I just had a thought on my Dick's Sporting Goods piece. I'm not a lawyer, so bear with me on this.
If they refuse to sell rifles to citizens under 21 where it is lawful to do so, how is that not challengeable in court? Protected classes included things like race, sex, religion, "orientation" and age, right? They couldn't refuse to sell you a rifle because you're a minority or a woman or Muslim or a gay, could they?
Any lawyers out there care to share your expertise, or maybe just cut to the chase and find plaintiffs to initiate a class action lawsuit?
UPDATE: Prof. Volokh says "Depends..."
Wednesday, February 28, 2018
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
First thought I had when this came out. A business can't refuse to sell a cake, but they can refuse a constitutionally protected right based on age discrimination? Accordingly to the founders a business should be able to do whatever the heck it wants and market forces will sort it out, but since we've entered a new era where businesses are subject to such oversight against "discrimination" that ought to apply to this situation too, no? Hey, if the bakers were forced to sell products in a non-discriminatory manner, why not Dicks? Of course Dicks can choose not to sell any at all, but by creating an arbitrary age discrimination it seems like they are wading in the newly created anti-discrimination swamp. #Hypocrisy
Civil rights.....public accomodation issue.
I'm not a lawyer, but gave this some thought too.
In Nebraska the age of majority is 19.
There are anti-discrimination laws, but those laws are explicitly for sex, color, religion, etc but not age.
So, if they can discriminate against 19 and 20 year old adults for purchasing alcohol, I don't think it's a far stretch to discriminate for guns.
Which then raises the question, why stop at 21?
Dicks!
“So, if they can discriminate against 19 and 20 year old adults for purchasing alcohol”
It depends totally on who “they” are.
In the case you cite, “they” is a government. Bring it to court, and judges are likely to defer because “the legislature knows what it intended to do.”
In Dick’s case, “they” is a commercial entity. Judges are quick to remind everyone that commercial entities don’t have the same rights that individuals (purportedly) do (“public accommodations” law). Dick’s will get told to bake the cake in short order.
Next, it will be those over the age of 63. The Las Vegas shooter was 64. Then, it will be those under the age of 35. Smells like tyranny. Rhymes with tyranny. It is tyranny.
Of memory serves Duck stopped selling black rifles,etc several years ago. So did they reverse course and are now reversing again ? WT
From what I've read, they only sold them in their specialty Field & Stream locations after 2012 -- and now they're gone from all. I wouldn't know for sure since after the first betrayal I refused to set foot in one of their stores.
Dick's just put a smile on the face of all the LGS owners across the country, who are now saying, "Thank You! Thank You!". What could be better for a small business than a huge competitor nearby who is too arrogant to compete?
DKS reports earnings on 3/6/18 for the period ending 1/18, so any boycott effect won't be in the upcoming quarterly report, but let's see what effect we can have on the next quarterly report. The market is extremely harsh on stocks that miss on revenues, earnings or forward guidance.
If they are going to stop selling "Assault Rifles and Assault Magazines", well then they should also stop selling "assault rifle" ammo. You know, exotic stuff like 223/5.56, 308, 30-06, etc. And there is the "Assault Rifle" cleaning kits that keep them clean and running. And, lets not forget the "assault rifle" targets with the cute zombies. And why stop at "assault rifles" when you have short barreled "assault shotguns" like a Rem 870 with a deer barrel. Dicks just looking to suck up to the left. They will never see me again (unless its to return their awards card cut into small pieces).
Post a Comment