20-Year-Old Gets Settlement From Dick’s

The controversial big box sporting goods retailer and a 20-year-old Oregon man, who was refused a gun based on his age, have reached a settlement.

Tyler Watson, who claimed that Dick’s violated the state’s discrimination statutes after they refused to sell him a rifle because he was not at least 21 years old, has reportedly reached an agreement to end a pending lawsuit. The terms of the settlement have not been released but the man had sought $1 million in damages.

Watson filed his legal challenge earlier this year after he tried to buy a Ruger 10/22 from a Field & Stream store, owned by Dick’s, in Medford and was refused due to his age. While federal regulators advise licensed gun dealers they can exercise their right to refuse potentially unlawful firearms transactions, Watson brought Dicks to court over Oregon’s discrimination protections where the law seemed to be on the would-be gun buyer’s side.

“From the text of the statute, it looked like a very strong case,” Jim Oleske, a professor at Lewis and Clark Law School specializing in anti-discrimination law, told Oregon Public Broadcasting in reference to the filing.

Dick’s in February changed its gun policy to refuse sales of firearms and ammunition to those under age 21. The change, coupled with a shift towards advocating for more national regulation on firearms and embracing gun control advocates, resulted in making the brand a pariah of sorts in the gun industry, as several manufacturers severed ties with the retailer. Dick’s has subsequently reported a drop in sales and has signaled they may move away from stocking hunting products altogether.

As for Watson, he still has a separate lawsuit pending against Walmart, a chain that adopted a similar policy to Dick’s. Watson tried to purchase a gun from the Walmart location in Grant’s Pass and was refused. In August, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries found that a teen, Hannah Brumbles, was the victim of age discrimination in violation of state accommodations law after the retailer refused to sell her a gun over their new internal policy.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade group for the firearms industry, warns FFLs that at least nine states and Washington, D.C. allow for a private right of action where it comes to age discrimination laws.

source: guns.com

  • Patrick Feeney

    Anti-gun sporting goods stores can KMA!

  • Terry Butts

    The law would be on their side as the store blatantly discriminated against him based on his age refusing a legal sale to someone based solely on their race, religion, age, gender etc. as stated in the law is discrimination.

    • Paul Dragotto

      THEY DRAFETD ME INTO THE ARMY WHEN I WAS 19. IF YOU ARE FORCED TO GO INTO SERVICE, THEN YOU SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO BUY A LONG GUN! VIETNAM WAS NO JOY RIDE AT 19 TRUOGH 21. I’M GLAD I BEACME A RANGER. CALIFORNIA, HAS TIS LAW ALSO. PLUS THE LAW OF AGE DISCRIMINATION. THEN IF YOU EVEN TRY TO PUSS THEM, YOUR BAND FROM THE GUN STORE. IN SO CAL, WE HAVE ABOUT 5 GUN STORES IN A 20 MILE RADIUS. NOW ALL THE LIBERAL CITY COMMISERNORS ARE NOT RENEWING THERE RIGHTS TO SEL FIREARMS IN CERTAIN CITIES.

      • George Cullen

        Hi Paul, First, THANK YOU for taking the point in the hell of VN.
        Its an incredible kind of crazy in any state that gladly sends its greatest commodity off to fight America’s longest war. Puts an M4 full-auto rifle in their hands, as 18 year old brave, galliant heroes, but when they come home on leave, are told its unlawful for them to purchase a .22 rifle so they can plink some soup cans and milk jugs with Dad and 16 year old brother or sister. Woah! Big danger! Too young! Unworthy of trust!
        Its an egregious sin how these socialist lawmakers in nanny states usurp the Constitution.
        The sick irony is the soldier is going to go back to work, instead of a cushy office he’ll be
        back in Afghanistan, M4 in hand, fighting every day to stay alive, and try and keep his buddies safe so maybe when they go home they can wait a year or two before they’re trusted enough for that rickity little .22
        (Better make sure its not black. Those are sooo scarey.)

