Following the latest school carnage in Florida, Dick’s Sporting Goods announced that it will no longer sell guns to persons under the age of 21. Dick’s is not alone. Walmart has adopted the same policy. The NRA is worried. It can’t bribe these retail outlets as easily as it can our legislative representatives.
In response, it comes as no surprise that at least two 18 year old plaintiff Dicks have sued the defendant Dicks for refusing to allow them to buy a shot gun.
The plaintiff Dicks claims that since the law permits an 18 year old to purchase and own a gun, it is per se discriminatory and a violation of their civil rights for defendant Dicks to refuse to sell them a shotgun (or any other kind of gun that lawfully can be purchased). Really? Think so?
“Discrimination” is universally defined to mean “treating a person or a group unfairly or unreasonably based on their characteristics, including in particular race, sex, sexual preference, religion or age.” Don’t take my word for it. Google it.
The civil rights laws under which the plaintiff Dicks are suing all speak in terms of “discriminating” on the basis of, in this instance, age. The fact that the law may permit an 18 year old to own a gun does not necessarily mean that refusing to sell a gun to a person under, say, 21 is necessarily discriminatory, i.e., unfair or unreasonable.
I’m not playing word games with you here.
The fact that such sale would not be unlawful doesn’t mean that refusing to make such a sale is discriminatory, i.e., unfair or unreasonable. There is more to evaluating discrimination, i.e., unfairness or unreasonableness, than lawfulness.
For example, if there are credible studies showing that, on average, persons under 21 tend to be less responsible than persons over 21, it would not necessarily be discriminatory, i.e., unfair or unreasonable, for the defendant Dicks to draw such a distinction in formulating their sales policies. Lawfulness is just one factor. Age may well be another factor.
We use age to distinguish all kinds of rights: the right to obtain a driver’s license, the right to purchase liquor, the right to vote, to name just a few. Yes, these instances are supported by applicable laws, but the underlying rationale for these laws relates to considerations of age and maturity. As they say, “youth is often wasted on the young.”
So, even without an underlying prohibiting law, it may not necessarily be discriminatory for a purveyor to make such a preclusive determination and to formulate such a preclusive policy when it comes to selling guns. After all, where is it written that only legislatures can define reason and fairness, the foundational elements of discrimination?
Don’t misunderstand me. A court of law could probably go either way on these pending lawsuits. Decisions in cases such as these tend to be driven more by how the judges feel personally than on some arguably controlling legal analyses. Different courts may come out differently on these suits. (However, those judges who would decide this differently than I would, might also be considered dicks. Might?) Thus, it could ultimately fall to the U.S. Supreme Court to finally decide this question.
It’s pretty clear that our legislative representatives are easily and shamelessly subject to the undue influence of the NRA lobbyists, more dicks for sure (both our representatives and the lobbyists). The Supreme Court has recently shown that it is not quite so susceptible. Gun advocates may have gambled unwisely in instituting these multiple lawsuits. However, desperate parties make desperate decisions.
Dicks abound everywhere we look. Will the real Dicks please stand up! And please be shot down!
Join the discussion either by logging in just below or by signing into your favorite social media outlet. If you’re having ?trouble, please follow these instructions to guide you! Thanks!
