One of the latest pushes by the anti-gun crusaders is to make it illegal to purchase any kind of firearm until you’re 21-years-old. The thinking seems to be that since we restrict people from drinking until they’re 21, we should do the same for buying a gun.
Nevermind that we issue 18-year-olds actual assault weapons in the military all the time, usually without even the hint of an incident. No, we need to “Do Something” (TM).
Well, Dick’s Sporting Goods has decided it doesn’t want to wait for legislation before acting like men and women serving in the military can’t be trusted with firearms. They’re starting right away.
Dick’s Sporting Goods is banning sales of assault weapons across all its stores after the Parkland, Fla. school shooting.
The nation’s largest sporting goods retailer announced the move Thursday in an open letter and an appearance by CEO Ed Stack on Good Morning America.
Assault weapon sales ended at Dick’s-branded stores after the Newtown, Conn. school shooting in 2012, but the company was still selling them at its Field & Stream locations, which specialize in hunting and outdoors products.
“As we looked at what happened down in Parkland, we were so disturbed and saddened by what happened, we felt we really needed to do something,” Stack told GMA’s George Stephanopoulos.
The retailer will also end sales of high-capacity magazines and sales of guns to people under 21 years old.
Right, because we can trust 18-year-olds with cars, which kill far more people every year than firearms, as well as trust them to defend this great nation of ours, but there’s just no way we can trust these same kids to not gun down the entire neighborhood just for fun or anything.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I support Dick’s right to not sell to whoever.
However, here’s something they might not have thought about. You see, as long as federal law says you have to be 18 to buy these items and not 21, they are discriminating against customers based on their age. If a bakery is going to be required to bake a wedding cake for a gay marriage because of civil rights laws, then surely those same laws apply to Dick’s, right?
While I’m not an attorney, it seems to be that a case could easily be made that if you can’t fire or simply not hire someone due to their age, then you can’t refuse to sell them a legal product due to their age either. After all, would a car dealer get in hot water for refusing to sell a car to someone they think is too old to drive? Probably.
So why should Dick’s get a pass because they think someone is too young to purchase a product that is otherwise legal for that person to buy?
Maybe it’s just me, but I can’t help but think there are some lawyers out there licking their chops on this one, and I don’t think I can bring myself to be bothered by that either. The left wanted to start this game, so why not take advantage of that to prove a point?
I just hope someone challenges this quickly so we can watch efforts like these be struck down. Hard.
You read Dick’s Sporting Goods’ entire open letter below: