Oregon Walmart Violated Civil Rights When it Refused Sale of Rifle to 18-Year-Old


Oregon Walmart Violated Civil Rights When it Refused Sale of Rifle to 18-Year-Old

Arizona -(Ammoland.com)- – In Oregon, a young woman has won a civil rights case against Walmart. A Walmart in Helena, Oregon refused to sell a rifle to young woman because she was not 21 years old. She sued Walmart and won under  the Oregon Civil Rights law on age discrimination.  From wweek.com:

The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries found this week that a Walmart store in St. Helens violated the state's nondiscrimination laws when it refused to sell a rifle to a woman who was not yet 21 years old.

Hannah Brumbles, 18, of Deer Island, Ore., filed a civil rights complaint with the state agency in April. She says Walmart discriminated against her by refusing to sell her a rifle, even though Oregon law says individuals over 18 may legally purchase firearms. BOLI agrees.

Federal law restricts the sale of rifles, from federal dealers, to people 18 or older.

In Oregon, the policy ran directly into the Oregon state law forbidding age discrimination. From oregonlaws.org:

(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.

Federal age discrimination law does not apply in this circumstance. Federal age discrimination law only applies to those who obtain benefits from the Department of Labor, or to employment matters. In employment, it only applies to those age 40 or older.

One of the primary tools used to attack Second Amendment rights in the United States is the “salami slice” method. Second Amendment rights are attacked a little bit at a time. Each law, regulation, or restriction infringes on Second Amendment rights a little bit more. Eventually, the exercise of Second Amendment rights is so constrained that almost any exercise of those rights is legally impossible.

One of the latest attempt to infringe on Second Amendment rights is to further restrict the age at which a person can exercise their rights. An enormous slice was taken in 1968, when federally licensed dealers were forbidden to sell pistols to anyone under the age of 21. They were forbidden to sell rifles or shotguns to anyone under the age of 18.  Younger people could still possess firearms, but they could not buy them from federally licensed dealers.

Previously, there were no federal age restrictions on the sale of firearms. States had some restrictions on minors carrying pistols. In general, minors could carry arms with parents permission, or if they were emancipated.

In 1994, during the Clinton administration, another salami slice was taken. The federal government forbade people from under the age of 18 from possessing handguns altogether, except in very limited circumstances.  Minors could still carry handguns, with written permission of their parents.

The current salami slice it to increase the age to purchase rifles and shotguns from 18 to 21. Considerable social pressure has been put on national retail establishments to engage in this type of age discrimination.

In Oregon, Walmart and other establishments are forbidden, by law, from implementing the salami slice being pushed by those who want a disarmed population. One nanny state police ran directly into another nanny state policy.

Alexis de Tocqueville, a brilliant observer of the American democratic experiment, considered how tyranny might come to America. He wrote this in 1840:

After having thus taken each individual one by one into its powerful hands, and having molded him as it pleases, the sovereign power extends its arms over the entire society; it covers the surface of society with a network of small, complicated, minute, and uniform rules, which the most original minds and the most vigorous souls cannot break through to go beyond the crowd; it does not break wills, but it softens them, bends them and directs them; it rarely forces action, but it constantly opposes your acting; it does not destroy, it prevents birth; it does not tyrannize, it hinders, it represses, it enervates, it extinguishes, it stupifies, and finally it reduces each nation to being nothing more than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.

In 1971, the United States, by the 26th Amendment, extended the right to vote to people 18 years old, or older. Voting is far more powerful than possessing a firearm.


Dean Weingarten
Dean Weingarten

About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

  • 31 thoughts on “Oregon Walmart Violated Civil Rights When it Refused Sale of Rifle to 18-Year-Old

    1. “The best way to conquer any free people,
      is to first disarm the law abiding free populace”
      _Mr. Adolf Hitler- the mentor, hero, & idol of infamous 2nd amendment despising
      “disarm-to-destroy” demonic dictator Barack Obama, [Commie] Chuckie [Soros Shithead] Schummer, [DEMONIC DICTATING gUN gRABBER]Dianne [the freek] Fienstien, [BIG MOUTH] Bernie [Soros Sucking Socialist] Sanders [Elizabeth [The Socialist Witch] Warren & the evil Hitler worshipping anti-gun Nazis that make up the entire Socialist democrat party,

      1. That’s because the socialist republic of teachers union has been successful with the dumbing up of Americans

      2. If discrimination is only is applicable is circumstances of Dept. of labor and employment matters then why did two lesbians sue a Christian bakery for refusing to sell them a wedding cake??? Discrimination is ALWAYS discrimination, no matter the circumstances. Especially when it goes against the constitution as this issue does. Same difference: someone refusing service to someone, Judges who make decisions to go against the constitution should be thrown out of their seat.

