|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
OR: Age Discrimination Lawsuit Filed in Oregon over Gun Sale Refusal
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Updated: An Oregon 20-year-old has filed lawsuits against Walmart and Dick’s Sporting Goods, alleging age discrimination after he tried unsuccessfully to purchase rifles after the stores announced last week they would not sell long guns to anyone under age 21, according to Willamette Week, a Portland-based alternative newspaper.
The lawsuits were revealed almost simultaneously to Liberty Park Press’ headline story that asked whether the stores’ anti-gun sales restrictions violate anti-discrimination laws. In Oregon, that might be the case, since state law allows firearms purchases by young adults ages 18-20, which is also allowed under federal law. |
| Comment by:
netsyscon
(3/7/2018)
|
| Karma is a bitch! |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
