Sunday, September 02, 2018

Oregon Walmart Violated Civil Rights When it Refused Sale of Rifle to 18-Year-Old


In Oregon, a young woman has won a civil rights case against Walmart. A Walmart in Helena, Oregon refused to sell a rifle to young woman because she was not 21 years old. She sued Walmart and won under  the Oregon Civil Rights law on age discrimination.  From wweek.com:
The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries found this week that a Walmart store in St. Helens violated the state's nondiscrimination laws when it refused to sell a rifle to a woman who was not yet 21 years old.

Hannah Brumbles, 18, of Deer Island, Ore., filed a civil rights complaint with the state agency in April. She says Walmart discriminated against her by refusing to sell her a rifle, even though Oregon law says individuals over 18 may legally purchase firearms. BOLI agrees.
Federal law restricts the sale of rifles, from federal dealers, to people 18 or older.

In Oregon, the policy ran directly into the Oregon state law forbidding age discrimination. From oregonlaws.org:
(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.
Federal age discrimination law does not apply in this circumstance. Federal age discrimination law only applies to those who obtain benefits from the Department of Labor, or to employment matters. In employment, it only applies to those age 40 or older.

One of the primary tools used to attack Second Amendment rights in the United States is the "salami slice" method. Second Amendment rights are attacked a little bit at a time. Each law, regulation, or restriction infringes on Second Amendment rights a little bit more. Eventually, the exercise of Second Amendment rights is so constrained that almost any exercise of those rights is legally impossible.

One of the latest attempt to infringe on Second Amendment rights is to further restrict the age at which a person can exercise their rights. An enormous slice was taken in 1968, when federally licensed dealers were forbidden to sell pistols to anyone under the age of 21. They were forbidden to sell rifles or shotguns to anyone under the age of 18.  Younger people could still possess firearms, but they could not buy them from federally licensed dealers.

Previously, there were no federal age restrictions on the sale of firearms. States had some restrictions on minors carrying pistols. In general, minors could carry arms with parents permission, or if they were emancipated.

In 1994, during the Clinton administration, another salami slice was taken. The federal government forbade people from under the age of 18 from possessing handguns altogether, except in very limited circumstances.  Minors could still carry handguns, with written permission of their parents.

The current salami slice it to increase the age to purchase rifles and shotguns from 18 to 21. Considerable social pressure has been put on national retail establishments to engage in this type of age discrimination.

In Oregon, Walmart and other establishments are forbidden, by law, from implementing the salami slice being pushed by those who want a disarmed population. One nanny state police ran directly into another nanny state policy.

Alexis de Tocqueville, a brilliant observer of the American democratic experiment, considered how tyranny might come to America. He wrote this in 1840:
After having thus taken each individual one by one into its powerful hands, and having molded him as it pleases, the sovereign power extends its arms over the entire society; it covers the surface of society with a network of small, complicated, minute, and uniform rules, which the most original minds and the most vigorous souls cannot break through to go beyond the crowd; it does not break wills, but it softens them, bends them and directs them; it rarely forces action, but it constantly opposes your acting; it does not destroy, it prevents birth; it does not tyrannize, it hinders, it represses, it enervates, it extinguishes, it stupifies, and finally it reduces each nation to being nothing more than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.
In 1971, the United States, by the 26th Amendment, extended the right to vote to people 18 years old, or older. Voting is far more powerful than possessing a firearm.

©2018 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch




2 comments:

  1. The core problem stems from making the drinking age 21. That gave the nannies the idea that they could dole out a citizen's rights in dribs and drabs. I know that the change is supposed to curb young deaths caused by drunkenness, but I am not persuaded that the statistics quoted are even remotely honest. In any case I have watched for some decades as the Morally Superior People contemplated the results of telling young people "You can vote, if we go to war we can draft those of you who are men (another issue), you can marry, you can enter into contracts that will beggar you for life without consulting anybody....but don't drink for three more years", astonished that so many of those young people give them the two finger salute, and drink anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  2. A wide range of problems exist because too many people fail to actually read the laws as written. some how they think their opinion should be the law. fact if it is not written it can not be enforced , assumed or implied.. I take exception to the 40 age limit mentioned in this article. I think a proper case can be made that it is unconstitutional. the government has changed the age for a legal adult a few times. Normally 21 is standard. what can possibly be a reason to discriminate between 21 and 40?. You have to be at least 30 to be elected to the senate. the 1964 civil rights act and the 14th amendment guarantee equal rights and no discrimination for age in adult legislation. under the constitution you are just as adult at age 21 as you are at age 40. this issue keeps popping up with the number of liberals in congress, they never reference facts or limitations in the constitution. a current issue that sticks in my craw is the FISA. specifically written, congress has the authority to create INFERIOR courts to the supreme court, No authority to create secret courts that take written authority from the supreme court. written the supreme court shall have original jurisdiction in all foreign matters, FOREIGN ISA. whether the supreme court likes it or not it has jurisdiction of foreign warrants. It requires a constitutional amendment to take that written authority from the supreme court. Congress can not amend the constitution by passing an act. therefore FISA is unconstitutional. every bit of illegally collected evidence the Mueller probe has collected cant be used in a court of law That was obtained by an illegal FISA court warrant. that court is unconstitutional.

    ReplyDelete

Spammers: You are wasting your time. Irrelevant comments will not be published