TexasCHLforum.com

Like in the Civil right movement of 60s. There was segregation, refuse to serve some minority because of color of skin or race. Some 50 yrs later all of that was proven to be discriminatory.
Now, bearing firearms is personal civil right. So, having a CHL and carrying a firearm is exercising said right.
So, is banning CHLer from public/private property discriminatory?, As such limitation is violation to a civil right?

No

I'm certainly no expert/attorney, but I don't think we can call it discrimination. A person with a CHL does not qualify as a protected class. Just my thought on the matter.

No

I wondered this myself.

I applied for a position at a school and wondered what my Likes on FB would be thought of as they indicate my interest in women with guns among other non gun related topics. I wonder if they could discount me as a candidate if they find out about my CHL in my background check.

CHLLady wrote:I wondered this myself.

I applied for a position at a school and wondered what my Likes on FB would be thought of as they indicate my interest in women with guns among other non gun related topics. I wonder if they could discount me as a candidate if they find out about my CHL in my background check.

The short answer is: Yes, although if you somehow attached your CHL to membership in a legally protected class in your posts, it might muddy the waters a bit.

ANYTHING you put on social media sites can cause you heartache.

I don't have social media accounts for that very reason, and for privacy concerns.

Of course it's discriminatory. It's a form of discrimination that is legal under current US law.

I think I need to qualify my answer. The OP associated discrimination against CHLs (posting a 30.06 sign I assume) with not allowing person to enter your store because of the color of their skin. In this sense I do not believe that the two are comparable because you can leave the gun in the car, you can't leave your skin in the car. With the CHL example an item is being banned from private property not a person.
That being said, I would love to see the law changed so that CHL could carry anywhere an off duty officer can carry.

AFAIK pretty much all gun control legislation has its origins in keeping firearms out of the hands of certain groups of people.

Is banning CHL discrimination? IMO yes it is.

Just my .02 and I am not an attorney,
LeonCarr

LeonCarr wrote:AFAIK pretty much all gun control legislation has its origins in keeping firearms out of the hands of certain groups of people.

I agree, but it has expanded to exclude almost all groups of people.

Of course it is discriminatory. But discrimination itself is not illegal...we all discriminate on a regular basis and think nothing of it. I discriminate against thieves, and murderers, and liars, and cheats, and rude people, and store clerks with poor customer service skills, and the jerks that tail-gate at 75 mph on the interstate, and ...(just keep on filling in the blanks all you want).

The law only addresses discrimination against particular groups of people, and CHL holders ain't one of those groups.

WildBill wrote:

LeonCarr wrote:AFAIK pretty much all gun control legislation has its origins in keeping firearms out of the hands of certain groups of people.

I agree, but it has expanded to exclude almost all groups of people.

My concern does not lie with those other groups, my concern lies with my group.

Beiruty wrote:Like in the Civil right movement of 60s. There was segregation, refuse to serve some minority because of color of skin or race. Some 50 yrs later all of that was proven to be discriminatory.
Now, bearing firearms is personal civil right. So, having a CHL and carrying a firearm is exercising said right.
So, is banning CHLer from public/private property discriminatory?, As such limitation is violation to a civil right?

Not unless you were born with a CHL. Aside from religion (and sexual orientation in some eyes), protected classes are things that you are born with...but IANL.

And you have to remember, even protected classes are not immune from being prohibited from entering private property. If middle-aged fat guys were a protected class I could still legally ban them from entering my private property.