    2. 2013 was the year several states each saw hundreds of thousands of citizens refusing to comply with wildly unconstitutional gun laws / bans / registration schemes. Ditto with large numbers of police in those states declining to enforce. One of the biggest news stories to never be reported on the national level in this country.

      The response from U.S. corporate media was to pretend it never happened, as they knew if this were broadcast nationwide on all the networks and news channels, easily tens of millions of Americans would support those people of good character for refusing to comply with unconstitutional law. And I mean support legally and financially as well. I speak of course of Connecticut and New York in 2013, along with several other states where large numbers of citizens have simply refused to comply over the years. Do some searches for “gun owners refuse to comply” and “police refuse to enforce”, and similar search terms as may come to mind as you look around. Many local news articles have long since disappeared, but there are still some few to be found, along with a lot of opinion articles on these things, IF you take the time to search them out. I hope I do not need to tell you to use internet search engines OTHER THAN Google / Bing / Yahoo – unless you are comparing their carefully directed / censored search results with search results from legitimate places that respect your privacy, like DuckDuckGo.com and such. Comparing search results from different search engines can be rather eye opening, so I definitely recommend doing that as well.

      You would think a minimum of 80,000 to 100,000 people REFUSING TO COMPLY in Connecticut in 2013 would have rated some serious nonstop nationwide news coverage, and ditto with the state of New York, where far larger numbers did and are continuing to do same against their so called Safe Act. Not when it runs counter to the media narrative, then all we get is silence. To report such things is to reveal the power of our numbers, and the purpose of propaganda is to make you feel all alone, overwhelmed, and hopeless, so you just give up without a fight. So we get virtually no mention of hundreds of thousands of American citizens simply refusing to comply, along with large numbers of police declining to enforce. Shhh. Pretend it didn’t happen and maybe no one will notice that the emperor has no clothes.

      Now you know why certain officials got all hyper at the time, and actually pushed to ban guns from everyone on their black lists and such (watch lists / no fly lists / etc.), in complete disregard for our constitutional rights and total lack of due process. Such large numbers of people simply refusing to comply is an impossible obstacle for these Domestic Enemies of the U.S. Constitution to overcome, IF we know about each other and we all thus stand strong together. This reality scares them to death, and is exactly why we are witnessing the marriage of corporation and state – the very definition of fascism – being directed against our constitutional rights at this time. The merger of corporate and state power to do what neither could do alone. Fascism, by definition. Please look that up too. (Benito Mussolini is a good start.)

      And that is why we get…
      No News At 11

      1. Yeah? Then where is the next generation of our nation’s warriors going to,come from to defend this nation of need be? Are you going to do it?

        1. Refusing to sign up for Selective Service does _not_ mean they would refuse to serve. It would be a good example of a free man or women versus a serf subject to the whims of its “master”. The true warriors will never need to be asked, nor ordered, to defend America. You might be surprised how many of us enlisted back in the ’60s, long before .gov gave us a draft number.

          1. i enlisted in the Marine Corps in 1960 and never looked back for 11 years nine months and 5 days, and WHAT A RIDE IT WAS LOL.
            Semper Fi.

    3. BTW, some state establish the lesser age of adulthood at NINETEEN, not at eighteen. I believe Alabama is one.

    4. St. Helens OR rather than “Helena OR”?

      “It isn’t the people who vote that count, it’s the people who count the votes” J. Stalin

      1. Yes, there is no “Helena” in Oregon. St. Helens, west of Portland. Homework, checking one’s facts and one’s work. We must be accurate; the opposition lurks like vultures to find fault with all we say, and write. #FtheLeft

    5. Now, if only the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries would levy a fine large enough to put WalMart out of business like they did to the cake baker… that’d be justice.

      1. Now if only morons like you would crawl back into their safe space and flush the porcelain throne to get rid of the stench.

      2. Yea that’s what needs to happen,plus the young lady get a few millions in the law suite.

      3. Y es, St, Helens, the county seat of Columbia COunty. And whose current sheriff makes it well nigh impossible for non-residents to obtain their Mother May I Card to carry concealed. MUST make an appointment, nearest one is months out. A right delayed is a right denied. Don’t know what came over this lousey excuse for a sheriff. His department now appears to be hostile to private gun ownership. Used to be not long ago applying to get or renew one’s non-resident Card involved a very short visit, on an as available basis, to file the paperwork, stand for the requisite photo and fingerprints, and get the new Card in the post about five days later. Now a renewal is nigh enough to be unobtainable,

        No, not so. Force compliance with Oregon law, not the preferences of the shareholders or specially biased political operatives. Their treatment by OBLI people like Jack Philllips (the non-cake baker) is

    6. I can only imagine what a protest would look like by 18 year olds swarming the sporting goods stores, en-mass to purchase their first rifles or shotguns?

    7. Congress needs to pass a law stating the age of adulthood, it’s either 18 years old or 21 years old, for all things.
      Having different ages for certain things such as drinking, signing contracts, voting, or purchasing firearms is ridiculous.
      You are either an adult at 21 or 18, make a decision and stick to it.

      1. This is certainly and properly the right of the states to regulate, not the federal government. But I agree… you can’t send 18-20 year olds to college to mingle with 21-22+ year olds and expect them not to drink along with their peers. Either alcohol will be part of college students’ lifestyle or it will not. And by the way, it will.

        It is not proper for us to choose the ages of eligibility for a laundry list of activities based on political whim. Equal protection under the law, however, is clearly essential to our society. If a person is old enough to bear the responsibilities of being an adult, I don’t see how we can require them to bear those responsibilities and yet withhold permissions or activities that are open to the common adult. The only way those kinds of injustice stand is that the group affected has such a small voice that they cannot overcome the oppression.

      2. Better yet, remove all federal determination as to the age of adulthood. WHERE do FedGov get the “authority” to define such terms anyway? That Second Article of Ammendment makes no distinction based upon age. THE PEOPLE have the right to arms, and given them by the God who made them.

        During the War for Independence, the War of 1812, the War of Northern Aggression, a goodly percentage of those who volunteered to serve, or later drafted to do so, were well under the age of eighteen, some as young as fourteen.

    8. We are just seeing the beginning of this rubbish. The Democrat bureaucrats who ignore our Constitution and respond to “feelings-based” infringements of our rights, are confudent that they can erode our freedoms and establish the Socialist/Communist one-party State they desire.

      Without the 2nd Amendment we have no freedoms at all…other than to submit.

    9. I think Dean, that your last sentence bears extreme scrutiny. Myself, and many others are beginning to believe this country can not be saved at the ballot box. Sadly the problem does not lie within the structure of this Republic, but with the corruption of it’s guiding principles. It’s looking like it will take the latter to return the former to it’s rightful status.

      1. With the demcRATS/communists using dead people and illegal immigrants to vote I agree with your observation. The left have out done themselves with this strategy. However, if we do not vote we are, in essence just handing everything over to the enemy. A government is an idea and a set of principles to live and rule by. It is useless when those elected officials abuse the power given them. Then it is up to the citizens to use whatever means given them to oust the corruption/evil. Unfortunately, when you have generations growing up and not taught the principles of freedom and liberties, you have a moronic voting class. Add to that the agendas promoted by corrupt people within politics and you have an almost “perfect storm” for either a new revolution to save the country or takeover by the corrupt elite.

      2. The 2nd amendment will ALWAYS work to support and defend the 1st amendment as a last resort to the 1st amendment breaking down. We are on the edge of that happening by the complacent not speaking out enough and the Antifa types speaking out too much!

      3. I agree with your statement but what is always overlooked on the passage of the 26th amendment is the “why” behind it. Men were being drafted without the ability to vote against the draft. The massive backlash against this inequality drove the passage of the 26th and eventually ended the draft. Massive backlash being the key element then and now.

        1. And that went for drinking age as well.When I was growing up 18 was drinking age,(legal that is). I hope Walmart gets one hell of a fine,plus I hope the young lady hits them for one hell of a bank roll

    Comments are closed.