Age Discrimination and Gun Control


Dick’s and Walmart recently announced that they would stop selling rifles and shotguns to buyers under the age of 21. That’s illegal under the age discrimination laws in many states, and The Hill reports that lawsuits seeking to enforce the Oregon anti-discrimination law have been filed against both companies.

I had figured that the first suit would come in California, but Oregon will do.

The Left really isn’t going to like having to live under the rules they have created.

12 thoughts on “Age Discrimination and Gun Control

  1. If the government were actually serious about age discrimination laws, Senior Citizen discounts would be illegal – it is age discrimination (higher prices) for those under a certain age. The judges will toss these suits.

    • I’m not sure. Despite the People’s Republic of Ashland, that county is quite conservative, and Oregon judges are elected. With Oregon being one of the “bake me a cake, you H8ter” states, I’m hoping to see a bit of Alinsky judo applied here.

      BTW, I’ve seen Oregon senior discounts fading away. The big exception is Fred Meyer/Kroger, with their periodic Senior Tuesday sales on house brands and housewares. Fred’s also applied the 21 year restriction, though they’re not a go-to store for ammo.

      And, the state legislature just adjourned for the session.

      If an 18 year old is gay or transgendered, can that apply? /sarc

      • Our local Kroger subsidiary also just hung “Must be 21 to purchase ammo” signs.

        I still love that my local grocery stores sell ammo. Overpriced, and I’d likely never buy it there, true. But it’s nice to walk past the ammo case on my way to the dairy aisle. Feels like America.

    • And Lord Dewclaw sent DICK’S a lovely email telling them that my 20 gauge shotgun I got last year would be the last purchase at the store…

      Ever.

      I am paraphrasing a line from one of my favorite movies, Uncommon Valor;

      “Boy, you using -virtual signaling- bullshit on me’s gonna get real expensive.”

  2. Here’s the part I love –
    “…it is an unlawful practice for any person acting on behalf of any place of public accommodation as defined in ORS 659A.400 to publish, circulate, issue or display, or cause to be published, circulated, issued or displayed, any communication, notice, advertisement or sign of any kind to the effect that any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, services or privileges of the place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination will be made against, any person on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is of age, as described in this section, or older….”

    So any virtue-signalling advertising by Walmart…
    “But Your Honor, that advertisement was intended for the Seattle market.”
    “…did it cause anyone in Oregon to believe that ‘services or privileges… …will be refused’?”

    Mirth and hilarity…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s