Dick’s and Walmart are currently being sued for age discrimination. (Photo: Mike Mozart/YouTube)
Both Walmart and Dick’s Sporting Goods announced last month that they would stop selling firearms to anyone under the age of 21. But their do-gooder plans have hit a snag in Oregon, where a 20-year-old is suing both companies for “age discrimination.”
Tyler Watson tried to purchase a Ruger 10/22 from Dick’s subsidiary Field and Stream and an unspecified rifle from Wal-Mart, according to the official complaints. In both instances, the clerk informed Watson of the company’s new policy not to sell rifles, shotguns, or ammunition to anyone under the age of 21, and denied the purchase.
Watson and his attorneys argue that these policies violate Oregon Statue 659A.403, which bars age discrimination in places of “public accommodation” like retail stores. The law makes specific exceptions for alcohol and marijuana sellers, but does not make an exception from firearms dealers:
659A.403 Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited.
(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.
(2) Subsection (1) of this section does not prohibit:
(a) The enforcement of laws governing the consumption of alcoholic beverages by minors and the frequenting by minors of places of public accommodation where alcoholic beverages are served;
(b) The enforcement of laws governing the use of marijuana items … by persons under 21 years of age and the frequenting by persons under 21 years of age of places of public accommodation where marijuana items are sold; or
(c) The offering of special rates or services to persons 50 years of age or older.
(3) It is an unlawful practice for any person to deny full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation in violation of this section….
These retailers didn’t just violate the law, according to the complaints. They “willfully” violated it by issuing press releases and other materials advertising their decision to discriminate based on age.
SEE ALSO: Dick’s Will No Longer Sell ARs, High-Cap Mags
The complaints don’t mention this specifically, but these willful violations likely include Dick’s CEO Edward Stack’s virtue signaling in every major media outlet.
“When we saw what happened in Parkland, we were so disturbed and upset,” Stack said in an interview with the New York Times. “We love these kids and their rallying cry, ‘Enough is enough.’ It got to us.”
He added, “We’re going to take a stand and step up and tell people our view and, hopefully, bring people along into the conversation.”
Stack’s PR gambit may come back to bite him. Despite his company’s insistence that the policy is “in accordance with the law,” legal experts like UCLA’s Eugene Volokh call the case “open and shut for the plaintiff and against Dick’s.”
The Democrat-controlled Oregon legislature could always amend the law to include a firearm exception or raise the age limit for firearm purchases for all retailers, but for now it looks like Watson is going to get his guns.
Dick’s CEO said he made his lame decision after he saw what happened in Parkland. Well, how in the hell did he ever make it to the top of the corporate ladder if he cannot discern fact from fiction!!! Nobody died at Parkland StonedKids high school. Ray Charles could’ve seen that the event was another staged theatrical faked false flag! When the witnesses tell different stories than that of the official government/media version, that’s the 1st clue to the event being faked and the story fiction……Just because the government officials follow through with all the trimmings as if it were real, make no mistake they are lying their asses off, but are getting paid big $$$$$$ to do so and to keep their mouths shut with the truth!
So the same people who would insist that some youngsters only 18 years of age should be able to vote, an especially important citizen function, should not be allowed to purchase a modest firearm at age 20? Nuts. Only crackpot lawyers would try to justify requiring age 21 for citizen rights. Do these same people insist that only 21 years and above should serve in the military? No? Then that tells us all we need know of these people’s sense of justice and capacity to think logically.
Federal law says 18 years old to purchase the firearms he wanted. Wal Marts are not even allowing 20 year olds to purchase firearms that FEDERAL LAW says they can purchase.
Store policy does not trump Federal Law. By not selling firearms to those who pass the background checks and are of the age shown in the Federal Law, the stores have violated not only the Federal Law under the age requirements, but have also discriminated against the purchaser under the violation of the Federal Law.
Unless the purchaser does not pass the background check, and does not exhibit unusual or violent behavior, the store is obligated to sale the firearm regardless of company policy.
Myself, I hope the kid gets a jury that understands this simple rule and gets everything he can.
If the companies wish to keep appealing the case, if they lose, then hopefully he will ask for a court order to
cease and desist all sales from them until the trial finishes any appeals.
It’s been done before. How long do you think they could not stand selling all those cheese curls Chinese goods?
Attorney supporters of the 2nd Amendment, how about a class action discrimination lawsuit on behalf of all 18-20 year olds.
