssf.org/msr/]here[/url] that the AR-15 platform can fire many different sizes of round, because obviously .223 isn't the end-all be-all round for every scenario, is it?
[quote]Chamberings include .22, .223 (5.56 x 45mm), 6.8 SPC, .308, .450 Bushmaster and about a dozen others. Upper receivers for pistol calibers such as 9 mm, .40, and .45 are available. There are even .410 shotgun versions.[/quote]
[quote]Everyone is apart of a "protected class." (ex. gender, race, etc) It just means their reasons for denying you service cannot be because of your membership in a "protected class." [/quote]
Everyone? What about felons? Last I checked they can't easily buy a gun, either. However, unlike a violent felon having the potential to become a peaceful, well-adjusted citizen, a black person cannot become white, a gay person cannot necessarily become straight, etc.
[quote]So Oregon's law does apply to this case. Because these businesses specifically said outright that they denied the sale because of his membership in a "protected class."
[url]https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/659A.406[/url]
[url]https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/659A.400[/url] - Definition of a place of public accommodation.
[url]https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/659A.403[/url]
See, the only exemptions to the law are alcohol, marijuana and giving discounts to seniors. There are no other exceptions (like allowing age discrimination for a firearm purchase).
p.s., This law also prohibits someone from denying a sale of a wedding cake because the people buying are gay.
p.p.s., Obviously I'm not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. This is just me searching up publicly available information.[/QUOTE]
And as I've shared earlier, the fact that the supreme court has defended denying the right to sell fire-arms to a group solely on religion (muslim-free gun stores) or even political affiliation (I've seen some articles on gun stores not allowing Clinton/Obama supporters to buy weapons, either) on the basis that it defends the store's 1st amendment right, shows the legal quagmire that the further-right 2A supporters who cheered that sort of thing have set themselves (and by affiliation every other 2A supporter, left or right) up for.
So now the only real way to challenge the "21 min. age" ruling is to also shit on the rulings of the courts regarding those particular stores, and ooooh you can bet your ass the far right isn't going to be happy in dealing with that.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53182744]
Everyone? What about felons? Last I checked they can't easily buy a gun, either. However, unlike a violent felon having the potential to become a peaceful, well-adjusted citizen, a black person cannot become white, a gay person cannot necessarily become straight, etc.
[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately, the United States has the policy of "once a felon, always a felon". In some more staunchly conservative states, they're barely even considered human.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53182744]It sets a legal precedent for future legal proceedings, yes. Like the time the Supreme Court rules for anything that is believed at the time to have any possible credibility in illegally infringing your right to own a gun, ie DC v. Heller.
[editline]6th March 2018[/editline]
As has been pointed out at least once on Facepunch that I can remember and as is confirmed [url=https://www.nssf.org/msr/]here[/url] that the AR-15 platform can fire many different sizes of round, because obviously .223 isn't the end-all be-all round for every scenario, is it?
Everyone? What about felons? Last I checked they can't easily buy a gun, either. However, unlike a violent felon having the potential to become a peaceful, well-adjusted citizen, a black person cannot become white, a gay person cannot necessarily become straight, etc.
And as I've shared earlier, the fact that the supreme court has defended denying the right to sell fire-arms to a group solely on religion (muslim-free gun stores) or even political affiliation (I've seen some articles on gun stores not allowing Clinton/Obama supporters to buy weapons, either) on the basis that it defends the store's 1st amendment right, shows the legal quagmire that the further-right 2A supporters who cheered that sort of thing have set themselves (and by affiliation every other 2A supporter, left or right) up for.
So now the only real way to challenge the "21 min. age" ruling is to also shit on the rulings of the courts regarding those particular stores, and ooooh you can bet your ass the far right isn't going to be happy in dealing with that.[/QUOTE]
Two things to note. First, Felons cannot purchase firearms under federal law. Oregon wouldn't have a need to write that law in the books, as it would be redundant to something that is already a federal offense.
