Riana
Regular Member
Has it really come to this in MD?
http://www.wjla.com/articles/2012/0...s-range-over-ladies-day-promotion--79055.html
http://www.wjla.com/articles/2012/0...s-range-over-ladies-day-promotion--79055.html
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Derrick Hunter sues Maryland Small Arms Range over 'Ladies' Day" promotion
- Thread starter Riana
- Start date
twoskinsonemanns
Regular Member
God hates maryland
PistolPackingMomma
Regular Member
If the women got in free and it wasn't Ladie's day, he might have a leg to stand on. As it was, it was a promotion at the discretion of the owner, so if this case actually goes through the courts and succeeds, well...:banghead:
boutaswell
Regular Member
It's a simple issue really. It's a privately owned range. The owner can do whatever the hell he wants to as long as he follows the ADA requirements. If he wants to let purple people in free and charge blues ones 5 bucks and this Hunter guy $15 because he's stupid, that's his prerogative. Charge him the $200 bucks a year membership fee and tell him to move on. I'm not even going to mention the other obvious stuff about this "lawsuit" beyond the opportunity of quick bucks. And why did he wait at least 8 months before doing anything? I smell money. I guess he's going for $50K and the lawyer gets the other $150K. Fricking loser.
Fallschirjmäger
Active member
My local range doesn't charge badge carrying law enforcement at all to shoot.
I guess that means everyone else that shoots there should sue them.
Now, if the range were to say "All Women, All the Time, no charge" then he might have the slimmest of cases. But they didn't, they had a promotion of reduced prices/free admission on a special day in order to attract a class of customers that would come again and again.
I guess that means everyone else that shoots there should sue them.
Now, if the range were to say "All Women, All the Time, no charge" then he might have the slimmest of cases. But they didn't, they had a promotion of reduced prices/free admission on a special day in order to attract a class of customers that would come again and again.
davidmcbeth
Banned
I agree with the guy ... cannot say women dont pay and men do ....
Phoenix David
Regular Member
Well they didn't so the argument is irrelevant. What if they charged him because he was a lard ass?
Phoenix David
Regular Member
I think you are right about this as it is discrimination based on gender and that's a no-no.
There is a simple fix to this. Tuesday nights is makeup night anyone that shows up with lipstick and makeup gets to shoot for free.
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
In business ladies day is not to attract new customers IMO, it is to attract paying men. But I don't think the lawsuit has legs, bars and clubs have been doing ladies day for eons. In fact one club charges double for SM, as opposed to couples, and SF are free.
moriar
Regular Member
Yes Bars have been doing this for eons, but imho it is very sexist. Men are the source of income, Men should at times get the freebies. Its just like the radio... Radio stations wonder why men are a declining customer base... I can tell you why... Stop giving away Purses or shoes. Give away something that is gender nuetral and male customers will rise.
infact, Ladies nights should be banned. If going to be free cover both sexes need to have free cover, not one or the other. If i were a man I would feel discrimination that I was being charged simply for being EWAP (Equipped With a Penis)
If the cover is 15$, Men and Women need to be charged. Want to have a special, then Free of Charge to both sexes if you want to drum up customer base.
davidmcbeth
Banned
I did not say the guy will win ... I just agree with his viewpoint.
PistolPackingMomma
Regular Member
So you support a lawsuit and potential government regulations that tells an owner how he can run his private business? :uhoh: Or you just think he shouldn't be allowed to run his business the way he wants?
This isn't a public library we're talking about; this is a privately owned establishment, and if he chooses to give women free pass and charge men, then the solution for the men would be find a different range and deprive him of that income, not automatically file a lawsuit; which seems a lot less like redress of grievances and a lot more like vindictive tattling.
twoskinsonemanns
Regular Member
Beside's the other things about this that makes my upset, I really hate the fact that this guy is going after an attempt to bring more females into shooting. Guns have been male dominated for a long time and anything reasonable to encourage them is good.
Last edited:
KYGlockster
Activist Member
This is a joke! The owner can allow ladies in free if he wants and charge men at the same time. The owner is not denying entry to anyone, he is simply allowing free entry to ladies that would like to try their hand. This guy is idiotic to try and sue a private business owner for something so foolish. This lawsuit will go nowhere. Anyone that thinks the government should stick their business into a man's private business decisions isn't very aware of a constitutional government or freedom.
swinokur
Activist Member
The man is guilty of nothing. He did not refuse service to anyone. End of discussion.
He can charge or discount to any group he chooses. If he gives a discount to seniors, that's legal as well. It's a private business. This is no different than a restaurant having a "no shirt, no shoes, no service policy."
His house, his rules.
He can charge or discount to any group he chooses. If he gives a discount to seniors, that's legal as well. It's a private business. This is no different than a restaurant having a "no shirt, no shoes, no service policy."
His house, his rules.
moriar
Regular Member
Hello PPM,
Not everyone has the choice of going to different ranges, some areas only have 1 range for 50-60 miles..
