TexasCHLforum.com

srothstein wrote:

OlBill wrote:Are we not a protected class by virtue of the 2nd Amendment?

I cannot resist pointing out that we are, from one point of view, the best protected class. Unfortunately, humor aside, we are not a protected class under the law. It is not the constitution that makes the protected classes, and there is no penalty provided for violating the constitution. It is the laws passed to implement the protections of the constitution that both define the protected classes and provide for punishment. So far, none of the civil rights laws, beginning with the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (yes, 18), mention being armed. I believe we are slowly working on that and making progress towards it, but we are not there yet.

It will be a long, tough fight to get to the point where being armed is not only considered a right, but also a duty. The good news is that I see us making steady progress towards it. Not fast, but steady progress. At least in Texas, it seems to be getting easier to fight off the attacks on gun rights, even if we do not make any gains in the field. This is the type of steady progress that will win in the long run. Courts are also beginning to rule our way more, though there are still a lot of courts where this isn't true yet (9th Circuit).

More progress to go, but we are getting there slowly.

RoyGBiv wrote:

Boxerrider wrote:While I'm occasionally frustrated by a 30.06/30.07 sign, I feel businesses should be less regulated by the government, not more.

I'd prefer we start someplace other than with rights that are specifically enumerated in the Constitution. How about allowing businesses to opt out of ADA regulations, or building codes, or letting liquor store owners decide whether to be open on Sundays?

Let's start there instead.

srothstein wrote:

skeathley wrote:As I understand it, if a business is open to the public, they have to accommodate ALL the public. So why are businesses allowed to discriminate against a group of people who have almost no history of being a danger to the public?

Because this is not an accurate statement. Under federal and Texas law, you can ban anyone you want from your business as long as you are not banning them for reasons that are prohibited under the various discrimination laws (the seven protected classes).

So you cannot ban people because of their race or religion, but you can ban them for being too young (discriminaton against age only applies to those over 40). This is how we are allowed to have adult only apartment complexes with no one under 35 allowed to rent.

You can ban people because of the clothes they wear (no biker clothing, no gang symbols) or don't wear (no shoes no shirt). You can get ridiculous and ban all left-handed people or all red heads.

Of course, this does not apply to a business that is not open to all of the public. If your business is a private club, you can even ban all females or some of the protected classes. Look at when the Augusta golf club finally officially integrated. So, as an example, a gun range that requires membership does not have to abide by all of the anti-discrimination laws.

I could be wrong on the private club part, but I know some of them still exclude various protected classes.

skeathley wrote:When I was a kid, merchants were allowed to refuse to do business with anyone they chose. There was probably a racial element to that, so after the Civil Rights law passed about 1965, that was no longer allowed.

I often wonder why it is not legal to ban someone from your business because they are asian, or black, or whatever, but it is legal to ban them because they are legally carrying a weapon.

As I understand it, if a business is open to the public, they have to accommodate ALL the public. So why are businesses allowed to discriminate against a group of people who have almost no history of being a danger to the public?