Walmart and Dick's Sporting Goods Sued

[Curious George]

My take is that, being a store that carries weapons used in crimes is a lawsuit waiting to happen. Lawsuits can easily go the other way on this. The victims of FL can start suing gun stores. That’s just me guessing though I’m not trying to give any victims bright ideas.

There is not negligence if they followed the legal procedures. Moreover, it is certainly not foreseeable that someone would commit a crime with a legally purchased gun.

 

[Revoltingest]

For those of you who believe that businesses establishing age limits is discriminatory, can I assume that you also believe the same about businesses who refuse to serve homosexuals? I hate to imagine that anyone here would be a two-faced hypocrite.

I think everyone is recognizing that the law is the law,
& that to flout it is to risk getting spanked in court.

One potential difference is that a gun is a fungible item,
while a decorated cake could be considered art, which
could be considered compelled speech. But just to play
it safe, I'll make the gayest wedding cakes on Earth if
ever I become a baker.

 

[Revoltingest]

Nah, conservatives claim to be all about state rights and business rights...that is until states and businesses start doing things that they disagree with.

Is anyone claiming that here?
If so you should address those posts.

 

[Father Heathen]

The 2A doesn't give you the right to own any weapon on the planet.

Exactly. There must be a reason why even the more fanatic among the 2A advocates don't cry foul over restrictions on fully automatic firearms, rocket propelled grenades, etc. It goes to show that even they realize that a line must be drawn somewhere, and that line is obviously not set in stone given the evolution of guns since the muskets of the revolutionary war era.

 

[Father Heathen]

Is anyone claiming that here?
If so you should address those posts.

Perhaps not necessarily here, but you well know the reaction many conservatives had when miscellaneous states started legalizing gay marriage and cannabis.

 

[Curious George]

I'm sure their lawyers already went through it all and predicted this. Usually these corporations have good counsel and know all the ins and outs.

The 2A doesn't give you the right to own any weapon on the planet.

And where are all these people I keep hearing the NRA talk about that want guns banned because "they're scary looking?"

Just another mythical creation to distract the rubes.

It isn't a 2nd Amendment lawsuit. The 2A won't play here. It is a discrimination suit.

Regarding the people who want guns banned because they are scary, (though I am not sure what it has to do with my post): They exist. I am friends with a few. They are not shy about it. They say that guns scare them. Further, they feel justified in being scared because since they see no valid reason to own guns, they believe the irrationality of gun owners justifies their fears.

I appreciate their honesty.

 

[Stanyon]

If it isn't different, then do you agree with the cake maker/gun seller or the gay couple/underage gun buyer?

The gun buyer was not under aged to buy a rifle according to Oregon state law

 

[esmith]

Knew this was going to happen.

Easy fix would have been for the States or Feds to pass laws. Perhaps they are afraid of taking on the NRA.

No, we in certain states take our right to possess firearms seriously. It would be the majority of the public here that would go after our legislators.

 

[idav]

It isn't a 2nd Amendment lawsuit. The 2A won't play here. It is a discrimination suit.

Regarding the people who want guns banned because they are scary, (though I am not sure what it has to do with my post): They exist. I am friends with a few. They are not shy about it. They say that guns scare them. Further, they feel justified in being scared because since they see no valid reason to own guns, they believe the irrationality of gun owners justifies their fears.

I appreciate their honesty.

Ive heard of people in fear when a gun is pointed at them. Can’t imagine why lol.

 

[esmith]

My take is that, being a store that carries weapons used in crimes is a lawsuit waiting to happen. Lawsuits can easily go the other way on this. The victims of FL can start suing gun stores. That’s just me guessing though I’m not trying to give any victims bright ideas.

That idea has already be shot down.
Waring biased source
FACT CHECK: Gun Manufacturers Can't Be Sued For Crimes Committed With Their Products?

 

[Nakosis]

No, we in certain states take our right to possess firearms seriously. It would be the majority of the public here that would go after our legislators.