Second, each state has different laws. Some states allow stores to deny service for no reason at all. Other states are known for having shitty rights records, and things get overlooked. That's why people take things like this to court.
But we're talking about 1 state, which has its own set of laws, and in regards to this issue the law is clearly laid out. Walmart straight up denied him a firearm due to his age, and they admitted to it. There's no gray area, there's no chose to deny service for no reason excuse.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;53183008]Two things to note. First, Felons cannot purchase firearms under federal law. Oregon wouldn't have a need to write that law in the books, as it would be redundant to something that is already a federal offense.
Second, each state has different laws. Some states allow stores to deny service for no reason at all. Other states are known for having shitty rights records, and things get overlooked. That's why people take things like this to court.
But we're talking about 1 state, which has its own set of laws, and in regards to this issue the law is clearly laid out. Walmart straight up denied him a firearm due to his age, and they admitted to it. There's no gray area, there's no chose to deny service for no reason excuse.[/QUOTE]
There is because there's company policy. And of course Oregon has laws, everyone does. But what you should know is that Oregon, despite considering 18 a "protected age", you still can't legally buy booze until you're 21 in Oregon:
[url]http://www.oregon.gov/olcc/docs/publications/oregons_alcohol_laws_and_minors.pdf[/url]
So using age as some "discriminating factor" when the kid's literally not going to be below the age limit forever (and this is something important to consider: It's not like he can never, ever, ever buy a gun because he's not yet 21, he will eventually be 21 and within full legal right to purchase a fire-arm from these stores which, if you know they won't sell you a gun, trying to buy a gun from them so they can deny you so you can start legal trouble, just seems skeezy to me) doesn't seem like a strong case.
And are you suggesting that Federal Law can't possibly be discriminatory? Or that all states MUST follow federal law regardless of state law (in which case 18 wouldn't be a protected age in federal law, as that's waaay up there to 40, more to protect older folks from discrimination than any kid)? Because that opens up another mass of precedents for future legal proceedings.
And honestly, Dick's/Wal-Mart may have a case in that they explicitly state that they will not sell fire-arms to individuals under 21 as part of store policy. Don't like it, you don't have to shop there, and if you don't follow the rules of the store, however stupid you think they are, they don't have to serve you. Plain as. This is where anti-discrimination laws come in, sure, but federally (and remember felons can't buy due to federal law) felons can't buy guns either, and that's technically discrimination, but no court has ruled it as such, so it's not enforced as discrimination unless someone sets a legal precedent (good luck, even pro-2A-ers don't like the idea of felons being armed, legally or otherwise). If anything, the fact that the kid was likely informed by some manner (either through media or through flyers/employees in and around the store) that he knew the store policy before he went in, therefor I would ascertain that he was there not to buy a gun, but to cause trouble, so I wouldn't sell him one either based on his age in relation to the procedures set by company policy, damn straight.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53183083]There is because there's company policy. And of course Oregon has laws, everyone does. But what you should know is that Oregon, despite considering 18 a "protected age", you still can't legally buy booze until you're 21 in Oregon:
[url]http://www.oregon.gov/olcc/docs/publications/oregons_alcohol_laws_and_minors.pdf[/url]
So using age as some "discriminating factor" when the kid's literally not going to be below the age limit forever (and this is something important to consider: It's not like he can never, ever, ever buy a gun because he's not yet 21, he will eventually be 21 and within full legal right to purchase a fire-arm from these stores which, if you know they won't sell you a gun, trying to buy a gun from them so they can deny you so you can start legal trouble, just seems skeezy to me) doesn't seem like a strong case.
And are you suggesting that Federal Law can't possibly be discriminatory? Or that all states MUST follow federal law regardless of state law (in which case 18 wouldn't be a protected age in federal law, as that's waaay up there to 40, more to protect older folks from discrimination than any kid)? Because that opens up another mass of precedents for future legal proceedings.
And honestly, Dick's/Wal-Mart may have a case in that they explicitly state that they will not sell fire-arms to individuals under 21 as part of store policy. Don't like it, you don't have to shop there, and if you don't follow the rules of the store, however stupid you think they are, they don't have to serve you. Plain as. This is where anti-discrimination laws come in, sure, but federally (and remember felons can't buy due to federal law) felons can't buy guns either, and that's technically discrimination, but no court has ruled it as such, so it's not enforced as discrimination unless someone sets a legal precedent (good luck, even pro-2A-ers don't like the idea of felons being armed, legally or otherwise). If anything, the fact that the kid was likely informed by some manner (either through media or through flyers/employees in and around the store) that he knew the store policy before he went in, therefor I would ascertain that he was there not to buy a gun, but to cause trouble, so I wouldn't sell him one either based on his age in relation to the procedures set by company policy, damn straight.[/QUOTE]
Alcohol is specifically exempted dude, which has been explained already.
[editline]7th March 2018[/editline]
Only just say what else you've been posting. I can't believe how invested you are in this lol.
You have such a massive failure in understanding on how laws work. The federal law doesn't say "40 is the protected age and everyone under can be discriminated against", it says "the protected age is 40" which allows states if they so choose to fill in the gaps, which Oregon has done.
I have to wonder if you'd agree with the "Don't like it, you don't have to shop there" sentiment if they said "we don't serve niggers" or "we don't serve fags" instead of under 21s.
I'm not sure where you're trying to go with the felon thing. I has nothing to do with what is being discussed.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53182744]Everyone? What about felons? Last I checked they can't easily buy a gun, either. However, unlike a violent felon having the potential to become a peaceful, well-adjusted citizen, a black person cannot become white, a gay person cannot necessarily become straight, etc.[/QUOTE]
Felons are still part of the protected classes yes. Legally speaking, a felon over the age of 18 cannot be discriminated against for their age, a felon cannot be discriminated against for their race, a felon cannot be discriminated against for their gender, etc, under this law.
[QUOTE=download;53183112]Alcohol is specifically exempted dude, which has been explained already.
[editline]7th March 2018[/editline]
Only just say what else you've been posting. I can't believe how invested you are in this lol.
You have such a massive failure in understanding on how laws work. The federal law doesn't say "40 is the protected age and everyone under can be discriminated against", it says "the protected age is 40" which allows states if they so choose to fill in the gaps, which Oregon has done.
I have to wonder if you'd agree with the "Don't like it, you don't have to shop there" sentiment if they said "we don't serve niggers" or "we don't serve fags" instead of under 21s.
I'm not sure where you're trying to go with the felon thing. I has nothing to do with what is being discussed.[/QUOTE]
Except it's not exempted as in you cannot get it ever until you're 21 period, because you can still get alcohol if you're under 21, you just can't buy it by yourself? It's literally stated in the law as well, dude. It states that a parent or guardian must grant you permitted access to it, and if your parents can't trust you with a gun, to either buy it for you and you pay them back or to gift you one, then why should anyone be forced to sell you one? Same with alcohol. Especially if you knew before hand that they wouldn't? He likely knew he was going to be denied specifically for that reason and he's just trying to stir up shit and best-case make bank doing, that's all.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53183212]Except it's not exempted as in you cannot get it ever until you're 21 period, because you can still get alcohol if you're under 21, you just can't buy it by yourself? It's literally stated in the law as well, dude. It states that a parent or guardian must grant you permitted access to it, and if your parents can't trust you with a gun, to either buy it for you and you pay them back or to gift you one, then why should anyone be forced to sell you one? Same with alcohol. Especially if you knew before hand that they wouldn't? He likely knew he was going to be denied specifically for that reason and he's just trying to stir up shit and best-case make bank doing, that's all.[/QUOTE]
What are you on about?
Oregon has declared everyone over 18 to be a protected class. They have specificity included an exemption for alcohol and weed. How can you not understand that?
And yes, it may be shit-stirring, but that's irrelevant. They're breaking Oregon law.
[editline]7th March 2018[/editline]
It's like you have some sort of fundamental misunderstanding.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53182744]
As has been pointed out at least once on Facepunch that I can remember and as is confirmed [url=https://www.nssf.org/msr/]here[/url] that the AR-15 platform can fire many different sizes of round, because obviously .223 isn't the end-all be-all round for every scenario, is it?[/QUOTE]
The stock AR-15 shoots either .223 or 5.56. The main different between those two rounds is the charge behind the bullet. Yes, other manufacturers have made AR-15 clones that can fire larger (or smaller) rounds. What I'm pointing out is in general, if you go to a gun store and ask for an AR-15 (esp like Walmart or Dicks if they have them) they will sell you one that fires .223. If you ask those same stores to sell you a "hunting rifle" they will probably sell you one that fires a larger caliber (depending on what game you are hunting), like .308. The larger the animal being hunted the larger the round needed to take it down, generally speaking. But basically, I'm pointing out that the firearm works the same, does the same or greater damage to a human, and is only being characterized based on its looks and perceived usage.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53182744]
Everyone? What about felons? Last I checked they can't easily buy a gun, either. However, unlike a violent felon having the potential to become a peaceful, well-adjusted citizen, a black person cannot become white, a gay person cannot necessarily become straight, etc.[/quote]
Being a felon is not a protected class. So them denying to sell something because someone is a felon is perfectly legal. And in the case of firearms it is required by law that they do not sell to a felon. It would be illegal to say to a felon they aren't selling something to that person because of a characteristic like race, gender, or age. But saying that because they are a felon the sale is refused is perfectly legal.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53182744]
And as I've shared earlier, the fact that the supreme court has defended denying the right to sell fire-arms to a group solely on religion (muslim-free gun stores) or even political affiliation (I've seen some articles on gun stores not allowing Clinton/Obama supporters to buy weapons, either) on the basis that it defends the store's 1st amendment right, shows the legal quagmire that the further-right 2A supporters who cheered that sort of thing have set themselves (and by affiliation every other 2A supporter, left or right) up for.[/quote]
Citation needed.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53182744]
So now the only real way to challenge the "21 min. age" ruling is to also shit on the rulings of the courts regarding those particular stores, and ooooh you can bet your ass the far right isn't going to be happy in dealing with that.[/QUOTE]
I don't give a shit what the far right thinks about it. I don't like people discriminating against people based on immutable characteristics (being a felon is not one of those btw).
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53183212]Except it's not exempted as in you cannot get it ever until you're 21 period, because you can still get alcohol if you're under 21, you just can't buy it by yourself? It's literally stated in the law as well, dude. It states that a parent or guardian must grant you permitted access to it, and if your parents can't trust you with a gun, to either buy it for you and you pay them back or to gift you one, then why should anyone be forced to sell you one? Same with alcohol. Especially if you knew before hand that they wouldn't? He likely knew he was going to be denied specifically for that reason and he's just trying to stir up shit and best-case make bank doing, that's all.[/QUOTE]
Uh, dude. You're not getting it. Let me try to explain it as simply as possible.
In the US, federally, people over 40 are a protected class. What this means is that if someone is at least 40 years old, you can't discriminate against them based on age. For example, you can't say "I won't serve you because you're 45".
In Oregon, everyone over 18 is a protected class. That means that if you're over 18, you have to be treated the exact same as every other person over 18 when it comes to your age. That means you can't only serve people age 25 and up, you have to treat them as everyone else. Which means if you sell a gun to a 21 year old, you have to sell it to an 18 year old.
[b]With a few exceptions[/b], of course. Alcohol can't be sold to people under 21 as that's the law, and these factors were [b]explicitly put into the law[/b] protecting age as a class.
There is no such protection for these firearms.
[QUOTE=Kigen;53183651]The stock AR-15 shoots either .223 or 5.56. The main different between those two rounds is the charge behind the bullet. Yes, other manufacturers have made AR-15 clones that can fire larger (or smaller) rounds. What I'm pointing out is in general, if you go to a gun store and ask for an AR-15 (esp like Walmart or Dicks if they have them) they will sell you one that fires .223. If you ask those same stores to sell you a "hunting rifle" they will probably sell you one that fires a larger caliber (depending on what game you are hunting), like .308. The larger the animal being hunted the larger the round needed to take it down, generally speaking. But basically, I'm pointing out that the firearm works the same, does the same or greater damage to a human, and is only being characterized based on its looks and perceived usage.[/quote]
What is it then that makes an AR-15 so special vs. any other gun? Why get an AR-15 if there's so many other options for hunting with the same ammo, same lethality, same enhance-ability ("rails", ease of modification into full or "full" auto, etc.)?
[quote]Being a felon is not a protected class. So them denying to sell something because someone is a felon is perfectly legal. And in the case of firearms it is required by law that they do not sell to a felon. It would be illegal to say to a felon they aren't selling something to that person because of a characteristic like race, gender, or age. But saying that because they are a felon the sale is refused is perfectly legal.[/quote]
But would a felon be right to complain if age limits were in fact mutable in their case, ie too old, and thus cited before a background check even begins? That's suggesting even further cheeky law-suits from people trying to stir up shit, if so. :v:
[quote]Citation needed.[/quote]
[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/11/30/muslim-free-gun-shop-owner-takes-aim-after-judge-tosses-lawsuit-against-him/?utm_term=.c5074ae2297f[/url]
[quote=Article]The suit asked the a federal court for an injunction against the store. But according to the Tampa Bay Times, U.S. District Court Judge Beth Bloom ruled that “she did not have the authority to make a decision on the case” because, the newspaper reported, the store’s policy [B]“did not present an imminent and concrete threat to Muslim people.”[/B][/quote]
[quote=WaPo Again]Thania Clevenger, the Civil Rights Director for CAIR Florida, said her organization lost [B]because of legal standing,[/B] not because of the merit of its argument.[/quote]
But wait! The "silver lining" for the case we're discussing here:
[quote=News Article Cited in WaPo]"We need to make sure that we're putting guns in people's hands that are going to do good things in the community with them, like keeping peace, not blowing other people up," he said.[/quote]
If that's not blatant "it's because of *thing covered by discrimination act* (which does include religion, which is technically entirely mutable) and the law not caring anyway, I don't know what is.
[quote]I don't give a shit what the far right thinks about it.[/quote]
I do. It's going to be an amusing shit-show if this court rules in favor of the kid, because that sets a legal precedent that things like "you can't force someone to sell you a product based on some pre-conceived notion that you deserve it", even if it's something they consider as holy as their 2nd Amendment rights. They effectively set themselves up for failure in future "discrimination" cases if the previous rulings that were once in their favor have any legal precedent, and it's delicious.
So even if the kid wins this, it's not good news for the far-right, who cheered the "muslim bans" even though they DO discriminate against religion specifically, which is the same scenario you've presented here with this kid, where-in they said "Oh, it's because of *protected thing*", the "victims" (as in the people the court ruled were not victims of this "discrimination") tried to sue, and the court said "Nope, didn't hurt you none, case dismissed!". So if one thing being covered by discrimination that is also mutable (being "too young" is not immutable, as we're all "too young" at some point, until we no longer are) doesn't hold legal water, the chances may be slim for this one as well, as the OTHER case was heavily weight on religion being a protected class as well. THAT is what I'm saying.
