TexasCHLforum.com

The rub seems to come with the line (or lack there of) between truly private property (your home) and private property generally open to the public (a store). You can ban protected class from your private home (as long as you're not listing it for sale publicly) but not from your store.

Religion is a good comparison of a "protected class" that, like gun ownership, you're not "born with" AND has the added similarity of being a Constitutionally protected right (like RKBA). Not to mention being dually maligned by Candidate Obama when clung to.

Gun ownership = a "civil right" is the surest way to sway undecided minds to our side of the argument.

A-R wrote:Religion is a good comparison of a "protected class" that, like gun ownership, you're not "born with" AND has the added similarity of being a Constitutionally protected right (like RKBA). Not to mention being dually maligned by Candidate Obama when clung to.

Gun ownership = a "civil right" is the surest way to sway undecided minds to our side of the argument.

The Force is strong with this one.

Good debate. I was listening to radio show, the commentator was saying all anti-discrimnatory rights are "new rights" and he mentioned that even the new ObamaCare is gained new right, the right to have access to health care.

So, if "bearing arms" is an old right fixed in-stones in the 2nA, we can fight the same fight and gain back our rights by eliminating restrictions or violations of said right. This is why I started this thread.

While keeping and bearing arms is indeed a protected right, having a CHL is a privilege and thus discriminating against us is legal.

jimlongley wrote:While keeping and bearing arms is indeed a protected right, having a CHL is a privilege and thus discriminating against us is legal.

This is until such restriction is repealed or made optional.

One- no CHL holders are not a protected class.

Two- your privilege to carry concealed does not supersede the rights of a property owner.

I know there are folks that feel carrying concealed is a constitutional right. Since you must be licensed to do it, it is a privilege , not a right.

It's clearly a drastically infringed privilege.
If those who think you should be able to do this on private property - how would you feel if you were the property owner and told that you couldn't deny goods or services to someone wearing an anti-2nd T-shirt?