Jump to content

Gun Rights Advocates Suing Dick's For Not Selling Them A Gun


kevinmcc

Recommended Posts

Dick's Sporting Goods is being sued by a 19 year old in Michigan for age discrimination.

 

Dick's won't even let him look at gun, let alone sell him one since he is under 21.

 

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/yw9agb/meet-the-19-year-old-gun-rights-advocate-suing-dicks-for-age-discrimination

 

Not only age discrimination under Michigan law, what about 2A and Federal law.

 

Shall not be infringed does not specify who, should be inclusive of government and business if you ask me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Battle Creek Enquirer

 

The suit was filed in County Circuit Court.

 

Fulton, a Pennfield High School senior and son of Freedom Firearms co-owner Jared Fulton, filed a lawsuit against the retail giant in Oakland County Circuit Court on Tuesday for refusing to let him buy a shotgun because of his age.

...

Tyler Watson, a 20-year-old Oregon man, sued Walmart and a Field & Stream store owned by Dick's after he was not allowed to buy a 22-caliber rifle because of his age.

 

Watson tried to buy a firearm at Field & Stream four days before the retailers announced their new policies and about a week later from Walmart. He was turned away both times.

 

Fulton wants Dick's to rescind its new policy, said his attorney, Jim Makowski. He's also asking for monetary damages.

 

"If they truly don't want to sell to anyone between 18 and 20, then they can elect not to sell firearms in their stores," Makowski said, "but they cannot sell to anyone based on age."

...

Unless this case or any other one like it goes up to the Federal Circuit level, I think the only thing that's going to happen is that Dick's and Walmart (and any others like them) will stop selling firearms entirely. I doubt Fulton will get any monetary damages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Battle Creek Enquirer

 

The suit was filed in County Circuit Court.

 

Fulton, a Pennfield High School senior and son of Freedom Firearms co-owner Jared Fulton, filed a lawsuit against the retail giant in Oakland County Circuit Court on Tuesday for refusing to let him buy a shotgun because of his age.

...

Tyler Watson, a 20-year-old Oregon man, sued Walmart and a Field & Stream store owned by Dick's after he was not allowed to buy a 22-caliber rifle because of his age.

 

Watson tried to buy a firearm at Field & Stream four days before the retailers announced their new policies and about a week later from Walmart. He was turned away both times.

 

Fulton wants Dick's to rescind its new policy, said his attorney, Jim Makowski. He's also asking for monetary damages.

 

"If they truly don't want to sell to anyone between 18 and 20, then they can elect not to sell firearms in their stores," Makowski said, "but they cannot sell to anyone based on age."

...

Unless this case or any other one like it goes up to the Federal Circuit level, I think the only thing that's going to happen is that Dick's and Walmart (and any others like them) will stop selling firearms entirely. I doubt Fulton will get any monetary damages.

 

I think that's a great outcome. Stores that don't support the Second Amendment because they either hate guns (Dicks) or care more about how not towing the PC culture line effects profits (Walmart) should not get a dime of gun owners money. Buy from places that support the Second Amendment and American cultural values, not ones that are willing to sell you out at the drop of a hat. Capitalism should not be a religion that lets them justify in our minds any stand they decide take. Especially not to us gun owners and Americans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that's a great outcome. Stores that don't support the Second Amendment because they either hate guns (Dicks) or care more about how not towing the PC culture line effects profits (Walmart) should not get a dime of gun owners money. Buy from places that support the Second Amendment and American cultural values, not ones that are willing to sell you out at the drop of a hat. Capitalism should not be a religion that lets them justify in our minds any stand they decide take. Especially not to us gun owners and Americans.

 

 

 

Have to be careful. What if Wal-Mart stops selling ammo as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fully expect Dick's legal defense to stall this case until he's 21, then say it's moot and drop the case.

 

I've argued in favor of the store owners in Illinois being able to deny sales to anyone for any reason based upon decisions made in good faith, but they get accused of racial or gender discrimination if they don't sell to someone who looks to them like they might be involved in a gang because they have a tattoo on their face and wear gang colors. Sellers of firearms need immunity from discrimination suits.

 

So we'll cheer this kid on over his age discrimination suit because he's going after a retail chain we love to hate on. Seems like this case is a dog to me and we're being shortsighted to cheer it on. Sorry guys, just the way I see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fully expect Dick's legal defense to stall this case until he's 21, then say it's moot and drop the case.

