I haven't for some time (and not for political reasons, they just don't have much I'd be needing), but now....

I do but only for Promo shells for the most part.

I saw an interview Wolf Blitzer of CNN was having with some lawyer over this issue of Dick's decision to no longer sell AR-15's.

The lawyer answered Wolf without hesitation, and said he had no problem with Dick's implementing a business decision about what products they chose to sell or not sell. Wolf seemed happy to hear that.

Then he immediately went on to cite Citizen's United and other legal free speech decisions, and said it was no different than Baker's deciding what kind of wedding cakes they choose to sell.

You could see the blood drain out of Wolf Blitzer's face, because he realized that if Dick's could choose to refuse to sell AR-15's, then a Bakery could refuse to sell a wedding cake with two grooms on top. Just another free speech business decision.

Only for fishing lures...

Also I live in an area that has a "Field and Stream", which is Dick's version of Cabelas. I'm not sure how many stores they have thus far, but I only know of that one. Great fishing section...

The local one pretty much was only good for ammo. But nope, they won't gw t any of my business!

Never did any business with them. Academy Sports is just a few miles away from Dick's, and much more deserving of my business, IMO.

SRH

To get to Dick's I have to pass Academy Sports - never make it to Dick's.

As i recall, they pulled the same lame PR stunt after Newtown and it did not last long before they were right back to selling.

Just another corporate slimechain that is liberal to the core.

I may stop at Dick's tomorrow and see if they have closeout prices on AR-15s or AK-47s. I'm sure it will be like the bump stock situation. Sorry, out of stock.

I too seem to remember Dicks doing this anti-assault rifle thing before. Walmart is doing the same. Is it obviously a marketing ploy of some sort? Anyway, they probably have the right to do it. BUT! Do they have the right to not sell guns to 18 and 19 year-olds? That's age discrimination, isn't it? I think that is against the law.

liverwort, you make a very good point. Until such time as the present law might change for the worse, 18-20 years olds have the legal right to purchase a long gun.

I hope a bunch of them have the sense to get cell phone videos of Dick's refusing to allow them to exercise a Constitutional Right so they would have evidence for a possible Civil Rights and age discrimination suit.

But I still think that the teens who are willing to give up my gun rights should be willing to give up their privilege to drive and own cell phones, since doing so would save thousands more lives than banning AR-15's.

Having a FFL license, I ask the ATF agent that was checking my records whether I could refuse to sell an individual a gun. His reply was yes, if I didn't feel comfortable about the sale I could and should refuse the purchase.

My question had nothing to do with specific guns, but rather with certain people.
Whether his reply was legal I don't know, but he answered quickly so I guess that is their policy.

eYe thought Dicks went out of business....

A 17 yr. old can join our military forces, with the consent of a parent, and serve our country.............. an 18 yr. old without anyone's consent. If he is old enough to make a decision that can cost his life, in defense of us, he should be allowed the right to legally buy a firearm anyplace he chooses. I hope Dick's is hit with so many lawsuits that they have to close up shop. If they were the only place to buy ammo I'd use a slingshot.

SRH

Here is a 30 second legal analysis (not advice):

1. Civil rights suit - N/A If memory serves only applies when a government official under color of law violates an individual's civil rights. No bearing in a private transaction.

2. Age discrimination claim - most likely N/A as generally applies in an employment context. Also don't see that being relevant to the sale of a firearm or any other good.

3. Obligation to sell firearm - No obligation that I am aware of to sell anyone any good. They can assert breach of oral contract, I suppose and seek specific performance. Specific performance is only available when no adequate monetary remedy. Thus, likely damages are difference between FMV and cost to obtain replacement.

I haven't dedicated any thought to this more than the time it took type out.

Now Walmart has raised their minimum age for purchasing any firearm from them to 21, as well.

So, just how does this address mental illness?

buzz, how does the inability of businesses to refuse service come into play? Remember the old signs in restaurants, in the 50s and 60s, that stated "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." You don't see them anymore.

SRH

It doesn’t...it’s another knee jerk reaction, similar to what our President is doing.

Apparently, an affiliated/subsidiary company of Dicks, Field and Stream, never stopped selling ARs. The Dicks announcement is a calculated publicity stunt aimed at the anti-gunners. Nothing has changed.

