Gun Range Sued

G

gunuser

New member
A gun range I go shooting at in Maryland is being sued to the tune of $200,000 for discrimination. They offer ladies night every monday (free charge to use the lanes only for ladies.) This guy is just money hungry! If he does win (which i doubt) this can open up a "big can of worms". Does that mean bars can be sued for offering ladies night discounts? I get a military discount at that range I shoot at, that would mean I can loose that too. Also senior citizens discount would be at stake also. Any ones thoughts on the matter??? I say a business has the right to do what it has to do to earn a living if it does not infringe on a persons right based on race, color, or beliefs.
 
Anyone can file a lawsuit, but I don't think he has much chance of winning; there's just too much precedent (such as the excellent examples you gave).
 
http://www.wjla.com/articles/2012/0...s-range-over-ladies-day-promotion--79055.html

A Maryland man has filed a lawsuit against an area gun range claiming "reverse sexism."

Derrick Hunter says he had to pay to fire off a few rounds at the Maryland Small Arms Range in Upper Marlboro one Monday last year. But because it was "Ladies' Day," women there did not.

"Just because I'm a man doesn't mean I should have to pay more," Hunter said.
Click to expand...


We have this problem in Cook County IL too, even worse actually. Its sort of like Goodfellas for Lawyers "Oh it was an accident? #### you Your Sued!"
 
Last edited:
This is kinda like the rules that Visa has on it's merchants. You can't charge more for using the charge card, but you can give a discount for paying cash.

You can't charge a man more for using the range, but you can give discounts. The range charges everybody to use the range on Monday, but they give the ladies a 100 percent discount. Just like the way that Lowes and Home Depot give 10 percent discount to Veterans.
 
Hrm... this seems to be a fine line between real legal issue and just plain silliness. On one hand, the legal premise is there that it is discrimination. On the other hand, what is this world coming to when people sue over ladies' day/night?

The spirit of the promotion in this case is not discriminatory. I think it could easily be argued that it's a good promotion to increase the numbers of an under represented group in shooting.

I don't think anyone is complaining about ladies' night at their local watering hole or other social venue. :rolleyes:
 
On one hand, the legal premise is there that it is discrimination.
Click to expand...

First, it is NOT discrimination as you cannot discriminate against a non-protected class of folks by giving a protected class some advantage

Secondly, this guy should be happy - instead of going to bars to pick up chicks, he can go to the gun range - their free ammo is better than buying them cocktails!:D

Thirdly, and most importantly, females make up 53% of the population and historically voted for Obama - ANY percentage we get to our side is a blessing - this guy needs some "sensitivity training" - Missouri-mule style!
 
oneounceload said:
. . . . Secondly, this guy should be happy - instead of going to bars to pick up chicks, he can go to the gun range - their free ammo is better than buying them cocktails!
Click to expand...
Giving new meaning to "buying a round of shots!"

Ba-dum-bum!

I'll be here all week, folks. :D
 
ScottRiqui said:
Anyone can file a lawsuit, but I don't think he has much chance of winning; there's just too much precedent (such as the excellent examples you gave).
Click to expand...
The fact a lot of people are doing it doesn't mean that it's not gender discrimination, and doesn't mean that it's legal. It only means that nobody has complained about it before.
 
No, I meant actual legal precedent - I'll bet dollars to donuts that this question has been brought before the courts already.
 
Den Hollander, who was admitted to the Nightclubs under this admission regime, attributes these pernicious “Ladies’ Nights” to “40 years of lobbying and intimidation, [by] the special interest group called ‘Feminism’ [which] has succeed in creating a customary practice ... of invidious discrimination of men.”
Click to expand...
Quoted because people really do waste the courts' time with suits like this. All. The. Time.

What's interesting about the next part is that gun shops are also subject to an "extensive regulatory system." It could be (unsuccessfully) alleged that they are "state actors" as well under that interpretation:

Den Hollander alleges that the Nightclubs engage in state action by selling alcohol on their premises under an extensive regulatory system. According to the amended complaint, the Nightclubs operate in New York and are licensed to sell alcohol on their premises. The New York Alcoholic Beverage Control Law (the “ABC Law”) closely regulates the manufacture, sale, and distribution of alcoholic beverages in New York, and the New York State Liquor Authority (the “SLA”) issues licenses in accordance with and oversees the implementation of the ABC Law.
Click to expand...

Of course, Lord help us from the BLEAK FUTURE predicted here:

The district court dismissed Den Hollander’s Section 1983 claim after concluding that the Nightclubs were not state actors. Without action on our part, Den Hollander paints a picture of a bleak future, where “none other than what’s left of the Wall Street Moguls” will be able to afford to attend Nightclubs. Because, however, we agree with the district court that Den Hollander has failed to sufficiently allege state action, we must affirm.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking someone was chuckling when they wrote that. Barring a new and novel strategy, I forsee Derrick Hunter's lawsuit failing as well.

...and in the process, wasting the court's time and taxpayers' money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top