Many of us have been thinking it, but an Oregon newspaper recently raised an interesting question. Are retailers that decide to arbitrarily raise the age for gun sales violating anti-discrimination laws? According to Willamette Week, a Portland-based alternative weekly, there are 17 Fred Meyer stores in the Beaver State that sell firearms. Bi-Mart also announced the change in policy. However, a retired Lane County judge, Jim Hargreaves, says the decision by retailers might slam head on into Oregon state law. Oregon law states that any person over 18 can purchase a gun, and that the anti-discrimination law says anybody of legal age can’t be denied something available to others.
According to Willamette Week, a Portland-based alternative weekly, there are 17 Fred Meyer stores in the Beaver State that sell firearms. Bi-Mart also announced the change in policy. However, a retired Lane County judge, Jim Hargreaves, says the decision by retailers might slam head on into Oregon state law. Oregon law states that any person over 18 can purchase a gun, and that the anti-discrimination law says anybody of legal age can’t be denied something available to others.
Coincidentally, a column appearing in the Boston Globe Monday takes a more detailed look at this firearms sales controversy. Jeff Jacoby, writing in the column “Arguable,” has some interesting observations.
“In many states, 18 is the minimum age to purchase a rifle and certain other guns,” Jacoby writes, “The companies’ new policy amounts to discrimination on the basis of age. But that didn’t seem to disturb many people who, in other circumstances, would be outspoken in denouncing discrimination on the basis of innate or personal traits. The New York Times reported that Twitter messages referring to Dick’s skyrocketed after the company’s announcement, and ‘about 79% of the tweets had a positive sentiment … including supportive messages from Hollywood actors and actresses.’
“Would the responses have been so supportive,” Jacoby then asks, “had Dick’s, Walmart, and L.L. Bean announced — in the wake, say, of a jihadist terror attack — that they would no longer sell weapons to Muslims? Not from Hollywood and the left, it wouldn’t. But it doubtless would have drawn cheers from plenty of other Americans, presumably including many of those who were outraged by the companies’ new decision to deny guns to customers under 21.”
Depending upon how a state’s law is written, Oregon may not be the only jurisdiction where political correctness collides with the law.
Since the policy announcements last week, Second Amendment activists have raised other red flags, including the alleged hypocrisy of allowing young adults age 18 and over to enlist in the military – where they are issued weapons and ammunition and sent around the world to defend this nation and its constitution – but can’t buy a gun at home.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) has also released a fast facts page detailing the Age Discrimination Laws: What FFLs Need to Know.
The situation could be the makings of interesting legal arguments. You be the judge. How would you rule on the legality of arbitrarily raising the age to buy a firearm or any other product. Are they protected or in violation of anti-Discrimination laws? Share your answers in the comment section.
Sign up for K-Var’s weekly newsletter and discounts here.
Indirect discrimination or direct discrimination. Restricting People who are going to an NRA Show from getting a discount on their flight (Delta) just because they don’t support it is indirect but the age factor may be direct, so I support raising the age to Vote and Join the Military to 21 if congress thinks 18 is to young to own a firearm to protect themselves and their family…So they should be protected and should be able to file suit and that the threat of a suit is “imminent.