Heated Gun-Lawsuit Against Dick’s Sporting Goods


By Eunice G. Park and Alexa Soroka

A 20-year old man filed a lawsuit against Dick’s Sporting Goods in Oregon for the purpose of following the implementation of stricter gun purchasing laws in their stores.

Several of the nation’s leading gun suppliers, including Dick’s and Walmart, have recently decided to raise the age requirement to purchase firearms to 21 in an attempt to restrict the purchase of guns.

The recent Florida shooting has caused waves of grief across the nation, but is this enough to make a difference? Will this be what finally brings change? Although we cannot speak for politicians, two major retailers, Walmart and Dick’s Sporting Goods, think so.

As Dick’s Chief Executive Edward W. Stack said, “Thoughts and prayers are not enough.”

This new regulation, adopted in response to the tragic Florida shooting, was “supposed to be” well-liked. Despite the efforts of Dick’s and similar companies, 20-year-old Tyler Watson has threatened to sue the corporation after attempting to purchase a .22 caliber Ruger rifle on Feb. 24 at an outdoor sports store owned by Dick’s, four days before the company announced its new policies.

Watson alleges that he encountered “age discrimination” and that the policies went against state law where, in Oregon, the age minimum to purchase a firearm is 18.

In light of this event, a lawsuit was filed against Dick’s in Jackson County, where it was claimed that the company’s new policy “violated” the Oregon Discrimination Law, which prohibits “a place of public accommodation from refusing to serve a customer based on their race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or age.”

Watson is asking judges to stop Dick’s from “unlawfully discriminating against customers ages 18 to 20 at their Oregon stores.” Although much has been said against Watson and his radical proposals, there still remains many who support Watson and the notion of purchasing firearm(s) more easily. The verdict still has yet to be released.

Students of Wayne Hills spoke about this issue in disagreement with Watson, and senior Justin Cohen took a step forward.

“That’s ridiculous… If company policy changed, then it was completely unrelated to him!” Cohen explains hotly. “It wasn’t in his place to sue such a large company that has more money than he does for better lawyers anyways. It is the business’ decision to sell their products to whomever they want, not his.”

In addition to this, Officer Marc Dubois states solemnly, “I don’t think they are discriminating. A private company can sell to whomever they want, it’s not like a public library. Just like a restaurant doesn’t have to serve you because they don’t want to, it’s their private business.”

Suing an entire company based on alleged “age discrimination” is a tide-shifting matter that must not be overlooked. This is only the beginning of many more rebellious and indignant acts against the rise of new gun laws.