It’s almost laughable if it wasn’t so dumb: the government banned alcohol and created bootleg gangs and gang wars. Then they banned drugs and that is one of the biggest businesses in the world. These nuts at Dickie poos think making a rule that they don’t sell guns to certain people will keep guns out of the hands of criminals. It reminds me of when they banned switchblade knives. I did not know about the ban, walked into a small store and bought one and took it home to use as a letter opener. I didn’t even know about the law that was supposed to prevent me from stabbing someone…..but then I never wanted to stab anyone.
So consider the majority of the shooters have been over 21 this makes absolutely no sense and if a person is able to fight and die for this country’s rights and freedoms at 18 they should be able to buy the rifle at 18. Or they can raise age for enlisting to 21 and no exceptions and no jury duty or any of the other things that they required at 18 I mean that’s only fair if you’re not going to let them has a Rewards of being an adult that shouldn’t have to pay the cost of being an adult.
“Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don’t.” – Anonymous
well dicks you have earned the name—it looks good on you
Let’s get every 18-20 year old we know to go into every store and when denied the right to have a gun sold to them they should than file a lawsuit. Maybe if we get enough they will than be forced to get rid of their rediculous law they chose to do themselves
Please let them do it before they stop selling altogether. Hopefully more do this soon
This is what happens when a company make policy based on emotion and not good business sense. It exposes the company and it’s share holders to undue adverse finance burden like legal action especially when it is discriminatory. CEO’s and others making unwise and risky decisions should be terminated.
A bakery can be sued for thousands of dollars for refusing to make and sell a wedding cake they feel is objectionable or offensive. I guess if these two retailers are insensed and offended by 20 year-olds who are legally able to purchase, use, or posess a firearm in that state then Dicks and Walmart should be forced by the court to complete the sale or to pay damages as well?
The companies who are acting on what happened in FL . are only doing it too
#1 Keep a good image in the eye’s of customers who
don’t like handguns or rifles.
#2 It’s all about the money they will loose if they are boycotted ..
Question:
Why is a person adult enough to drive a motor vehicle at 16 , and is mature enough to be subject
to draft at 18 ? Yet not old enough to consume alcohol , or purchase firearms or ammunition ?
Hell , there’s probably no age limit for use of medical maraijuana !
A little consistency might be a good idea , don’t we think ?
Better yet, why is a person able to join the military at age 17 or 18 and protect their country but unable to protect themselves under the 2nd Amendment?
We can have 18-20 yr olds join military and fight a war and shoot all types of guns and weapons over seas but we can’t let them own it here back home. Something is wrong with that picture
They will no longer get my business. I will buy from a business that supports my rights as well as others. NOT the Democrat idiots who no longer or never were able to think or care for themselves.
I agree. Same here.
I stopped shopping there long ago.
I was waiting for this to happen. It is legal for a 18-20 year old to buy a rifle. It is age discrimnination for a store to restrict it because they dont like it. Imagine if you restricted race or gender. If you want it another way then change the law but while you are at it change the age to vote to 21, the age to drive to 21, the age to join the militrary to 21.
How many crimes are committed by people 18-20 with a rifle. The amount for all age groups is negligable. The 18-20 age group is not even messurable.
While you have a constitutional right to own a firearm, there is no right that forces someone to sale you one. Also, age discrimination doesn’t kick in tell you are much older. Also the last Supreme Court ruling severely weakened it. I think 21 is a smart move, if your mot mature enough to drink alcohol maybe you shouldn’t be able to buy an AR. By your thinking a 12 year old should be able to by an AR. You have to be 21 to buy a pistol so what’s the big deal. If you think teenagers are mature enough to buy an AR you haven’t raised any.
It is precisely age discrimination. Age discrimination doesn’t “kick in” at any particular age, it’s unlawful to discriminate based on the grounds of age just as it’s unlawful to discriminate based on ethnicity…that doesn’t “kick in” only after a certain shade of skin. It may be more common for people to discriminate based on age against the older portion of the population, but it is not a problem exclusive to them nor are they the only age group protected from this under law.
Most people don’t raise responsible teens nowadays. Our problem with people is a reflection of our society and parents. There are good teens out there. Age discrimination isn’t just for older people. The law is age 18 for long rifles, so he has a right. Learn some correct grammar.
I have raised teenagers. That said hunters education teaches 11 year olds to hunt and safely use a fire arm, at 17 you can join the military and learn to use weapons and defend this country with your life. Yes you have to be 18 to buy a rifle, shotgun and ammo and an AR-15 is no different than any other semi auto it there. Any age discrimination is wrong period.