 

I've argued in favor of the store owners in Illinois being able to deny sales to anyone for any reason based upon decisions made in good faith, but they get accused of racial or gender discrimination if they don't sell to someone who looks to them like they might be involved in a gang because they have a tattoo on their face and wear gang colors. Sellers of firearms need immunity from discrimination suits.

 

So we'll cheer this kid on over his age discrimination suit because he's going after a retail chain we love to hate on. Seems like this case is a dog to me and we're being shortsighted to cheer it on. Sorry guys, just the way I see it.

 

The only problem for the retailer is there is a Michigan age discrimination statute. Since it is a corporate policy of no sales to persons under 21, they are clearly in violation of state law. As for the lawsuit becoming moot, I don’t think the case can be considered moot unless the corporation changes the policy before resolution is reached. But even in that case, a violation of state law has occurred.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can someone please find the Michigan age discrimination statute? I'm curious to read if it's even relevant to denial of sales of a retail product. Research is hard on my mobile phone.

Edit

Found it

 

 

Except where permitted by law, a person shall not:

 

(a) Deny an individual the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or public service [which includes retailers -EV] because of religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, or marital status.

 

(B) Print, circulate, post, mail, or otherwise cause to be published a statement, advertisement, notice, or sign which indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or public service will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual because of religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, or marital status, or that an individual's patronage of or presence at a place of public accommodation is objectionable, unwelcome, unacceptable, or undesirable because of religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, or marital status.

 

So it looks like Michigan created a law to prevent a Gay Cake problem in their state, and included age as a protected class.

 

It does look like it has merit in light of this. I still expect Dick's to stall the trial until the kid is 21 as I believe he ages out of having standing. The strategic way to head that off is a procession of suits with 18 year old after 18 year old filing the same suit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

 

I fully expect Dick's legal defense to stall this case until he's 21, then say it's moot and drop the case.

 

I've argued in favor of the store owners in Illinois being able to deny sales to anyone for any reason based upon decisions made in good faith, but they get accused of racial or gender discrimination if they don't sell to someone who looks to them like they might be involved in a gang because they have a tattoo on their face and wear gang colors. Sellers of firearms need immunity from discrimination suits.

 

So we'll cheer this kid on over his age discrimination suit because he's going after a retail chain we love to hate on. Seems like this case is a dog to me and we're being shortsighted to cheer it on. Sorry guys, just the way I see it.

The only problem for the retailer is there is a Michigan age discrimination statute. Since it is a corporate policy of no sales to persons under 21, they are clearly in violation of state law. As for the lawsuit becoming moot, I don’t think the case can be considered moot unless the corporation changes the policy before resolution is reached. But even in that case, a violation of state law has occurred.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

 

It was my understanding (subject to correction) that TRJ's take was going to be correct. I haven't actually seen the lawsuit but, if the plaintiff sued in his own person (as opposed to some sort of "Under 21 Gun Owners, LLC"), it was my understanding that he'd lose standing the second he turned 21, regardless of other statutes.

 

Like I said, though, I could be wrong.

 

My personal opinion on this is that the lawsuit is incredibly silly. I cannot understand, for the life of me, why anyone would want to force an organization that hates them to take their money. There are more than enough small, local gun stores (even in Illinois) that I'd much rather give them money and reward them instead.

 

Bri

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was my understanding (subject to correction) that TRJ's take was going to be correct. I haven't actually seen the lawsuit but, if the plaintiff sued in his own person (as opposed to some sort of "Under 21 Gun Owners, LLC"), it was my understanding that he'd lose standing the second he turned 21, regardless of other statutes.

 

Like I said, though, I could be wrong.

 

My personal opinion on this is that the lawsuit is incredibly silly. I cannot understand, for the life of me, why anyone would want to force an organization that hates them to take their money. There are more than enough small, local gun stores (even in Illinois) that I'd much rather give them money and reward them instead.

 

Bri

Courts can be silly like that, but in my opinion even if he turn 21 his rights were previously denied and the case should continue.

 

No 2A case is incredibly silly. :rolleyes: No one should deny you your rights. This case may set precedent that says guns must be sold to those of legal age.

 

This may make state laws being passed also struck.

 

And if you follow Kavanaugh, he makes case decisions based on the length a law has been enacted.

 

We might not win his favor in repealing the NFA as it has been on the books for 84 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...