Let the lawsuits begin....

Discussion in 'The Duck Hunters Forum' started by Wareagle1, Mar 6, 2018.

  1. J.Bennett

    J.Bennett Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    6,991
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2008
    Location:
    Acampo, California
    @TheDuckSlayer, let's try this again...
    Explain to me how an age discrimination case can even come up in a state that does not prohibit youthful age discrimination? If there is no law, that law (that doesn't exist) can't be broken and there is no case.
    I'm curious how SCOTUS would be able to rule on the constitutionality of a state law that doesn't exist or how existing federal law would apply to such a non-existent law?

    Now if a state that currently does not prohibit youthful age discrimination adopts a law that prohibits such, there could be a case like the one in Oregon (although at that point it is no longer a state that does not prohibit youthful discrimination). The only problem is that unless an argument can be made that the state law is somehow violating federal law or the constitution, the case will never see the inside of a federal courtroom, let alone the Supreme Court. There is no federal law or Constitutional Amendment/Article/Clause/etc. that prohibits a state from adopting such a law, so there is no way that the scenario which you outlined above could every happen given our current federal laws and constitution.
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2018
  2. The_Duck_Master

    The_Duck_Master Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    6,016
    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Location:
    Salem, Oregon
    That's often because most here agree in principle on a lot of things and while one is arguing what is, the other is arguing what should be.
     
    tcc likes this.
  3. J.Bennett

    J.Bennett Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    6,991
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2008
    Location:
    Acampo, California
    Care to offer up an example of the courts applying a constitutional principle to something other than government?
     
  4. TheDuckSlayer

    TheDuckSlayer Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    11,139
    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2002
    Location:
    Mobile Delta
    I already agreed with you on that when I said:

    Congress institutes an age limit to purchase certain firearms, bans certain firearms or accessories; anything they do could potentially be challenged.

    Understood and agreed. On page 3 of this thread, before you and I started this back and forth, I said:

    I guess I erred when I made any mention of a SC ruling without qualifying my statement by saying that any potential ruling would concern new legislation that has yet to pass Congress (although the rumor mills are churning that new policy is in the pipeline). It made sense in my head, but I can see how my thoughts would appear muddled to someone else.

    With the exception of some state-specific policy regarding age discrimination laws, you haven’t told me anything I don’t already know in regards to federal procedure.

    This post I made that started this whole thing-

    - was a baited question directed at sdkidaho to get him to at least post some subject matter germane to the topic, instead of that cell phone nonsense he was repeating.
     
  5. sdkidaho

    sdkidaho Decoy, Gun Dog, Christian, Idaho, Montana/Wyoming Moderator Flyway Manager

    Messages:
    5,199
    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Location:
    Idaho
    My comments are directed at the topic to show how asinine the need for this young man to go to court is. The reason he has to go is related to the last mass school shooting. Kids jump on the bandwagon because they've been guided to do so. If kids really want to save lives, lets look at things that will better accomplish that. I get that you don't like my side of this discussion, but attempting to invalidate my point of view by calling it "off-subject" rambling is a poor attempt to derail my point of view.

    I don't see "A" happening.

    I'm not sure "B" applies either, as the young man can obtain a firearm elsewhere. The 2A, I don't believe, dictates that we should be able to buy weapons anywhere we please.

    Do I think it is a form of discrimination? Yes. If he was gay and they said they wouldn't sell him a gun because he was gay, the world would implode at that injustice. But again - we can send him to war, with a gun, under the age of 21, but he can't buy one. Bassackwards. He can vote and that vote is valuable, but not valuable enough that he should be able to buy a gun at Dicks Sporting Goods. Is he an adult at 18 or not? If not, then make it clear so youth can understand "when" society thinks they are adults, not just "store by store". Seems lame, and adds to the confusion our youth already face every day.

    In the same breath, I don't think we should take away a businesses right to choose some of these things. Just because I don't like it doesn't mean I couldn't support the idea if that is what that business wants. And I don't like it. However - anyone who is ok with this, dang well better be ok with a baker denying to make a cake for anyone based upon religious belief.

    People don't get to support Dicks Sporting Goods in this, and then bash the baker and shout "discrimination!". Yes, I know, age isn't supported in "A", where homosexuals in that issue may be. Doesn't make it right, and again, it doesn't mean I have to like it. And I still don't hate homosexuals, just so we're clear on that. I dislike rude "people".
     
    tcc likes this.
  6. J.Bennett

    J.Bennett Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    6,991
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2008
    Location:
    Acampo, California
    I think this is where I’m getting confused...

    I’m getting hung up on why it would be in a state that does not prohibit youthful age discrimination...

    Basically whether or not a state prohibits youthful age discrimination is only relevant given current federal law. Since your initial statement refers to current state discrimination laws and makes no mention of changes in federal law, I assumed that you were making the statement based on the current legal situation. In that case, there is no possible way that one of these cases would make it to the SCOTUS because no federal law or constitutional right/principle/etc. would be involved.

    If federal law were to change as you later mentioned here...

    A case could potentially make it to the SCOTUS, but at that point it would no longer be TheDuckSlayer v. Dick's, it would be TheDuckSlayer v. United States because if Congress institutes a minimum age of 21, Dick's is no longer in violation of the law (in any state) and whether or not a state prohibits youthful age discrimination would be completely irrelevant. In a state that does not prohibit it, Dick’s would be following the letter of the law with regards to age limits. In a state that prohibits it, Dick’s policy is no longer in violation of the state law since it isn’t discriminatory to refuse to sell something to someone who can’t legally buy it. You can't file a suit against someone for obeying the law so your only option would be to sue the federal government based on a 2A argument.

    The bottom line is that we can speculate all we want about which laws may get passed but the fact of the matter is that currently this case and others like it that will surely come up will never see the inside of a federal courtroom because there is no federal law being broken and the 2A does not give someone the right to purchase a firearm from someone who doesn't want to sell it.
     
  7. J.Bennett

    J.Bennett Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    6,991
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2008
    Location:
    Acampo, California
    Fixed it for you.
     
  8. sdkidaho

    sdkidaho Decoy, Gun Dog, Christian, Idaho, Montana/Wyoming Moderator Flyway Manager

    Messages:
    5,199
    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Location:
    Idaho
    Nope. You didn't.
     
  9. JP

    JP Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    10,599
    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2000
    Location:
    Indian Territory, Oklahoma
    Appears it is pretty much applicable to employment, not guns.*

    * https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/age.cfm
     
  10. J.Bennett

    J.Bennett Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    6,991
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2008
    Location:
    Acampo, California
    I'm sure if you go back through this thread, you will see where myself and others have mentioned numerous times that THERE IS NO FEDERAL LAW OR CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT WHICH PROHIBITS AGE-BASED DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION. However states have laws too. Oregon (and 18 others) have laws that prohibit age-based discrimination in places of public accommodation. Here is Oregon's law (again).

    659A.403 Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited.

    (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction 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.

    (2) Subsection (1) of this section does not prohibit:

    (a) The enforcement of laws governing the consumption of alcoholic beverages by minors and the frequenting by minors of places of public accommodation where alcoholic beverages are served;

    (b) The enforcement of laws governing the use of marijuana items ... by persons under 21 years of age and the frequenting by persons under 21 years of age of places of public accommodation where marijuana items are sold; or

    (c) The offering of special rates or services to persons 50 years of age or older.

    (3) It is an unlawful practice for any person to deny full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation in violation of this section.

    Appears to be pretty much applicable to any place of public accommodation, including retail businesses that sell guns.

    https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/659A.403
     

Share This Page