Interesting, I didn’t know that.
*Seems like total nonsense to me, guess I’ll have to google it.
This?
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/540/581.html
http://supreme.findlaw.com/legal-commentary/the-supreme-courts-recent-ruling-that-federal-age-discrimination-law-protects-the-old-but-not-the-young.html
But other states won’t allow anyone under 21 so there would be a conflict there, but it is the government requiring it.
And in the bakery it was the government telling a business owner that he couldn’t discriminate based on the religious protections in the BOR. This wasn’t a case of the government protecting a customer’s rights under the BOR but limiting an individual’s (the baker, the business owner, the seller) protections. In other words, this was a ruling against how much the BOR can protect someone.
With Dick’s you are asking the government to defend the 2A rights of an individual against a private business, not the government. Now, if there were laws in place that prevented discrimination based on youth it wouldn’t even be a 2A matter but a discrimination matter. But since the government itself legalizes age discrimination it would require a lot of legal action to change it.
But does the business have the legal obligation to sell? If they are not violating any existing laws by refusing a sale then the answer is no.
Since they are a protected class and there might be existing laws making a refusal to sell illegal then it wouldn’t fly.
What if a gun seller refuses to sell a weapon to an individual because he believes the person has mental issues? Is he discriminating against the mentally handicapped, a protected class? I believe that gun sellers have more latitude when it comes to discriminating so there is also that to consider.
But science has proven that to be true. An 18 year old brain is not equal to a 35 year old brain.
Well, yes/no. The baker could discriminate if they hadn’t baked the cake yet based on artistic expression / religion. The baker could not; however, discriminate if the product was already produced and available for sale. The later half of that sentence is what I’m basing my opinion on. Dicks has already “produced” (they didn’t produce anything) the weapons in question and they are displayed for sale to those legally allowed to purchase them. Except, now they’ve decide not to sell to a specific group.
No, I’m not. I’m not talking about the 2A at all. This isn’t a 2A issue imo. I think I already stated that. I interpreting what happened in the cake inccident and applying the logic here as it relates to refusing a private sale to a specific group.
According to the cake ruling, yes, if the 18-21 crowd is a protect class, which apparently it isn’t per TBs post.
Probably because I doubt he’s qualified to determine who is or is not mentally handicapped.
Sure because I doubt the above scenario would see the inside of a courtroom. At the end of the day that is what actually matters and the 18-21 crowd simply isn’t going to get the chance to litigate this so it is what it is.
What? Science has proved all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others because a 18 yea old brain is “not equal” to a 35 year old brain?
Not equal in what way?
But Dick’s isn’t trying to use the BOR to defend its decision.
A specific group in Dick’s case that doesn’t have the same protections as the group in the bakery case. It is also a group that the government itself discriminates against.
Well it isn’t, as you acknowledge, so there is no if.
But does he need to be? I don’t think anyone, including the government, would expect a gun seller to sit down and give a buyer a psych evaluation. He has to be allowed some room to be wrong. In fact, federal law allows gun sellers to refuse any sale for any reason and, they have no obligation to give a reason.
When it comes to judgement.
Meaning they don’t have a fully functioning frontal cortex yet. Is that what you’re implying?
Under that logic we shouldn’t let 18 year olds vote or do our killing for us either.
The voting, maybe.
The killing, it probably helps.
…
Are you reading what I’m typing…?
Yes. Your opinions, and I’m not saying you don’t have a point, are based on how things should be and not how they are. I’m talking about how the laws are now.
Well, no, it isn’t as it relates to hiring/firing practices. There’s no precedent when it comes to commercial activities as TB also pointed out, which is why I said “if”.
Is this really the direction we want to go? Private businesses refusing a sale because they think you look a certain way. I mean, I’m all for private businesses being allowed to refuse a sale for any reason, but I doubt most people want to go in that direction.
Okay. So they can just glance at a guy and be like “dude seems a little nutty, no sale”.
I’ve got no problem with that for the reason I stated above.
That’s certainly an opinion one can have.
Okay because I’m not talking about the BOR and I’m not suggesting Dicks has to sell weapons because of the 2A…
I’m talking about gun sales specifically. If the seller is the last line of defense so to speak, he has to be able to discriminate. Sure, it isn’t perfect as it is still a human but if we want a perfect world
we might find that is a world without people.
That’s legal now. We are talking about a gun, something that can kill. Unless people start getting murdered by wedding cakes I think we have to accept there is a different dynamic at work.
Suppose a woman’s clinic decided that it would not perform abortions for any woman under the age of 21.
I think that would be a poor business decision for folks in the baby killing business.
I believe doctors can refuse to perform an abortion for any reason they want.
Also, is this a federally or state funded clinic? If so, it would probably require a change in laws to do that. And aren’t women a protected class? Now, if they refused to perform abortions on men under 21 as well, it might be OK.
Nothing happens in a bubble.
Can we use that same logic for all of the other things that are sold that kill way more people. Like cars for example?
I’m not looking for perfect. At the end of the day, I don’t even care if Dicks does this or not. Someone else will fill the demand and it will hopefully be a small business. That works for me.
I just find the issue interesting. Particularly, how our society protects the old from discrimination, but not the young. I just love me some double standards. You can go to war so Dicks can exist, but heaven forbid you buy an “assault” rifle. Smell that freedom.
So can a car. So can lots of things.
Drinking age did.
Sure. I wouldn’t want a car salesman to sell a car to a person who is obviously insane or drive it off the lot if he is visibly drunk. Although I wouldn’t expect him not to.
Well, the young get certain privileges and protections as well. Free education. Free lunch. Free breakfast. Free health care. Different consequences for illegal acts.
You’re using the federal drink age as an example as to why restricting a firearms purchase to a certain age is acceptable…
Might want to talk with these folks:
People with disabilities have rights. Car salesmen aren’t qualified to diagnose insanity.
… 
Not acceptable, legal. We could argue that the drinking age is wrong.
But are they required to state why they refused to sell the car? Could a blind person be barred from buying a gun? Where I live you need to pass an NRA course to apply for a permit to buy a weapon. If the blind person can’t pass, because they are blind, is the law here discriminating against the handicapped?
Okay, legal, but the point is till the same. Nothing occurs in a bubble…
No, but neither is the cake baker.
You’d have to consult what the law says, but I think the answer is that it could be discrimination. Whose to say the purchase is even for himself?