Matt esq?
You are suffering from the same disease as Dick’s CEO and a lot of politicians who are under the impression that if you say it loud enough and often enough it will become true and maybe even legal.
Maybe not but that does not exempt any one under the age of 21 from seeking legal representation and seek relief from a discriminatory policy. This perverse policy is a practice of discrimination base on age. It punishes those sane 18-21 year who have never broken any laws for actions of a single, deranged,misguided, insane 19 year old.
anyone to me that goes along with what these stores are doing is nothing but a commie to me. this is just what the lefty commie, progressives have been waiting on for you to give up a little now and then a little later and then a little more soon you won’t have any but that’s alright you just keep on playing into their hands they’ll love you for it. then they’ll come for other rights THEY think you you don’t need. lets not forget the main thing bad guys won’t and don’t care what they laws are and they’ll get their guns no matter what and then where will you be after these commies take all your rights away. you think it can’t be done, well tell that to all the other countries it’s happen to and look back in history at what happen when the dictators did to their people. give up a little of your rights for a false safety is not the way i want to live and not the way i was raised either.
It’s NOT about age discrimination.
I have heard several, even on Fox News, express views that they think 18 yoa ADULTS,
should not be able to possess an “assault” rifle. They are, of course referring to the AR-15
semi-auto rifle which is NOT an assault rifle. (PS: AR stands for Armelite Rifle NOT
assault rifle). The Military M-16 (fully auto) IS an assault rifle. The M-16 are not available to
the public Fully automatic versions of the AR-15 are available., but they are prohibitively
expensive (as much as $25,000 and up) and it is ALREADY illegal for an 18 yoa to purchase/own
a fully automatic firearm, so they can’t legally get an “assault rifle” in any case.
An 18 yoa ADULT is urged to join the military and serve his country, where he might well
have to utilize an Assault Rifle. An 18 yoa ADULT can be put in prison for life for certain
crimes and of course in jail for others. However an 18 yoa ADULT cannot be granted the
same right to defend himself or his family, as others have? A clear violation of Constitutional
Rights. That’s just wrong!
When the Department of Homeland Security orders M16s, they are labeled Personal Defense Weapons, not Assault Rifles. You can verify this yourself by visiting the Department of Homeland Security website and look at their solicitations and purchases. So, if federal government agencies are calling them Personal Defense Weapons, why do government officials insist the lesser AR15 is an Assault Rifle when in civilian hands?
Right on the mark!
Good for Tyler Watson I hope he gets a wheelbarrow full of cash from both of these greedy retailers. What a bunch of sh*t that this age discrimination ploy is going to have any impact whatsoever on preventing a mass school shooting. Had the FBI and local joke of a Sheriff’s Department in Florida done their job, the shooting in Florida would never have happened. Just a way for these greedy retailers to look good to the public. Perhaps they should have researched the state statutes in all states that they have stores before they decided to make the change? I wouldn’t shop in either one of these sh*thole stores if you paid me to do so.
About damn time we use the enemies systems to fight back. I support this lad 1000% and in fact have been suggesting this tactic in popular youtube firearms related chatrooms. Dicks and MalWart are discriminating based on age ALONE and that is illegal at the State and Federal levels. For far too long people have biatched and moaned and done NOTHING to fight back. No, your NRA membership isn’t fighting back, they are also part of the problem. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander
Federal law states that the final disposition of a firearm is at the sole discretion of the firearm dealer. Therefore, a gun dealer may refuse to sell a gun to whomever they deem unfit to own a firearm. The reason for this is that if someone passed the background check and is drunk, high on drugs or something else, the dealer does not have to turn over the firearm to them.
Not the same at ALL. This is pure age discrimination and illegal under State and Federal law
I disagree. There is a lot of “gray area” in what Bob Alexander just explained. If a company or even an individual decides that they don’t want to sell you a “Widget” then they don’t have to sell you a widget! Can’t you go & buy it from somebody else? How is that age discrimination? How would you like it if the Federal Government told you that you couldn’t be choosy in who you had to sell your guns to?
That discretion is to be applied at the individual level at point of sale on a case by case basis, what Walmart and Dick’s have done is make and enforce a policy that discriminates by age alone.
…Unless that widget is a cake for a gay wedding, then you will bake the cake or be put out of business.
I’d give you a 👌… but that might be considered racist
Kenton and Alexander you are both wrong. Read the following:
Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc.