But... the children.

 

[idav]

That idea has already be shot down.
Waring biased source
FACT CHECK: Gun Manufacturers Can't Be Sued For Crimes Committed With Their Products?

Does wal mart manufacture guns? I wasn’t aware.

 

[Curious George]

For those of you who believe that businesses establishing age limits is discriminatory, can I assume that you also believe the same about businesses who refuse to serve homosexuals? I hate to imagine that anyone here would be a two-faced hypocrite.

Absolutely. In fact, I believe that discrimination based on orientation is more egregious. We have a large list of status offenses for minors and people under the age of 21. Granted, a host of rationale goes into these, but an 18 year old will be 21 in 3 years.

I certainly feel more harm is caused by discrimination against people based on orientation.

 

[Revoltingest]

Perhaps not necessarily here, but you well know the reaction many conservatives had when miscellaneous states started legalizing gay marriage and cannabis.

I don't think it's useful to make vague accusations of hypocrisy.
Hypocrites lurk on both sides anyway, so what's to be gained
by pointing it out for one but not the other?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Unintended consequences?

My prediction about the unintended consequences here: I think this will end with these companies just not selling these weapons at all any more.

Think about it:

- there was enough public outcry about selling these guns to "kids" that the companies decided that they had to act.
- the law in this state and others apparently says that if they sell to 40-year-olds, they have to sell the same product to 18-year-olds.

Both concerns get resolved if they just don't sell a weapon at all if they think they'll get blowback for selling it to an 18-year-old.

 

[idav]

My prediction about the unintended consequences here: I think this will end with these companies just not selling these weapons at all any more.

Think about it:

- there was enough public outcry about selling these guns to "kids" that the companies decided that they had to act.
- the law in this state and others apparently says that if they sell to 40-year-olds, they have to sell the same product to 18-year-olds.

Both concerns get resolved if they just don't sell a weapon at all if they think they'll get blowback for selling it to an 18-year-old.

Yup, fact is people have been after these stores for years for even selling these weapons. It’s a loser to sell them to begin with unless it’s really for hunting and not “defense”.

 

[Stanyon]

Does wal mart manufacture guns? I wasn’t aware.

But they do carry many countries products such as shoes, clothes, etc. made in factories with appalling working conditions, near slave wages, child labour and poor safety.

 

[esmith]

Exactly. There must be a reason why even the more fanatic among the 2A advocates don't cry foul over restrictions on fully automatic firearms, rocket propelled grenades, etc. It goes to show that even they realize that a line must be drawn somewhere, and that line is obviously not set in stone given the evolution of guns since the muskets of the revolutionary war era.

The major reason that the regulation of automatic weapons was not challenged in 1934 National Firearms Act was that it was a give and take proposition. Giving up automatic firearms was seen as the best outcome. However it was challenged in 1968 and basically gutted based on the 5th Amendment and was rewritten by Congress. Then in 1986 it was amended again to exclude the ownership by civilians of automatic weapon manufactured after May 19th 1986, those manufactured prior to May 19th 1986 are still legal to own by a civilian.

 

[Quetzal]

I don't see this sticking. Although, my understanding of the legality of it all is pathetically poor.

 

[BSM1]

My prediction about the unintended consequences here: I think this will end with these companies just not selling these weapons at all any more.

Think about it:

- there was enough public outcry about selling these guns to "kids" that the companies decided that they had to act.
- the law in this state and others apparently says that if they sell to 40-year-olds, they have to sell the same product to 18-year-olds.

Both concerns get resolved if they just don't sell a weapon at all if they think they'll get blowback for selling it to an 18-year-old.

Are you saying that 18 year old's shouldn't have access to assault weapons?

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't see this sticking. Although, my understanding of the legality of it all is pathetically poor.

One thing I'm certain of is that anything can happen in court.
The plaintiff has a good case, but to quote my lawyer....
"You can have a perfect case with a guaranteed win. And 85% of the time you will."