Good for him
An Oregon man filed suits Monday claiming Dicks Sporting Goods and Walmart discriminated against the 20-year-old when they refused to sell him a rifle.
What about a 20 year old single mom who wants a rifle to protect her home?
17 Responses to “Good for him”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
March 7th, 2018 at 1:39 am
No doubt the ACLU will take up his case and all the SJWs will hit the streets in protest to support him. College professors will cancel classes so their students can protest in favor of the second amendment, and shame Dick’s out of business. Black Lives Matter will rename itself “20-Year-Old Black Lives Matter Too”. The IRS will target Dick’s with special audits, and CNN, CBS, NBC and ABC will send out “reporters” to harass Dick’s managers with leading questions as they come in and out of the their vehicles in the store parking lots and at their homes. PBS will do a fast-tracked, tear-filled hour-long special on various unarmed 20 year-olds who were attacked in their homes, defenseless.
March 7th, 2018 at 8:46 am
I don’t think he’ll be successful. Most car rental companies don’t rent cars to people under 21, some under 25.
The libertarian in me says it’s really their choice.
March 7th, 2018 at 10:03 am
Car rentals, smoking, and liquor aren’t enumerated civil or natural rights. Oregon’s constitution also explicitly prohibits age discrimination. This lawsuit will have standing because of that.
March 7th, 2018 at 11:13 am
I agree with Blue Falcon in Boston. This would be based on Oregon’s anti-discrimination statutes which, as we saw with the gay marriage cake and flowers cases, are pretty Liberal.
March 7th, 2018 at 1:59 pm
I have a feeling we’re going to see, at trial level anyway, that they’re liberal when it suits their worldview, which this suit does not.
March 8th, 2018 at 9:26 am
“What about a 20 year old single mom who wants a rifle to protect her home?”
Easy – just pass laws outlawing sex outside marriage, divorce, and women living apart from older male relatives. There aren’t any civil liberty issues that can’t be solved by more restrictions on freedom.
March 8th, 2018 at 10:39 am
Singling out 18, 19, and 20 year olds for persecution, taking away their 2nd Amendment rights, will not stand up at SCOTUS. And that is where this will head to as it is challenged.
You don’t stop a few nuts by banning everyone else’s rights. Nuts will always find a way.
March 8th, 2018 at 9:17 pm
BAKE THE CAKE!
Sauce for the goose and all that..
March 9th, 2018 at 12:25 am
In a libertarian world, every business owner has the right to refuse service to anyone.
In a progressive world, a business owner opting not to sell a product or service to someone is a human rights offense that must be corrected by the courts.
Oregon’s liberals cheered when the Sweet Cakes by Melissa ruling was handed down. So, it seems fair that this young man in Oregon be given the same treatment.
Bake that cake.
March 9th, 2018 at 12:06 pm
“What about a 20 year old single mom who wants a rifle to protect her home?”
From supposed “liberals” who SAY they are “pro choice”, there is NO choice for the women who choose to keep and carry the means to protect their own bodies against the robber, the rapist or the murderer.
March 11th, 2018 at 12:06 am
I guess we Floridiots will be the test case for the age thing since this is where NRA decided to throw down the gauntlet.
This little dude will end up involved at some point:
floridasupremecourt
The chief geek in the middle is a school chum from Pahokee High School. I was just 15 so stuck with catching rides after school, to the ballfield, the drugstore, up on the levee, or dropped at home. Jorge was geeky then too, big overbite, a little hyperactive. He had a little English Ford Anglia (’68 or so?) and I would hope in to the next stop or just meander around town for awhile. Not a friend or anything, just an occasional acquaintance. Smart kid; got out of Pahokee, got a law degree, and worked his way up from asst. public defender to circuit judge and eventually appointed to the high court. If you remember his face or name it might be because he’s the Palm Beach County judge who refused a Gore recount in the 2000 election debacle.
It’s a splendid little bill the Fla gov offered up; they knew the age discrimination case would hold that part up, and the AWB, mag limit, and “loophole” things were doa. Only real question is if the new 3 day wait for all guns continues to be waived for CWP holders. Oh yeah, and bump stocks; interested to see how they define them and how they plan to enforce the possession part for prior purchases.
March 11th, 2018 at 12:09 am
Crap, screwed up the link to Jorge and Co. http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/justices/index.shtml
March 11th, 2018 at 8:13 am
@JTC, “…and how they plan to enforce the possession part for prior purchases.”
That is a clear violation of the Constitutional,prohibition on an “expose facto law” in Article I, Section 9.3 . When a notorious criminal acts, then the criminals in government go into reactionary mode against the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
March 11th, 2018 at 1:09 pm
Ron W, I hear you Brother, little Jorge will get to see that one too maybe. His certifying of the 2000 election by disallowing a recount doesn’t certify him as all conservative though. He’s an R I think but he’s been pretty middle of the road on most things. Unknown which direction he might lean on as-written Constitutional provisions that our asserted rights depend on, we’ll see.
As for enforcement on possession of bump stocks made retroactively illegal, it’s just like the vague AWB of the past and possible future; if you can’t define it you can ban it with words but have a helluva time enforcing them. And I don’t think they’ll try; how the hell would they know who has a crappy marginally functional plastic non-regulated replacement stock accessory stuffed away? Can you imagine anybody turning them in or allowing their confiscation? Of course not and they know all of that. But what they can do with these words, without ever turning a finger for actual enforcement, is to create thousands of criminals, malcontents who eschew government control, rebels…rebels who under the right future circumstances can be prosecuted and jailed with that old stock as a pretext. Make fun of the left and it’s absurd worldview, but they’re smart and sneaky, this is just the kind of legislation that seems fairly harmless since there’s no enforcement and rises up to smite the complacent…same for EBR’s, or all semi-auto rifles maybe, millions and millions of firearms will not be actively confiscated which of course would be a war they know they can’t win, but rather a method of creating an entire class of quiet criminal…immediate felony that can be used to suspend all your Constitutional rights to search and seizure, etc., to imprison you or to make you penniless. Removing your ability to quote as you have above specific protections of your rights as a legal citizen…your right to those rights disappeared before your eyes.
March 11th, 2018 at 5:04 pm
@JTC, part of this whole reactionary authoritarian agenda is to label those who insist on government obedience an adherence to the Constitution as “terrorists”. Hence we have, for example, the Gov of Connecticut calling the NRA a terrorist organization. I suppose in his mind and others of his ilk, all it’s members and even those who agree with its agenda should be subject to the SECRET, ARBITRARY “no fly, no buy” list in VIOLATION of the 4th and 5th Amendments that supposed “liberals” and civil libertarians once rightly championed. Such “useful idiots” should be admonished that “what goes around, comes around”.
March 12th, 2018 at 10:39 am
Rifle has low recoil and high-capacity magazine which makes it perfect for home defense.
March 12th, 2018 at 11:47 am
@AR-15 Shooter,
Exactly! Which is why the leftist, communist pols want it banned.
BTW, back during the Obama Administration, 7000 rifles were purchased for the Dept of Homeland Security. “Personal Self Defense Rifles” they called them even though they were select-fire, full auto. But when semi-auto rifles, like the AR-15 and many others, which are “perfect for home defense” are in our hands, they call them “assault weapons”. And in the hands of government agents, they almost always show up “on the streets” AFTER the need for “homeland security”–except for that of the ones carrying them.