In 1964, two African-Americans were refused service at a Piggie Park drive-in in Columbia, S.C., because of their race. In the civil rights lawsuit that followed, Piggie Park owner Maurice Bessinger justified the refusal to serve black customers based on his religious belief opposing “any integration of the races whatsoever.”
By the time Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. made it to the Supreme Court in 1968, the issue was the award of fees to the lawyers representing the black South Carolinians who sued Bessinger’s restaurants. But in a footnote to its unsigned 8-0 opinion, the court called the religious freedom argument and Bessinger’s other defenses “patently frivolous.”
Civil rights attorneys have pointed to that footnote as a possible guide for current justices regarding the gay cake case.
The gay cake case decision will be announced in June. That Colorado case is the one where the cake shop owners refused to decorate the cake acknowledging the gayness of the couple based on religious reasons. I don’t see how that ruling would differ from the 1964 case cited above. No you cannot discriminate based on race, creed, gender, age, etc. even if you are just a business selling items to the public.
In other words, you open your store for business and you cannot discriminate against shoppers based upon race, creed, gender, age etc. barring of course sale of cigarettes, alcohol to someone under age as defined in the law.
I’ve been wrong before & I’ll be wrong again. My point is that there’s more than 2 sides to this argument! Did you take the Bakers side in the gay cake story yet take the young buyers side in the rifle story? So many people jump when they hear that the Federal Government is making somebody or some company do something against their will (Bakers) & they scream when they can’t buy a rifle at Walmart or Dick’s but could buy one at another store just down the road.
The main reason Walmart & Dick’s are doing this is for PR/profit and we both know the best way to counter that!
Age discrimination is both, in most cases, illegal according to both state and federal laws. Company policy base on discriminatory practice is subject to legal action. Sure companies are free to make what ever policy they but those policies are subject to challenge in a court of law when a people feels they are hindered in their Constituional right. Why would any company with responsible leadership want to endanger their finances, credibility and public relation over an irresponsible, unreasonable, emotional, temporary social outrage?
Tell that to the bakery that refused to make a cake for Adam & Steve.
The problem is that rifles and carbines are a federally ‘regulated’ interstate commodity, and the federal law currently states 18 years of age is the minimum age. Oregon has no reason to increase to 18 years of age. Make selective service registration 21 years of age instead of 18. The US is full of contradictory firearm laws based upon illogical neo-leftist political agendas.
I look forward to reading the sour grapes comments when Dick’s and Wal-Mart decide to stop selling firearms and associated products all together.
Did you try and buy a tube of glue at Home Depot or a bottle of cough syrup at Publix recently???
I got the third degree from Lowe’s Hardware when returning some spray paint. They wanted my life history. I asked if there was a law that required them to gather so much personal information and to quiz me about my uses and habits with paint. They said no, but it’s our policy. I told them I don’t give a rat’s ass about your policy. I’m here to return a product and you just need to give me my money. There was no disclosure before the purchase that such a procedure was required for making a return. I ran into a similar situation at Best Buy. They wanted to scan my driver’s license for returning a TV antenna. I had my receipt and everything, and they were telling me because there is so much theft, they collect information on returns and share it with local police to scrutinize. I gave them a stern lecture about the fourth amendment and how they were enabling the police to investigate me without a warrant or probable cause. They said the bottom of my receipt states that an ID is required for all purchases. I told them, Firstly, I showed you my ID but you are not scanning it. Secondly, the receipt was given to me after the purchase was made, so your disclosure after the fact is not valid, and thirdly, I have a GD receipt for the friggin’ purchase. Then they asked me if I was a lawyer. I told them no, but I can hire one. They gave me my money.
Dick’s
Announced on national Tv,All radio stations,all news carryed the announcement.”they want sale no guns to any one under 21 years of age”. It was publicly announced….
Retail ,store has a criteria that changes ever day if they publicly announced what they’re going to do.
Dicks needs to turn around an sue the 20 yr. Old kid an the lawyer.as long as Dicks announcement was given the State can’t do a damn thing about…
So if Dicks publicly anounced they would not sell to African Americans that would make it OK?
We will see. Your final verdict may be a bit premature. Let the legal system do it’s job without making judgement.
I do not spend my money at any retail who will not support the constitution, nor any that I know are ran by democrats.
Hey snowflake, just FYI, the First Amendment comes before the second and the freedom to run their business anyway they see fit so long is also constitutionally protected. Remember that next time you myopically promote one amendment at the expense of the others.
