A 20-year-old Oregon man has accused Walmart and Dick’s of age-discrimination

[Galaar]

How does that work for motel rooms and rental cars then?

Motel rooms and rental cars are not protected by the Constitution. If you want a legitimate comparison it would be colleges refusing to allow certain people to speak on campus due to their political beliefs. That's infringing on the 1st Amendment of free speech, especially considering the colleges are public institutions in most cases where this is happening.

[Eurytos]

Litigious Americans strike again.

Just looking to make a buck. Hell in a handbasket and this is the reason why.

There is no money to be made in a case like this. In fact, constitutional arguments generally cost a lot. Sure, lawyers may get paid, but the person filing the claim is not going to get a windfall here. The win for him would be that they let him buy the gun, not pay him tons of money.

[Galaar]

State law can't force anyone to sell people shit.

True. The store has the right to refuse sale. However, by publicly stating it's because of the age and the federal legal age to buy a firearm is 18, the store is in violation. Now if the store states ANY other reason that's not protected by Federal Law, they can get away with it. But in this case they expressly stated they are refusing to sell to anyone under 21, which is in clear violation of Federal law. Federal Law > State Law > Store Policy

[Eurytos]

True. The store has the right to refuse sale. However, by publicly stating it's because of the age and the federal legal age to buy a firearm is 18, the store is in violation. Now if the store states ANY other reason that's not protected by Federal Law, they can get away with it. But in this case they expressly stated they are refusing to sell to anyone under 21, which is in clear violation of Federal law. Federal Law > State Law > Store Policy

This is not correct. At all. A massive over simplification of the Supremacy clause of the constitution.

[rhorle]

I knew this was gonna happen when Dick's announced it. Age is a protected class, so this runs afoul.

For employment. But I don't see anything that shows age is protected for everything. Places and restrict entrance based on age. They can have people under a certain age need to be accompanied by an adult. They can deny a hotel room based on age. They can refuse to rent a car based on age. They can give people of a certain age a discount.

https://www.rocketlawyer.com/blog/ar...-legally-98666

Federally protected age discrimination pretty much only applies to Employment. Now certain age based thing can be other forms of discrimination.

[Eurytos]

The only protection in regards to age that exist is for people over 40.
.

This is wrong. Age discrimination can apply to folks that are young.

[rhorle]

True. The store has the right to refuse sale. However, by publicly stating it's because of the age and the federal legal age to buy a firearm is 18, the store is in violation. Now if the store states ANY other reason that's not protected by Federal Law, they can get away with it. But in this case they expressly stated they are refusing to sell to anyone under 21, which is in clear violation of Federal law. Federal Law > State Law > Store Policy

Incorrect. Many stores have age restrictions set above the federal/state minimum. The law doesn't say you have to sell to anyone of that age or higher. It merely says you can't sell to anyone below that age.

[Eurytos]

The fed law that sets the age at 18 is a floor, meaning you can sell to someone younger than that.
By passing a law or a policy that says they wont sell to someone younger than 21, that complies with the law, it doesnt violate it. Its just putting its floor higher. Now, if the state law or policy said it would sell to 17 year olds, that would be a violation.

Whoever is making this claim, has it backwards.

- - - Updated - - -

Incorrect. Many stores have age restrictions set above the federal/state minimum. The law doesn't say you have to sell to anyone of that age or higher. It merely says you can't sell to anyone below that age.

This is correct.

[Ragedaug]

Sure! The very fact that the "MEH GUNS" side are still worried more about their penis substitutes than the kids that get slaughtered everyday is pretty indicative of the mental state of those people. If we disagree on gun control we don't have a difference in political views, we have a difference in morality.

That's called rhetoric not evidence.

As far as your rhetoric, the "MAH GUNS!" says the other side doesn't care if children die and women get raped, because they want to remove the ability of single mothers (who so choose) to defend themselves with a semi-automatic weapon.

You have between 10,000 to 20,000 murdered by firearms each year, however you have an estimated 500,000 to 3,000,000 who defend themselves from violence or death each year with firearms.

Source:
2010 CDC study commissioned by President Obama
https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/pr...lated-violence


Anyway, the problem to fixing this almost always boils down to both sides saying "you want more murdered children!!!", then because both sides are wrong, nothing changes, because you are focusing on rhetoric instead of truth. Neither side wants to see any child die, they both just disagree with the best solution. If you start with the wrong premise however, in order to help your 'team' win, you won't actually ever fix anything..and children will continue to die while both sides scream about how they are the ones who love children more.

[Tasttey]

Sheesh, the number of people chiming in here without doing the bare minimum of research or even bothering to read the entire thread.

He's not challenging based on Federal Law, or the Second Amendment, he's challenging based on Oregon state law, particularly section 659A.403 https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/659A.403.

[Varithimas]

I personally don't care whether or not Walmart or Dick's sells guns to anyone under 21. However, I do think its funny that those who would force that baker to make a cake against their own personal views are outraged that people would use similar tactics. If anything I think its less reasonable for a big corporation selling standard guns. At least with the baker they ''create'' cakes with unique designs or themes that they don't want associated with what they don't agree with.

Maybe these corporations should have looked at the law beforehand. Don't they pay people top dollar to do that?

[Eurytos]

Only in regards to programs that receive federal funding. Such as schools.

You say "only", but thats kinda my point, age discrimination can be any number of things. An entity can discriminate against young or old. Ageism, or age discrimination, isnt relegated to only over an age or only under an age.

It applies to schools, as you say, mainly because most of the people in schools are not over 40, so of course it would be for young folks. A lot of employment discrimination is age, preceisely because 8 year olds arent often out there looking for jobs.

There isnt some hard and fast rule regarding age discrimination having to be a certain age, it just happens to fall that way in differing cases.

- - - Updated - - -

I personally don't care whether or not Walmart or Dick's sells guns to anyone under 21. However, I do think its funny that those who would force that baker to make a cake against their own personal views are outraged that people would use similar tactics. If anything I think its less reasonable for a big corporation selling standard guns. At least with the baker they ''create'' cakes with unique designs or themes that they don't want associated with what they don't agree with.

Maybe these corporations should have looked at the law beforehand. Don't they pay people top dollar to do that?

These two claims, one about the bake, the other about a store...are not related in the least. Its two different parts of the constitution, totally different laws, totally different standards of review, and many other things.

the analogy does not fit the way many are trying to make it fit. It's simply unrelated.

- - - Updated - - -

Sheesh, the number of people chiming in here without doing the bare minimum of research or even bothering to read the entire thread.

He's not challenging based on Federal Law, or the Second Amendment, he's challenging based on Oregon state law, particularly section 659A.403 https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/659A.403.

This is basically the state incorporating the Public Accommodations act into its own laws. Which is an interesting statute to challenge this law on, considering the history of the public accommodations act.

[therealbowser]

I don't think this is an 'age discrimination', this is an 'age restriction'. If you dislike their policies, you can choose to shop elsewhere. Given the context of the story, he doesn't have much choice anyways.

[Eurytos]

I'm talking about the legality of it. It's not illegal to discriminate for age except in hiring, promotion and similar practices to those above 40, or for any age for programs which receive federal funding.

This is simply not entirely correct. Age discrimination can apply to any age. The specific claim youre making though, about hiring, may be true. But thats in the small context of hiring. Earlier you said something about schools, in that context, you may also be right.

But clearly, both over 40 age discrimination exists, and under 40 age discrimination exists and there are protection against it. You are jsut giving specific areas where the age discrimination is about a certain age. But, something that you are not thinking of, one day, could arise where age discrimination could apply to a different age group.

My point is that the protections in the constitution regarding age discrimination, which are not explicit but are fundamental, CAN be used for any age. In this particular case, his claim of discrimination is not invalid simply because he is not 40 or something like that. My guess is his claim will be denied because its not violative of the constitution with regard to the 2nd amendment. It depends on how the court sees it. And equal protection claim(which is what age discrimination would be) is differnt from the 2nd amendment. They could rule using either law, even if he brings that EP claim, they could say that its actually a 2A claim, and rule a different way.

could be a bunch of things. We'll see.

- - - Updated - - -

That's called rhetoric not evidence.

As far as your rhetoric, the "MAH GUNS!" says the other side doesn't care if children die and women get raped, because they want to remove the ability of single mothers (who so choose) to defend themselves with a semi-automatic weapon.

You have between 10,000 to 20,000 murdered by firearms each year, however you have an estimated 500,000 to 3,000,000 who defend themselves from violence or death each year with firearms.

Source:
2010 CDC study commissioned by President Obama
https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/pr...lated-violence


Anyway, the problem to fixing this almost always boils down to both sides saying "you want more murdered children!!!", then because both sides are wrong, nothing changes, because you are focusing on rhetoric instead of truth. Neither side wants to see any child die, they both just disagree with the best solution. If you start with the wrong premise however, in order to help your 'team' win, you won't actually ever fix anything..and children will continue to die while both sides scream about how they are the ones who love children more.

Where in this journal does it say 500k-3m ppl defend themselves from an otherwise deadly attack?
Most research indicates that a would be killer often uses the victims own gun against them, particularly when its a women being assaulted. I could find the research and link it, but I'm more interested in the claim youre making at the moment and where it is cited in this article so I can read it.

[Eurytos]

Sheesh, the number of people chiming in here without doing the bare minimum of research or even bothering to read the entire thread.

He's not challenging based on Federal Law, or the Second Amendment, he's challenging based on Oregon state law, particularly section 659A.403 https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/659A.403.

This might be the most damning thing in this entire article.


"However, the scarcity of research on firearm-related violence limits policy makers’ ability to propose evidence-based policies that reduce injuries and deaths and maximize safety while recognizing Second Amendment rights. Since the 1960s, a number of state and federal laws and regulations have been enacted that restrict government’s ability to collect and share information about gun sales, ownership, and possession, which has limited data collection and collation relevant to firearm violence prevention research. Among these are the amendments to the Gun Control Act of 1968,17 which prohibits the federal government from establishing an electronic database of the names of gun purchasers and requires gun dealers to conduct annual inventories of their firearms.

In addition to the restrictions on certain kinds of data collection, congressional action in 1996 effectively halted all firearm-related injury research at the CDC by prohibiting the use of federal funding “to advocate or promote gun control.”18 In 2011, Congress enacted similar restrictions affecting the entire U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.19 The net result was an overall reduction in firearm violence research (Kellermann and Rivara, 2013). As a result, the past 20 years have witnessed diminished progress in understanding the causes and effects of firearm violence."

Cant even study it! Fuck you Congress! They are scared of the results. Though, considering their rhetoric, they shouldnt be. Good guys with guns, and all.

- - - Updated - - -

Again. I'm only talking about the legality. That's all that's relevant here. There's three different age discrimination laws. One prevents discrimination for those over 40 for hiring, promotion and other employment practices. Another prevents discrimination of any age for programs, such as schools, that receive federal funding. The most recent prevents discrimination of any age for programs receiving title 1 funding. It was essentially an extension of the previous.

Again, age discrimination laws only protect people in employment and hiring related situations and applicant situations of programs receiving federal funding. There is no such protections in regards to selling products or services for ANY age.

There are no age protections in the constitution. That is just simply false. Not every law is part of the constitution.

You have again missed what I'm saying. Maybe its my fault for poor communication.

Age discrimination is absolutely a constitutional issue. Its an equal protection issue. The equal protection clause of the 14th amendment encompasses this. You are correct that it is not explicitly written in the constitution, but it doesnt have to be.We have these things called fundamental laws, which are implicit in the constitution, and have been affirmed by the Supreme Court on numerous occassions, many through the 14th amendment. Age discrimination is one of them.

Also, I'm fully aware of what youre saying about three other statutes existing that protect specific ages in specific environments. Those are statutes, haivng been ruled constitutional, they comply with the 14A. They have to, otherwise they would be unconstitutional and wouldnt exist.

Nonetheless, nothing in those statutes, prohibits new statutes or other cases involving ages and environments not included in them, from also being constitutionally protected age groups. This is my point. The Equal protection clause of the 14th amendment applies to you regardless of your age. And conceivably could be used in for a age discrimination claim in some other area outside of the three laws you are saying.

