It's gotten out that a 20 year old Oregon resident is filing frivolous lawsuits against two retail chains, Walmart & Dick's Sporting Goods, after both had recently amended chain-wide store policies prohibiting the sales of guns, including hunting rifles, to anyone under 21, in the wake of the high school massacre in Parkland, Florida last month.
What isn't clear is if the litigant, Tyler Watson, was even aware of the changes that took effect a week ago, when he visited the stores, located in two different Oregon counties. He claims age discrimination.
Like, dude, I get that you're a hunter, but maybe you should be spending more time reading the newspapers. Oregon law says the minimum age for purchasing guns is 18, but that would be subject to revision via a referendum put to a vote, say, around November. What the retailers are trying to do is guard against another incident like the one in Parkland, or any number of copycats. It's called erring on the side of caution. We've seen too many of these mass shootings in the last 20 years, and in the wake of Parkland, there've been a few attempts at copycat incidents.
My take on this is that the new rules could be amended to account for consumers like Watson holding active hunting licenses, assuming they were issued before the new policies were enacted on February 28.
Watson's suits suggested to me the hunting angle, and, yet, I can't help but think of this guy.......
4 comments:
I think you're missing the bigger picture here.
At 18, a person is legally considered an adult, which means they can
1) Enter legal contracts
2) Legally have intimate relations with a party at or over the same age
3) Serve in the armed forces (while carrying big guns their civilian counterparts can't have)
4) Vote
5) Sue or be sued in a court of law
6) Open a bank account in their own name
7) Get a tattoo (not recommended!)
8) Buy cigarettes and other tobacco products (also not recommended!)
9) Serve on a jury
And yet these people think it's a great idea to prevent otherwise law abiding people from buying weapons until they're 21! How about the large numbers of good people under 21 who have responsibly owned and used firearms of all kinds? My father and uncle used to shoot .22 rifles back when they were teens (in NYC in the 40s and 50s it wasn't uncommon or unusual for teens or adults to carry rifles on the subway and people didn't freak out over it either), and they used to do a lot of shooting in Sullivan County for both target practice and deer hunting. Neither of them never used their guns maliciously!
Personally, I find any such legislation to be the equivalent to putting a band aid on a gash. Banning guns from anyone under 21 won't change anything except make it harder for good people to get guns. Plus, have you ever heard of criminals obeying the law? It's a safe bet they'd just get them off the street anyway.
It's also important to note that Tyler Watson was of legal age by state law to purchase a firearm. Any store is violating that law by default. Dick's is also grandstanding as the weapon they claim to no longer sell has not been sold by them in a couple of years.
As I said, if Watson presented a valid hunting license, and, for that matter, a gun permit, before the new store rules went into effect, I don't think he's filing a lawsuit. Dick's & Walmart are over-reacting, IMPO.
The Elmer Fudd clip was just used as a joke.
Well, it's Elmer Fudd so that goes without saying. My comment about not being malicious was speaking to my father and uncle's strong sense of responsibility.
My family's never owned firearms of any kind, so I wouldn't know.
Post a Comment