Maybe so but that does not preclude seeking redress from unconstitutinal and discriminatory practices. Likewise I have the freedom to not patronize any company that does not recognize those rights. Also, please note that I reply to comment without calling you an ad hominem name.
Hey, Z. Q: Once the 2nd Ammendment is gone, and make no mistake about it that is the ultimate aim of the gun-control crowd, just how long do you think your 1st Ammendment “rights” will last; or, any of the rest for that matter. Don’t believe me? Try and espouse a conservative viewpoint on any number of “enlightened” college campuses. Watch what happens. I just hope that when your friendly neighborhood “Homeland Security” boys & girls come to politely ask us (heh, heh) to give up our guns, they start with your house. What’s that you say? You don’t own any evil guns? Don’t worry, they’ll think of some other right(s) you can give up instead. What fellow travelers and usefull idiots have always failed to understand is that authoritarians in this day and age have learned that they don’t have to seize power all at once by force. No, today’s benevolent totalitarians use the principal of the frog in the pot of water science demonstration you may remember from high school biology. If you drop a frog into a pot of boiling water, he’ll immediately jump out. However, place that same frog into a pot of room temperature wate and slowly raise it to a boil and that frog will sit there until it’s dead. This is what the leftist traitors in our midst hope to accomplish with not just gun control and abolising the 2nd Ammendment. They’re ultimate goal is just the same as when Obama gave voice to it after his election victory back in 2008-2009. It is to fundamentally change America and our way of life. And, they’re not going to do it with black helicopters and jackbooted thought police. They’re going to continue doing it as they have been for the last 50 years; by gaining ever more control over our youth through their increasing control over our educational system and our mass media.
If the present trend continues, I see America going one of two ways: Either we will become a socialist/communist-style dictatorship; or, there will be a violent uprising, and possibly a second civil war and breakup of the United States. Moreover, I’m convinced that whatever the outcome, it will happen within the next two generations…maybe even sooner. I believe it is impossible for the U.S. to continue in its present increasingly politically polarized condition for much longer. Unless the current trend is some how miraculously reversed. I do not believe this “great experiment” in democracy will survive. My advice to those who understand what’s now taking place in America is to prepare. You know what to do to protect your families and your future. Let’s get on with it.
Over edited.
..*so long as the business complies with federal laws is* also..
So your cool if they say “no guns for negros” because they announced it, right? I mean, it’s their constitutional right according to you. They don’t need any other reason than skin color to make that decision, since so many gang shootings are “those people”. /s
It is not a public accommodation to sell firearms. The public accommodation law is for motels, restaurants, and other establishments that sell services or maintain public marketplaces. So to me accommodations means people who are disabled, or are of color, or have foreign accents, or practice a certain religion are barred from entry. The act is clearly there to allow people to enter the store and shop there.
The store can limit who it sells certain products to which consumers. Let’s say someone walks in and says, “Gee I’m 21 but I want a gun that’s great for shooting through schools. Got an 88 magnum?” The store can refuse to sell a gun to that person.
If the store’s policy is only to sell firearms to persons over 21 because it wants to limit its liability then that’s fine. No different than a car dealer refusing to sell a car to someone who’s blind and can’t drive it off the lot without killing someone, or refusing to sell alcohol to someone who’s drunk.
They can also refuse to sell handguns, or long guns or both to anyone. There are limits to public accommodation laws.
Same difference if you require shirts and shoes with customers. Sorry but this is not a public accommodation issue. Think bathrooms, lunch counters, motels, etc.
And BTW, motel operators can refuse to rent a room to a minor; a car rental agency can refuse to rent to drivers under age 21 or 25, etc.
*sigh*
” So to me accommodations means people who are disabled, or are of color, or have foreign accents, or practice a certain religion are barred from entry. The act is clearly there to allow people to enter the store and shop there.”
What you’re describing is called a protected class or group; U.S. federal law protects individuals from discrimination or harassment based on sex, race, age, disability, color, creed, national origin or religion.
While there is a specific law which addresses employment discrimination for those over 40 years of age, it is still unlawful to discriminate based on a person being a member of a certain age group.
An FFL can lawfully decide to not sell to an individual 18 year old, for example because the FFL believes that individual to be too immature or reckless. What they cannot do is make a blanket policy against all 18 year olds simply due to their age.
Imagine if Wally-World had announced and implemented a policy of not selling (let’s say for argument’s sake) salt to African Americans because they (Wally-World) wanted to demonstrate their concern about the epidemic of hypertension in the AA community and wanted to “do something about it now and take a step towards saving lives”.