I am all for free business and doing as you please, but the range is clearly in the wrong for singling out a specific sex for benefit. Men currently are the biggest customer and women are rapidly climbing, but to give the climbing customer a freebie while nice is reprehensibly wrong as it is a kick in the face to the loyal customer whom might have been going to that range for 5+ years and never gotten a freebie. I am all for range giving First Time Shooters of both sexes a free time at the range as you will be initiating a new potential customer. But Ladies Night, is just saying to women come every tuesday and you wont have to pay which in turn actually hurts the range owner as the freebies take up lanes when actual customers in this case the "men" will see the packed lanes and go hrmm packed and head home.
PistolPackingMomma
Regular Member
Whether or not it is right or wrong for the owner to give discounts at his discretion, it is still his business, and his decision about how he wants to run it. If enough men began to boycott such a range because they felt it was unfair or prejudicial, then the owner would feel the lightness of his pockets and realize he may need to change policy.
I support his right to do what he pleases with his business, even if it drives away paying customers and runs his company into the ground. I do not support government regulation that dictates what he may or may not do. The important factor here is that this is a private business, not a public service. No one is entitled to shoot at his range, and a court order saying otherwise bodes ill for America.
It sucks that the closest range to some is so far away; but that is neither his fault or responsibility. If those folks wish to actually do something about it, then they should organize a boycott of his range and try to make other shooting arrangements. Open their own range and put him out of business. Find some hunting land, get some buddies together, and shoot there. Don't tell me they do not have options and the only solution here is to mandate what a private business owner can do. It's a slippery slope, and immoral to boot.
And has it occurred to anyone that this business owner may be trying to boost the amount of female shooters in his area? What is wrong with that? If he gives a few free range sessions, gets them hooked, and then starts charging them like everyone else, is that such a bad thing? To my knowledge, he never said women will shoot free all the time. I frequently hear men say that they wish more women would shoot, and no one will deny that guns are a male dominated area, so perhaps he's trying to do something about it. The economy is tough, and shooting is expensive. Most people make excuses to not try new things because it's too costly; but if it's free, and they become interested enough to pursue it on their own dime, then why not do it?
And what about women that come to the range, and see packed lanes, say hmm and go home? That happens a lot, and the majority of women I know and have shot with strongly dislike shooting with lots of men. Deny it or not, there is a sense of competition and belittlement, especially for beginning female shooters. Most women do not want to shoot with their husbands or boyfriends, as they can become bossy and expectant in a well meaning sort of way. It's frustrating and can make it difficult to learn for novice shooters with only a piquing rather than well cemented interest in the sport.
But since we're talking about fairness, let's point out the fact that it's fair for women to be able to shoot with other women in a typically male dominated environment, as it puts them more on equal footing with each other, rather than competing with men 2 feet taller that have been shooting for twice as long.
I support his right to do what he pleases with his business, even if it drives away paying customers and runs his company into the ground. I do not support government regulation that dictates what he may or may not do. The important factor here is that this is a private business, not a public service. No one is entitled to shoot at his range, and a court order saying otherwise bodes ill for America.
It sucks that the closest range to some is so far away; but that is neither his fault or responsibility. If those folks wish to actually do something about it, then they should organize a boycott of his range and try to make other shooting arrangements. Open their own range and put him out of business. Find some hunting land, get some buddies together, and shoot there. Don't tell me they do not have options and the only solution here is to mandate what a private business owner can do. It's a slippery slope, and immoral to boot.
And has it occurred to anyone that this business owner may be trying to boost the amount of female shooters in his area? What is wrong with that? If he gives a few free range sessions, gets them hooked, and then starts charging them like everyone else, is that such a bad thing? To my knowledge, he never said women will shoot free all the time. I frequently hear men say that they wish more women would shoot, and no one will deny that guns are a male dominated area, so perhaps he's trying to do something about it. The economy is tough, and shooting is expensive. Most people make excuses to not try new things because it's too costly; but if it's free, and they become interested enough to pursue it on their own dime, then why not do it?
And what about women that come to the range, and see packed lanes, say hmm and go home? That happens a lot, and the majority of women I know and have shot with strongly dislike shooting with lots of men. Deny it or not, there is a sense of competition and belittlement, especially for beginning female shooters. Most women do not want to shoot with their husbands or boyfriends, as they can become bossy and expectant in a well meaning sort of way. It's frustrating and can make it difficult to learn for novice shooters with only a piquing rather than well cemented interest in the sport.
But since we're talking about fairness, let's point out the fact that it's fair for women to be able to shoot with other women in a typically male dominated environment, as it puts them more on equal footing with each other, rather than competing with men 2 feet taller that have been shooting for twice as long.
Last edited:
mwaterous
Regular Member
Should people with coupons be sued by those without? Come on now.
moriar
Regular Member
No, thats far different then "You dont meet the criteria" aka breasts / vagina.
which makes it sexual discrimination. Have to remember Sexual Discrimination works both ways.
twoskinsonemanns
Regular Member
Very well said. +1 to keeping gov out of it and +1 to encouraging women toward firearms.
It is such a stupid complaint. Someone should find this guys mother and slap her. :lol: