When the Founding Fathers included the iconic phrase “shall not be infringed” in our all-important Second Amendment, they meant it.
There was no pusillanimity involved. No lack of testicular fortitude. I mean, how could these brave men shirk at their responsibilities at this time? They had just finished the impossible task of fighting off the most feared army in the world in order to gain their independence from the most powerful nation on the planet.
These men, the Washington’s and Adams’ and Jefferson’s, they knew what it would take to keep our nation free from tyranny in the future, and that was an armed populace.
So, when the democrats began lurking around the Second Amendment argument after a Valentine’s Day massacre at a Florida high school this year, it became readily apparent that we were in for a fight.
During this war of emotion being waged by the leftists, a number of major U.S. retailers cowardly tucked their tales and submitted to the court of public opinion, whose jury has been hand selected by the liberals. Soon, retailers such as Dick’s Sporting Goods and Walmart were installing their own adjusted age requirements for the exercising of the right to bear arms.
This is something that the Firearms Policy Coalition isn’t at all keen on, with the organization hinting at the possible illegality of the move.
To add to their troubles, a young gun rights advocate who has been discriminated against by these retailers is lawyering up, and preparing to legally embarrass these brainless big box stores.
“Tyler Watson, 20, filed suit in a state court against both Dick’s and Walmart arguing the stores, who sell sporting goods to include firearms to the general public, specifically refused to sell him a rifle because he was under age 21, citing recently adopted company policies.
“According to court documents, Watson tried to buy a Ruger 10/22 from a Field & Stream store, owned by Dick’s, in Medford on Feb. 24 and was refused due to his age. Last week, Watson doubled-down by going to a Walmart in Grant’s Pass, where he was similarly rebuffed for the same reason.
“While federal regulators advise licensed gun dealers they can, and should, exercise their right to refuse potentially unlawful firearms transactions, Watson is taking the big box stores to court over Oregon’s discrimination statutes where the case may hold some legal water.”
Does Watson have a shot? One former member of the judiciary thinks so.
“Jim Hargreaves, a retired county judge in the state, told Willamette Week that Oregon law states that as long as a person is an adult, they can’t be refused something based on age that’s ordinarily available to other adults.”
Not only could a successful case allow Watson to purchase the rifles that are his right by the Constitution, but it would open the door for discrimination against gun owners to be legally culpable – something that will completely infuriate the liberal left.
So, in other words, it’s a double jackpot.