03-04-2018, 05:53 PM
(03-03-2018, 09:22 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:David Horn Wrote:You're confusing the right of a company to sell to whom they wish with legal authority, which they do not have. If they are discriminating against a group with legal status, then they are truly barred from doing what they are doing ... but they aren't. Being underage is a legal status issue, as you noted, but NOT being underage is not a protected category like gender and race. You can try to make it one, but right now it's not.
No. I'm saying Dick's doesn't have a legal right or the legal authority to change a state or federal law. Do you agree with me or not? I'm saying an 18-20 year old citizen of the USA are legal adults with legal status who are of legal age who have a legal right to purchase a rifle within Minnesota and The United States of America according to the law of the state and the federal government. Is age another one of those protected categories commonly associated with discrimination? I think so.
No one has the right to tell a company they must sell firearms to anyone. They also have no prohibition on deciding who is or is not eligible to buy -- unless the buyer is denied because he or she is in a protected class. 18-21 is not a protected class. If you have a lawyer, feel free to ask. I know the answer.
C-Xer Wrote:I know what I would do as Republican, I'd let it linger and grow and allow it to turn Dick's parking lots into political battle grounds over gun rights. If Cabelas is listening and wants Dick's disgruntled customer's or employees, I have a marketing slogan for you and others to use. "We Ain't Dick's"
I think you miss the point of the exercise. Dick's management decided that the number of future gun owners is small in the youth demographic, but they do buy other athletic equipment. More to the point, that demographic is trending anti-gun, so doing the same is good business. Cabela's can have the residual business.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.