I stopped going to Dicks after they swallowed up Gaylon's. One member claims that when Remington game loads are on sale there he gets 16ga at same price as 12ga. That is probably a good deal. Thankfully I can afford not to get good deals like that that is why I will not step foot into Dicks and will continue to be a member of NRA despite the fact that some companies are severing ties with them.

Dan one more, we also have the right to buy a transgender wedding cake.

Boats

Just like wedding cakes...Geo

I hear Ellen DeGeneres likes Dick's now

Good one.


________________________
I don’t like spiders or snakes.

My understanding is Dicks wasn't selling AR-15's anyway, only their Field and Stream Stores (35 nationwide). The bigger issue for most all of us is Walmart now selling guns and ammo only to those over 21. That's a biggie IMO. That sucks.

The place is overpriced and stinks as a place to get hunting stuff anyway.

Mills you are a regular Hennie Youngman.

Well, apparently you can discriminate by age if the age is under 40 years. So this is another weasely thing allowing the unthinking to discriminate. As a previous post states, it is sad the 18,19 and 20-year-old wearing our nation uniforms and carrying weapons into combat to defend our nation would be denied the right to purchased ANY firearm at Dicks, Field and Stream or Walmart. I know this idea is a pain in the ass and shouldn't be necessary but I think these businesses a least warrant an e-mail on behalf of these young Americans.

Young Americans should do what old Americans ie vote religiously in every election. Creating association like AATP or AAWP to mirror AARP would also help. If anyone is interested in blocking regulations raising gun ownership right to 21 they should insist on making enlistment age into military service 21. The politicians will quickly run away from that idea.

Vets and active duty should get a bye. I'm going to email Dick's and Walmart.

SRH

I have always considered that a disingenuous argument for all of the situations it has been applied to. I knew people in the military that I would not have trusted with Stan's slingshot and they were issued/carrying loaded weapons. It was sometimes a struggle but I always attempted to keep them from behind me.

But, at least they walked to the plate and batted, even if it was no more than a bunt. That deserves some appreciation from the businesses they volunteered to stick their neck out for.

SRH

Hi, Stan

We’ll give them a 10% discount on a sling shot.


_________________________
I usually bury as many as I can in the chow hall or MWR.

One of those wrist rockets with the black rubbers and a 1/2" ball bearing is bad news.

SRH

Stan,
I remember having one of those "wrist rockets" as a kid, devastating!
Karl

I haven't been in Dick's for about five years. The only things I remember buying from them were some camping supplies and a light for a bicycle. IMO big-box stores like Dick's and Walmart aren't good places to buy a gun anyway - small selection, usually low-end models and no knowledgeable sales people.

One thing's for sure, I won't be shopping there in the future. It was disgusting how they made such a big deal of their "decision" to stop selling AR-15s when they weren't selling them anyway. That little trick might gain them favorable publicity with some of the anti-gun crowd, but not with me.

Delta Airlines reneged on their commitment to reduce flight costs for those attending the NRA convention. As Atlanta's hometown major airline they were due to get a big tax break on fuel expenses this year in the GA legislature. They withheld the announcement until they thought the bill was a done deal. The gov is in favor but the senate has killed it. Corporate progressive-ism can be expensive...Geo

Has Dicks/Field&Stream said what they will do with the AR-15’s they have in stock, since they announced they do not intend to sell them? Beat them into ploughshares?

Maybe they will have a closeout special?

What you say could be the very reason a nutcase could be allowed to possess a problematic firearm. Tho many define their life by their military service I do not see that as defining their stability in any way whatsoever. Crazy people are crazy people and no matter how many old ladies they might walk across the street letting them buy a firearm might still be a mistake.

And AFA Dick's - who cares? I never saw anything unique there

I would not throw out a whole bushel of good apples because I found one or two rotten ones on top. These "ANTI-GUN LIBERALS" are wanting to punish the law abiding because they know they won't reach those who are the problem. It makes them Feel Good & they can claim they are Doing Something, even though in reality they would have accomplished a Big Fat Zero toward preventing Crime in general or Mass shootings in particular.

In American political system re-election prospects and success of politicians is not based on accomplishing something but on perception of being successful or perception of doing something.

While we may find crazy people where we find them, those who volunteer for military service are a tiny minority of the general population. The rights willingly given up to serve don't really have an equivalent in the general population. At the time and place of their service, it might be better if that soldier is only a foremost authority on soldiering, and not on making other impressions.

I have no idea what you are talking about