TexasCHLforum.com

i8godzilla wrote:The state of Texas offers my wife and I a 50% veteran's discount on my CHL. We take advantage of it. I hope no one has ill feelings because we do.

I'm not a veteran. The closest I've been to being in the military is picking someone up at a base one time. I take no offense to it. As long as CHLs will be required, all veterans should get them free forget the discount. IMHO. Neither am I offended that those over 65 or under 12 receive discounts on many things. If this guy wins, that may be the beginning of the end of all those discounts and freebies. A win will encourage other to file similar suits.

There will always be an argument that a portion of the population is being treated unfairly and one can manipulate that group into a protected class. If as a country we achieve 100% equality, we did so by sacrificing the very freedoms this country was founded on. All frivolous lawsuits seem to accomplish is taking more of those freedoms away.

C-dub wrote:Good examples urnoodle. None of those excluded are protected classes except for those under 65. That would be age discrimination.

Disability is also a protected class and it would apply to the wounded warrior and terminally ill patrons.

I'm curious what the perception would have been if the owner of the privately owned range routinely allowed, one day when all of his family and friends were permitted to shoot there for free while the rest of the patrons had to pay. What if it was free for all active service people, wounded warriors, the over 65 or the terminally ill. I don't think he would have filed in those cases even though it still equated to someone getting in for free when he had to pay which appears to be his argument. Where does one draw the line? The best way to show the owner he didn't like what he's doing, was to not spend his money there and encourage other men to go somewhere else. Same as not supporting businesses with posted 30.06 signs. When the only patrons to the his range are women, I'm sure the owner will change its tactic.

Medic624 wrote:I saw a ladies night as a good way to get more women who otherwise might not have become interested in learning about guns and gun safety to come out and have a night without men and possibly feeling intimidated by the process.

As a woman entering the world of guns and shooting, it was very intimidating for me. A couple of events brought me to the point of seeking a gun for self defense. In my early experiences I was patronized and treated as if I were stupid. Those first experiences discouraged me to the point I decided I had to find alternative self defense option. My first trip to an actual range was on a womens free night on a whim with a girlfriend. Her husband was a gun enthusiest so he encouraged us to go. He thought we'd be more comfortable around other woman and feel less intimidated. I think he had an alterior motive . It was all down hill for the two of us from there. She now spends almost every weekend at a range with her husband. I have acquired several guns and I make an effort to go to the range at least once per month. I would go more often if the range was closer. I have learned that my bad beginning was the exception and not the rule. I believe many women who haven't been raised with guns in their hands have similar experiences. Most of the women who have never handled a firearm that I've tried to encourage to go to the range won't even consider it. Ask those same women on a womens free night and many will change their mind because they have nothing to lose and they have the support of other women. The womens free night was a great marketing tactic, it cost the range about $20 in fees for each of us. We've both spent a lot of money since when we otherwise would not have so I think the range made up for their initial $20 investment.

The notion of a "ladies drink free" night at a bar or club is certainly not unheard of, but a man in Maryland says a local firing range is breaking the law by hosting days where females -- and only females -- are allowed to shoot without having to pay.

"Just because I'm a man doesn't mean I should have to pay more," the man, who has filed a $200,000 lawsuit against the range, explains to WJLA-TV.

Ridiculous! This guy doesn't care the least little bit about the women's free night. It's obvious in the damages he is attempting to recover. Another example of a person finding a situation that can get him something for nothing.