I think that would be morally wrong, and I'd be against it. However, no entity should be able to force that sporting goods store to modify its behavior. There will be a price that immoral person will pay, but it isn't the place of any of us to visit that price upon them.
I will not be drawn into an argument about it, nor will I entertain the connection between what is right and just as it correlates to the "law." People seem to enjoy weaponizing the law when it suits them, and would defang it when it doesn't. The law has been twisted into the same justifications for immoral injustice across the entire world. Always has.
There is no moral argument for forcing the cooperation of another. As a result, any justification for forcing that cooperation is simply an attempt to assuage guilt on the part of the person claiming rights to another persons property.
You either believe in individual liberty always, or you don't believe in it ever. You don't get to have it both ways. The very term "price gouging" is reliant upon the judgement of value of what you have, by someone else. You don't get to set the value of what someone else owns. Period. The moral obligation that person has to provide fair prices is a matter between them and their creator. There will be a price to pay for immoral acts. I'm quite sure of that. Though it is not my place to judge. What is theirs, is THEIRS. I have no claim or right to it.
People either understand that, or they support communism and socialism, no matter their claim to the contrary.