[quote]I don't like people discriminating against people based on [B]immutable characteristics[/B] (being a felon is not one of those btw).[/QUOTE]
Okay then, so you're finally acknowledging that a felon is a felon and can never undo that so that's not "discrimination" (which was my point, too?) but also state that you don't want discrimination based on something "immutable"? Because according to the definition of "ummutable":
[quote][B][U]unchanging[/U][/B] [B]over time[/B] or [B][U]unable[/U][/B] [B]to be changed.[/B][/quote]
I think according to that alone, setting a minimum age limit (ie "you're too young right now according to store policy") does not constitute as discrimination on some "immutable" trait. The reason the protected federal age is 40 is to prevent discrimination against people who are deemed "too old", as once you're "old" (that is, over 40 in this case), how do you undo that? You can't just go be 30 by next week and try again. That's the point I'm making in why him even suing or people complaining about this is ridiculous, seeing as not only do most gun supporters here have testified that Dick's had not much going for them and Wal-Mart is trash. Cool? Don't buy from them then, if as you keep pointing out there are THOUSANDS of better gun stores out there, from mom-and-pop to large retailers. Don't like an age limit, especially one that's only limited to specific retailers? Shop elsewhere. Simple as that.
[QUOTE=geel9;53183779]Uh, dude. You're not getting it. Let me try to explain it as simply as possible.
In the US, federally, people over 40 are a protected class. What this means is that if someone is at least 40 years old, you can't discriminate against them based on age. For example, you can't say "I won't serve you because you're 45".
In Oregon, everyone over 18 is a protected class. That means that if you're over 18, you have to be treated the exact same as every other person over 18 when it comes to your age. That means you can't only serve people age 25 and up, you have to treat them as everyone else. Which means if you sell a gun to a 21 year old, you have to sell it to an 18 year old.
[b]With a few exceptions[/b], of course. Alcohol can't be sold to people under 21 as that's the law, and these factors were [b]explicitly put into the law[/b] protecting age as a class.
There is no such protection for these firearms.[/QUOTE]
So what you're saying is that 18 is the legal "protected class" from discrimination Oregon, except where-in federal law and rulings matter? Because the ruling for the Florida gun-store owner was a federal one, not local. You can't sell someone alcohol federally in Oregon if they're under 21, we've established this, as a precedent of federal law. If federal courts wouldn't uphold religious discrimination (another technically mutable trait, but still protected!) in a suit where religious discrimination IS a violation AND STILL throw the suit out, even though the guy made it perfectly clear that he was discriminating on a religious basis even saying:
[quote]Hallinan told The Post that he would sell weapons to followers of Islam who did not adhere to a literal interpretation of the Koran.[/quote]
it should have been a clear-cut case of even FEDERALLY PROTECTED classes being specifically targeted by this policy, but they still didn't care. So unless he keeps it to local courts (which he probably isn't) his case may not hold water.
Or sue the company that's breaking the law?
I don't even get your posts. You're just ignoring the fact that they're breaking the law.
[QUOTE=geel9;53183811]Or sue the company that's breaking the law?
I don't even get your posts. You're just ignoring the fact that they're breaking the law.[/QUOTE]
The Florida gun-store owner was "breaking the law" too, under "religious discrimination" as he had made it very clear that's it's about religion, yet the courts didn't agree.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53183814]The Florida gun-store owner was "breaking the law" too, under "religious discrimination" as he had made it very clear that's it's about religion, yet the courts didn't agree.[/QUOTE]
Okay, well, courts get things wrong sometimes.
Also this isn't Florida.
What do you not get?
[QUOTE=geel9;53183815]Okay, well, courts get things wrong sometimes.
Also this isn't Florida.
What do you not get?[/QUOTE]
It wasn't a local/state ruling, it was a FEDERAL one. Read the Wapo article.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53183843]It wasn't a local/state ruling, it was a FEDERAL one. Read the Wapo article.[/QUOTE]
And the walmart/dicks suit is local/state, not federal.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.