Can you imagine the ****storm that would ensue?
How about a policy to not sell a product to the elderly because they’re worried that the elderly may not understand how to use it properly?
More lawsuits are needed to clog up these companies in all the states that they pull this shit. Good for this young man.
I don’t think more lawsuits are needed. Lawsuits are your last resort, not the first one. Think about it, there are thousands of gun shops to go to that will sell a rifle to a guy or gal age 18 – 21. Theoretically the gun shop owner is in a better position to document the sale and comply with GCA requirements.
What I do think is that this lawsuit sets a bad precedent no matter who wins. I would like to be able to walk into my local hardware store, Sears, Walmart or whatever and buy a gun and not have to worry about anything different than purchasing at a gun shop. Walmart and other big box retailers sometimes do offer a better deal and they have the financial wherewithal to deal with all the litigation that results from firearms sales. The gun shop owner, as blessed as many are who are very careful and do their best to comply with all the laws and gauge customers during sales, etc., and have never faced a lawsuit, cannot weather some lawsuits.
In the old days I could walk into the local Ace and buy a rifle or handgun, ammo and everything else. No problem. Often did as those guys sometimes had the best deals believe or not. But with lawsuits so many have simply dropped the gun business altogether and don’t even sell ammo anymore. Many independents won’t even sell hunting gear for fear they might get sued.
So more lawsuits is not the answer. Public confidence in the gun industry is important. As much as the liberal anti-gun media and politicians want guns out, the truth is there are many more gun owners than will admit to owning a gun these days. Which makes even their poll numbers look stupid. Seriously, I’ve been bothered by pollsters on gun issues and I find myself simply refusing to go along with those polls.
If they really cared and wanted to make a “statement” they could just stop selling firearms altogether. That way there is no “discrimination”. But of course they won’t do that. That really hurts sales. I find all this so stupid and them wanting to jump into the limelight without really jumping. Insincere BS.
So I wonder why the country puts up with all the automobile fatalities of kids who are just 16? Those must be acceptable numbers.
When did Dick’s start selling AR’s again. They were so moved by outcries after Sandy Hook, that they quit selling them then.
I never see anyone actually buying (or looking at) guns at Dick’s, limited selection, & higher prices than other retailers. Maybe they should stop selling firearms, period.
In comparison shopping, I have found that most of Dick’s merchandise is regularly higher than most other retailers. Every now and then, Dicks will have a special sale worth taking advantage of.
I went into a Dick’s looking for a compass. All they had was a Coleman made in China. Cost way more than the exact same compass at Walmart. Figured that one out just checking it on my cell phone. Bottom line is today Dick’s is over priced. On the other hand they’re like a convenience store. Walmart doesnt have the huge selection and you won’t always find a Cabela’s or Bass Pro nearby, and even they’re high priced on some items. Costs money to operate a brick and mortar store.
Same here, I have never been able to buy anything from them. Too high!
I agree with Deanbob, for most everyday stuff they’re more expensive, but I have gotten a few amazing deals there over the years most from their Clearance rack for guns that people didn’t know the value of, or weren’t typical for that area.
Shame that they act and feel this way. Looks like I will take my business elsewhere.
I hope this 20 year old puts these 2 companies out of business.
Wal-Mart, the biggest retailer in America…out of business over this? Come on, man
Since auto accidents are the most significant cause of teen deaths, the driving age should be raised to 21. Also, the voting age should return to 21. If not responsible/mature enough to purchase a rifle, they certainly should not be piloting a 4,000 pound missile or making voting decisions
All good comments here, and as usual the comments are of more sense than the statements of Dick’s and Walmart spokespersons.
I would add the ongoing inherent contradiction that exists in the requirements of 18 year olds to register for selective service (I believe this still exists) and at least allowing 18 year olds to fight in our wars and join the military. Not only is that this is unconstitutional, it is pure hypocrisy.
Insurance companies discriminate against the 18-24 YO by not lowering their rates until age 25. Should we raise all age limits to 25? Of course not!
If an 18 to 20 YO can serve in the armed forces then they should be allowed to buy a firearm. Not every 18-20 YO, just those that served and elligible for honorable discharge.
Good for Tyler! I hope Dicks and Walmart have to extract that one out of their back side, when this is over!
Maybe we should raise the age you can fight in wars for Israel to 21?
And vote.
You are 100% correct, maybe to bankers and politicians can send their kids to fight the wars they start instead of sending them to a safe college.