  • Bionic Skunk

    Federalist Papers 29, Para. 7

    Reads in part; ( set text to bold)

    By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments,(a standing Army) but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude THAT ARMY CAN NEVER BE FORMIDABLE TO THE LIBERTIES OF THE PEOPLE WHILE THERE IS A LARGE BODY OF CITIZENS, LITTLE, IF AT ALL, INFERIOR TO THEM IN DISCIPLINE AND THE USE OF ARMS, WHO STAND READY TO DEFEND THEIR OWN RIGHTS AND THOSE OF THEIR FELLOW-CITIZENS. THIS APPEARS TO ME THE ONLY SUBSTITUTE THAT CAN BE DEVISED FOR A STANDING ARMY, AND THE BEST POSSIBLE SECURITY AGAINST IT, IF IT SHOULD EXIST.”

    Opinion; The Militia, as stated here in the Federalist Papers #29 para, 7, states the need for a Militia is to counter a US Standing Army…. Who stands ready to defend their own Rights (the Rights of the Citizens) and those of their fellow Citizens…. That the Standing Army can never be formidable to the Liberties of the people…… In my eyes, this goes against even the restrictions on Automatic weapons….. any equipment….any Arms…..anything the Standing Army has, We The People should also have….

    • CrustyOldGeezer

      The revolutionary War was originally fought with PRIVATELY OWNED artillery and ARMED MERCHANT VESSELS, and the ‘troops’ were ARMED CIVILIANS that provided their OWN WEAPONS, but depended on powder ans shot from the newly, not yet formed, ‘government.

      The Second Amendment is SPECIFIC TO MILITARY WEAPONRY!

      Amendment II

      A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

      From wickerpeeduh “Militia: A militia is generally an army or some other fighting organization of non-professional soldiers, citizens of a nation, or subjects of a state, who can be called upon for military service during a time of need, as opposed to a professional force of regular, full-time military personnel, or historically, members of a warrior nobility ”

      From the Founders: “Tenche Coxe: “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia.
      Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…
      The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” – Tenche Coxe,
      The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.” (Emphasis added)

      Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts: “Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon
      their ruins.” (spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789.)

      Patrick Henry: “Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more
      propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?, 3 Elliot Debates 168-169.

      There is a lot more at http://sightm1911.com/lib/rkba/ff_militia.htm

      • Paul Dragotto

        YOU TOOK CONSTUTITONAL LAW ALSO. THEN WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO NATIONAL GUN CONFISACTION, IT WILL BE THE UN AND LOCAL POLICE AND SAWT. SO LIVE FREE AND DIE WELL.FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS. PLUS MANY WILL GO WITH ME WHO TRYS TO TAKE AWAY MY RGHT TO BEAR ARMS. GOT THAT, DEEP STATE!

        • CrustyOldGeezer

          The UN and the ‘law enforcement’ people will never forget the FACT that BEFORE obammie, there were a ‘known’ 80 Million Law Abiding Gun Owners in America.

          It’s probably closer to 125-130 million now with a good number of those are UNKNOWN.

          Take into consideration the Hunting Licenses sold in EVERY STATE, except maybe Hawaii, numbers in the millions and THE WILL NOT ‘go quietly into the night’.

          As long as bloody blue helmets will be trophies, the carpenters of America will continue building walls to hang them on.

          • Proudvietvet58

            CrustyOldGeezer, The numbers are closer to 350 Million guns in private Citizens hands. That number does NOT reflect those weapons handed down from Father to Son.

          • CrustyOldGeezer

            Proudvietvet58

            You trying to confuse the libs?

            I’m talking PEOPLE and your estimates of guns in the hands of Americans is way low.

    • Proudvietvet58

      Bionic Skunk, I agree whole heartedly with you Sir! What ever weapons our Military has, we should be allowed ease of access to with NO INFRINGEMENT to the same !!!

  • Proudvietvet58

    I LOVE IT! We need more like this young man to stand up to Government over reach! I applaud this man!

    THE very reason Dicks will NEVER see a penny of my money!!

  • jack

    any law made against guns is unconstiutional