Due to the recent mass school shooting in Florida, several big name chains have updated their policies on firearm and ammunition sales, raising the minimum age to purchase them from 18 to 21 years, and some choosing to stop carrying and selling AR-15 type rifles altogether.

However, there have been a few discrimination lawsuits filed in the state of Oregon over the new store policies, citing a state law on age discrimination. A 20 year old is suing wal-mart and Dick's Sporting goods for refusing to sell them a rifle in .22 LR and another 20 year old is suing Kroger for refusing to sell them shotshells. Do you think they should have a case and the stores should be required to sell or do you side with the stores' right to update their policies and refuse sale?

Please note this is less a discussion on firearms ownership than it is a discussion on private industry and regulation. I for one am very pro-gun but believe the stores should be able to discriminate however they like.

I don't think they have a case.
The store's policy, as long as its in accordance with the minimum age (18) could be anything they wish.

TBH, I think it will hurt them more than anything.
That's a lot of sales they won't get.

I think it is age discrimination for a very simple reason: Why was 18 and 19 year old me allowed to have a gun in the military, but not from these stores? 

It is definitely age discrimination, and I beleive an infringement on the 2nd Ammendment. 

I believe the stores have a right to refuse. In fact the law says (unless it's a local thing for us) that a store can refuse service for any reason. Suing for this is like suing a website for not allowing you to post a picture or comment that another site did, claiming a right to freedom of speech or some such nonsense.

People just want things to sue for. If that store won't sell firearms to you and you want them, buy them somewhere else.

Vanelan : That store policy could be conflicting with state law, though. True enough, what I read was vague, but it's like that with most laws that I've seen. I don't feel like a lawyer would've taken the job if there was no way they could win. Then again, I suppose it'll also come down to what judge you get. Urban Oregon doesn't care for firearms much and that could influence things, I imagine.


thing1 : It is age discrimination, but where is the line drawn on the free market and intervention? I draw the line on power concentration level. I would be in favor of regulation if these were companies that have major influence on the individual's life. I don't really believe that's the case here, though. I would equate buying a gun from Walmart or Dick's with buying a gun from an uncle or a grandfather because it's a private transaction. And just like I believe the government shouldn't make an uncle sell their nephew his Ruger, government shouldn't force these chains to sell if they don't want to.

We have to consider what kind of a precedent it would set. Forcing the company to sell the arms or ammunition now will mean other stores will be forced to sell other things to other people in the future. So for my own consistency's sake, I have to side with the company's right to discriminate however they like out of principle, whether I like their decision or not.

m0ssb3rg935 : Cool. You can't go to McDonalds now becuase you are a certain age. 
It's the same principle, and there are laws against Age Discrimination. This is illegal. 

If the store were to have some kind of unique background check policy or something like that, then I'd be fine with that. But I'm not okay with being discriminated against just because my age.  

I would use the gay couple and the bakery example here, however, that's a tricky subject. Both religious freedoms and sexuality are covered under Discrimination Laws. So the question becomes where can you draw the line? Unless the stores comes up with some reason that would not be a violation of a discrimination law, which age is, then I'm not ok with it. 

And before somebody says something about 18 being age discrimination, that's the age where you legally become an adult, and that's when most of these laws actual affect you, just like laws about Child Labor affect you up until your 18 (I think there might be an exception if you are 16, and are legally on your own. I'm not sure though.)

I would think the stores have a right to set their own policies. If the store in question "per case," was the only place in town to make a purchase, maybe. But businesses have the right to refuse business without cause to any customer. It is when they say why they are refusing service, businesses get in trouble. Additionally, I'm sure there are plenty of other stores extremely close by that do not have as strict store policies in place.

Interesting to see this kind of debate as a foreigner (I'm Finnish). Personally I've always admired the relaxed gun laws in the states. Well, stereotypically relaxed anyway, most people here don't realize it varies as much as it does within USA.

In Finland you could until recently buy a gun at 15 years old, provided you've gone through the required byrocracy. The limit is now 18, but you can still own a gun for hunting reasons at 15 years old. We still have pretty tight gun laws unfortunately, you have to get a permit for each gun you buy and you have to always go through police, and you have to be hunter or an active gun hobbyist. Despite this,every ninth person in Finland owns a legal gun and gun owners own on average 3 guns. I'd like to see the gun laws being loosened here, preferably before people forget how bad redgreen governments and vote them in power again. I'd be pretty pissed to see a minimum age of 21 here, despite being well over it myself. And I hope Americans don't give in to yet another leftist slippery slope either.

Yee-haw, bangity bang bang bang.

PS : We also have conscription, so around 70% of the male population is trained on how to handle guns among other things. Not that the lesson sticks to everyone, though.