Well, that didn't take long. I commend the litigant for his timely assertion of his rights via a lawsuit.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/03/05/oregon-20-year-old-sues-dicks-sporting-goods-refusing-sell-rifle/

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

Excerpt:

A 20-year-old is suing Dick’s Sporting Goods after being refused a Ruger .22 rifle purchase based on his age.

The plaintiff, Tyler Watson, claims he faced “Unlawful Age Discrimination.”

Watson attempted to buy the rifle “on or about February 24” at a Medford, Oregon, Field and Stream store. (Field and Stream is subsidiary of Dick’s.)  Watson’s suit, filed in the Circuit Court of Oregon for the County of Jackson, says a store employee refused the purchase and indicated, “He would not sell [Watson] any firearm, including rifles and shotguns, or ammunition for a firearm, because [Watson] is under 21 years old.”

The employee referenced Dick’s recent policy shift, disallowing firearm sales to anyone under 21, and cited the policy as the reason for denying the sale.

Watson’s suit alleges that Dick’s policy violates Oregon law against age-based discrimination for people 18 years and older in places of public accommodations. State law includes prohibitions against discrimination in stores that are open to the general public.

Well, that didn't take long. I commend the litigant for his timely assertion of his rights via a lawsuit.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/03/05/oregon-20-year-old-sues-dicks-sporting-goods-refusing-sell-rifle/

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

Excerpt:

A 20-year-old is suing Dick’s Sporting Goods after being refused a Ruger .22 rifle purchase based on his age.

The plaintiff, Tyler Watson, claims he faced “Unlawful Age Discrimination.”

Watson attempted to buy the rifle “on or about February 24” at a Medford, Oregon, Field and Stream store. (Field and Stream is subsidiary of Dick’s.)  Watson’s suit, filed in the Circuit Court of Oregon for the County of Jackson, says a store employee refused the purchase and indicated, “He would not sell [Watson] any firearm, including rifles and shotguns, or ammunition for a firearm, because [Watson] is under 21 years old.”

The employee referenced Dick’s recent policy shift, disallowing firearm sales to anyone under 21, and cited the policy as the reason for denying the sale.

Watson’s suit alleges that Dick’s policy violates Oregon law against age-based discrimination for people 18 years and older in places of public accommodations. State law includes prohibitions against discrimination in stores that are open to the general public.

If he gets an unbiased judge who interprets the law the way it is intended, he will win this case. 

Should be interesting after lesbian couple received $135k when they were refused a CAKE due to sexuality discrimination... in OREGON

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/12/appeals_court_upholds_fine_aga.html

Now that can show what hypocrites they really are.  Age discrimination.. but its an evil gun so thats OK.

This is great.  There is no law that says one must be 21 to be sold a rifle, and stores that ban under 21 are in violation of people's civil rights.  He will win. 

This is great.  There is no law that says one must be 21 to be sold a rifle, and stores that ban under 21 are in violation of people's civil rights.  He will win.

It depends on the state.  Civil Rights age discrimination laws protect older people as a group (over 40).  So a 20 yr old isn't in that protected group.  Hence, it's not a Constitutional or civil rights issue.

However, there are 19 states whose laws specifically state that if you make a product or service available to the public, you cannot discriminate unless a law exists to do so.  There would have to be a federal or state law setting the minimum age to buy, own or possess an AR-15 at 21 for that to be the case.  We know that's not the law, so the store is unlawfully discriminating against people legally allowed to buy their guns.

These 19 states' laws "ban discrimination based on age in places of public accommodation, and some of those statutes may well ban refusal to sell guns to 18-to-20-year-olds."

You can see the list of states with age-based public accommodation laws by clicking here and looking at the "AGE" column in the states table -- far right column.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/state-public-accommodation-laws.aspx

The problem is that Dicks and Walmart, et al, will win in this suit. Yes we can argue all day, but, but, but, the Constitution and the Law... The ATF provides for very wide discretion on licensees and their willingness to sell. They can deny sales to anyone for any reason. Even the "its Tuesday and I don't like your tu-tu" day.

Any FFL here wish to chime in please do so and provide correct info.

The problem is that Dicks and Walmart, et al, will win in this suit. Yes we can argue all day, but, but, but, the Constitution and the Law... The ATF provides for very wide discretion on licensees and their willingness to sell. They can deny sales to anyone for any reason. Even the "its Tuesday and I don't like your tu-tu" day.

Any FFL here wish to chime in please do so and provide correct info.

Refusing sales to black people or gays or women would be upheld in court as merely a private business option outside the purview of government? There's a non-cake you need to look at...

There are no laws, federal or state, that say an 18 yo cannot purchase a rifle.  It is NOT age discrimination, it is unconstitutional. 

If walmart or dicks want, they can completely stop selling rifles, period.  They cannot just go and say you have to be 21 to purchase a rifle. 

Refusing sales to black people or gays or women would be upheld in court as merely a private business option outside the purview of government? There's a non-cake you need to look at...

THIS