Something's not right here.
Curious about it, I searched for the issue and found dozens of articles on this story, but nearly EVERY one of them I found cites back to the original article in The Federalist.
OK.
Looking at the actual Federalist article, the author cites their investigation of the federal filing regarding the Dick's lobbyists and found that the firm registering as "... the Federal DC-based government affairs firm, for “lobbying related to gun control.” No other policy issues were listed in the disclosure form filed by the firm."
The article names the individuals hired, and some of the lobbying firm's histories.
That's quite a leap to say Dick's is doubling down on gun control. The author cites no gun control policies, studies or positions these lobbyists have previously taken. (and if they have, how about filling us in, just having a (D) after one's name is not enough)
So what is Dick's actually lobbying for? (i.e. the filing statement "lobbying related to gun control" doesn't indicate 'for' or 'against' stance or somewhere in the rational middle.) Kind of hard to judge until something else comes out. Everyone is upset over the new age 21 policy and seems to be drawing conclusions based on little evidence.
If Dick's actually goes that route, I expect we'll get much better information than what this otherwise slip-shod article has given us.
Until then, this has the air of just whipping up the base.