All ages are covered by Equal Protection. Whether an entity is allowed to discriminate against them, well, we have at least three statutes governing three or so areas. But there could be others. The court COULD absolutely decide that the 2A or EP protects 18 year olds from being discriminated against. They COULD. I dont expect them to, considering past jurisprudence on this issue. But of course the court could.

[Shadowferal]

This guy has two lawsuits running; one at Dicks, the other at Walmart. Both for the same reason.
Personally, I think he should just stfu, and suck it up and wait a year.
But no...he wants to make money off of this shit. I hope the judge makes him eat it.

[rhorle]

Sheesh, the number of people chiming in here without doing the bare minimum of research or even bothering to read the entire thread.

He's not challenging based on Federal Law, or the Second Amendment, he's challenging based on Oregon state law, particularly section 659A.403 https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/659A.403.

You can't rent a car in Oregon at the age of 18. Only Michigan and New York are mandated by law to allow the age of 18. At Hertz, for example, the minimum age is 20 except in New York and Oregon. If a "car rental store" isn't covered under the "public accommodation" section then a store should not be as well. The stupid part about this law is that it is going to be argued on the merits of what is a "public accommodation" and not anything to do with Gun sales.

https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/659A.400 and specifically (e) An institution, bona fide club or place of accommodation that is in its nature distinctly private. [Formerly 30.675; 2013 c.429 §1; 2013 c.530 §4]

Is a store a institution that is distinctly private in its nature?

[Eurytos]

Sure, something else might become law but I'm not playing the "what if" game. I'm going by what is law now. I also don't agree that we should have age discrimination protection in general for under 40 because then we couldn't restrict things like buying cigarettes at 18 or alcohol at 21 and various other laws that should stay in tact.

Those have already been litigated.The prohibition against selling alcohol to under 21 and cigarettes to under 18 is constitutional discrimination.

This is where we talk about what discrimination actually is. It is actually totally legal to discriminate against people. It happens all the time. What the constitution protects against is what is called Invidious discrimination. This is important. Because laws prohibiting the sale of cigarettes, alcohol, some drugs, GUNS, to people of certain age is absolutely a restriction of those peoples rights. It is just a legal restriction.

The 'what if" game is what constitutional law is all about, man. You gotta challenge stuff to find things out sometimes.

[Stormdash]

Again, constitutional law principles do not control here because neither party to this complaint is the government. The Constitution applies only to the government. So Equal Protection analysis is not a factor.

The Civil Rights Act could be at issue in this suit, but isn't first and foremost since it's not even mentioned in the complaint. You can't just go into court and argue whatever you feel like on the day, all the process stuff done before a trial is to set the parameters. The reason the CRA isn't an issue here is because the plaintiff likely realized that the 18-21 rule would not be found to violate it.

So, still again and always, this case will be about applying Oregon's state law to the facts of the case -- whether a private business in Oregon can age-discriminate against customers over the age of 18 on the sale of a legal good for which there is no statutory exception (as Oregon has for alcohol, for instance). The answer is almost certainly no.

[Eurytos]

You can't rent a car in Oregon at the age of 18. Only Michigan and New York are mandated by law to allow the age of 18. At Hertz, for example, the minimum age is 20 except in New York and Oregon. If a "car rental store" isn't covered under the "public accommodation" section then a store should not be as well. The stupid part about this law is that it is going to be argued on the merits of what is a "public accommodation" and not anything to do with Gun sales.

https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/659A.400 and specifically (e) An institution, bona fide club or place of accommodation that is in its nature distinctly private. [Formerly 30.675; 2013 c.429 §1; 2013 c.530 §4]

Is a store a institution that is distinctly private in its nature?

I think it’s the wrong law to challenge this under. Because the store, which surely is a public accommodation isn’t disallowing him to be there(like a lunch counter in the 60s with black folk), they are just not selling a certain item to him. In general, these laws are valid. We have all sorts of laws protecting kids from getting certain things.

The real claim is a 2A claim. And considering the US has already had a constitutional ban on assault rifles , that is all ages can’t have one, then I expect them to say it’s totally ok for the store to not sell to him, under the 2A. The court may not even address the equal protection/public accommodations law.