Oregon: 20-Year-Old Sues Dick’s Sporting Goods for Refusing to Sell Rifle

I did. The ATF statement is not intended to act as license for discrimination against an entire broad class of protected persons under the law.
So lame.

 

I would say the matter was settled when that Oregon baker was forced to provide services to a gay couple despite his religious convictions.
It constitutes a slam dunk decision against Dick's Sports who wants to nullify service to people based entirely on their age.

 

Again, why would that require a private business to arm them against their will? We have free speech too, but that doesn't mean private businesses have to supply soapboxes and bullhorns.

 

Yes I did.

 

I would say what I always say in these situations, let the business decide who they sell to and let the people decide who to do business with.

 

I'm not surprised this happened.

After they announced their new age policy I said that it could lead to Dick's abandoning guns sales entirely.

We'll see what happens...

 

If they are selling them to the public as a public business......................
The Constitution says a militia is necessary to a free state.
The Constitution says that government cannot make a law restricting the right to keep and bear arms.
US Code says 17 years old and up make up the militia.
The private business is selling to the public.

Put all that together and before a judge............

 

No problem. Please take your opinion to the "free speech zone".

How does that change the law?

Interesting ides. How far are you willing to go back? Would you like to see legal protection for "Whites Only" signs in front of businesses? What about accommodating the handicapped?

You are awfully smug about denying rights when you agree. Unfortunately, you open the door to losing rights you may value.

 

A lot of things are " widely reported". I find it hard to believe that a company such as that would jump in a knee jerk manner. Parkland Cruz could have been the straw that broke the camel's back.

 

I did.

 

What is your d finition of a "citizen business"?

 

See previous

 

The Free Market has shown the nation is center-right. Some screaming, uneducated, leftist morons on twitter who try to protest do not represent most Americans.

 

No. You are okay with removing rights on a whim, so you must we willing to lose your own for the same reason. It works both ways.

 

I have what's your point?

 

No ones rights were removed. He could still go somewhere else and buy a gun, thus still retaining his rights. And everyone else has a right not to shop there if they wish. That's freedom.

 

I never "speciously conflated the 2nd amendment". You did that in your post:

The 2nd amendment has absolutely no bearing on your ability to buy a gun. The 2nd amendment holds no protections for acquisition, so therefore nobody is "attempting to deny the 2nd" when refusing to sell the gun

FTR, age discrimination has been, and actually IS being upheld today. The right to buy alcohol bears that out.

 

Why? Delta Airlines subjected themselves to 44M tax exposure to drop ties with the NRA.

 

Taxes are paid on profits. If taxes go up, it is because profits went up.

 

umm..... Really? Tax breaks are not paid. And now they will be. But hey, facts? Don't bother...

 

There is no "slam dunk" here. In the bakery case, a religious freedoms case, the crux of the argument was "when does your right to religious freedoms override mine". In this case, age discrimination is a false flag as the state, and private business have long held that right. It has been upheld many times. The right to deny those of any certain age the ability to buy alcohol, and guns have long been the case. I may be missing something here, but the legal age to buy a gun is 18, so Dicks moving that age to 21 is legally their right if your going to argue age discrimination. The right to deny goods and services has long been constitutionally held.

 

The point where you avoided the counterexample entirely. If your right to bear arms is a requirement that others sell them to you against their will, then your right to free speech is a requirement that others publish it for you against their will. McDonald's won't sell you a pistol; that isn't an infringement on your right to bear arms. Dick's isn't preventing anyone from owning weapons.

 

So you side with the bakers too along with Dick's.

 

And you can go somewhere else to give your opinion. Once you allow private businesses to decide your rights, you no longer have a say in the matter.

 

You seem to not know what a strawman is, lol.

it depends. The baker violated public accommodation laws. Dick's did not.

There is no law that a retail FFL has to provide

uh, the law is the basis.

there is nothing in the amendment about purchasing from a retail FFL. Stop it.

nope. If dicks sold to another person the same age, but not this person, you would have a case. They do not sell to ANYONE his age, so you don't.

again, it's the law.

It doesn't, as I've repeatedly shown.