Arkansas gun range becomes the first to exclude Muslims

[kelpdiver 2]

BillyVance

When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and the U.S. declared war on Japan, did the U.S. not round up thousands of Japanese immigrants and herd them into incarceration camps for fear of Japanese attacks from within those communities on the U.S.? That was an extreme measure, to be sure, but we were at war.

This horse is nearly dead already, but...

your not quite reasonable argument would hold a bit more water if we also imprisoned all the German and Italian Americans. Would demonstrate that this was based on an actual threat and not mere racism and a chance to grab the property of a large number of citizens. As noted, that property wasn't returned after the threat was proven false.

There are few acts more unconstitutional than seizure of property.

As for the range owner in question- how will she know? Any would be Muslim terrorist can easily dress normally (around here, our Black Panther inspired "Your Black Muslim Bakery" fanatics are well dressed men in suits. Will she bar any black men in 3 piece suits? Anyone wearing a Sikh turban (they're brown enough, right?)? Any women in a veil?

She'll probably need to get the legislature to pass a law requiring all Muslims to wear clothing with a crescent moon stitched on. Only way she can be sure.

[jtiflyer 0]

DanG

Quote

Fixed this for you. My whole family was shipped off from their farm to a prison in Utah. Never got their land back when released, they were forced to start over from nothing.


ETA: As for the Range owner, good on her. Not sure about state law, but in CA the most retarded of states you can refuse service to a customer.

I'm a little taken aback that you would support discrimination based on nothing but religion given your family history.

"And when they came for me, there was no one left..."

What I support is somebody standing up for their rights as a business owner. If it violates Arkansas law then well she doesn't have a leg to stand on unless she converts her business to a "club" that requires membership, then limiting club members would be easier.

If you don't like the policy and its legal, don't spend your dollars there.

Hell there are dz's I won't go to due to their policies.

[BIGUN 1,053]

>The law of the land is that business owners may exclude people who display slogans reading (or even blatantly implying) "nigger and raghead hater"

I have a question about this.

Cohen vs. California, 403 U.S.15 (1971) - individuals have the constitutional right under the First Amendment to wear clothing which displays writings or designs. In addition, the right of an individual to freedom of association has long been recognized and protected by the United States Supreme Court. Thus, a person's right to wear the clothing of his choice, as well as his right to belong to any club or organization of his choice is constitutionally protected, and persons or establishments who discriminate on the basis of clothing or club membership are subject to lawsuit.

The rationale of the California court is plainly untenable. At most it reflects an "undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance [which] is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression." SOURCE: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=403&invol=15

I noticed a lot of businesses at Sturgis that had a sign that said, "No Colors."
And, I saw a lot of arguments using the above as their right to enter a business that had such a sign.

So what is the law when it comes to freedom of expression on clothing?
Can you point me in a direction?

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[jtiflyer 0]

California can't even follow its own court decisions
http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_26552046/american-flag-t-shirt-case-court-refuses-rehear

[lummy 4]

jtiflyer

California can't even follow its own court decisions
http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_26552046/american-flag-t-shirt-case-court-refuses-rehear

you do realize that you linked to a case that was heard in the 9th circuit, not a california court?

I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

[RonD1120 58]

Did I not imply your point in sentence number two?

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[Andy9o8 0]

Good morning. Just saw your post from last night on my phone. I'll try to post more later today from a computer.

[RonD1120 58]

Here is what the owner Jan Morgan states in her own words.

http://janmorganmedia.com/2014/09/business-muslim-free-zone/#5LXiUUG8sImSPioW.99

Quote

4) Two muslims walked in to my range last week with allah akbar ring tone and message alert tones on their smart phones. They spoke very little english, one did not have proof of U.S. citizenship, yet they wanted to rent and shoot guns.
Their behavior was so strange, it was unnerving to my patrons. No one would enter the range to shoot while they were there. Some of my customers left.
(can you blame them?)

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

RonD1120

Here is what the owner Jan Morgan states in her own words.

http://janmorganmedia.com/2014/09/business-muslim-free-zone/#5LXiUUG8sImSPioW.99

Quote

4) Two muslims walked in to my range last week with allah akbar ring tone and message alert tones on their smart phones. They spoke very little english, one did not have proof of U.S. citizenship, yet they wanted to rent and shoot guns.
Their behavior was so strange, it was unnerving to my patrons. No one would enter the range to shoot while they were there. Some of my customers left.
(can you blame them?)

Some people will see this as perfect justification, some people will facepalm.

[BIGUN 1,053]

Thank you, Andy.

Ever since then, whenever I go to a large venue and see everything from corporate Logo shirts to the very distasteful; its been a question. As you can tell, I've researched it some, but cannot tell at what point an establishment can legally tell one to leave because they find what they're wearing to their disliking.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[normiss 622]

Disney does it every day.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

So what is the law when it comes to freedom of expression on clothing?
Can you point me in a direction?

I don't have a specific case at easily hand, if there is one yet (but invite others to search), that specifically rules on whether a private party (like a business or a private, non-public school) can restrict freedom of expression on customers'/clients' clothing, tattoos, etc. on their premises, but I think the answer is usually Yes, at least under current federal law & regs, as long as there's no state law, reg, state constitutional provision, etc. that prohibits such restrictions.

Generally, public entities have less freedom to enact restrictions on their premises than private parties do, because public entities are bound by BOTH all statutes (laws) AND the Constitution, whereas private parties (for the most part) are bound only by statues & regs that apply to them, but are generally more free to ignore (what would otherwise be) "constitutional rights" on their premises. That's because most of the basic US Constitutional protections (free speech, bearing arms, no search & seizure, etc.) apply only to government/public entities, not to private parties.

That's why (at least under federal law) the private ballpark can frisk you and search your bags at the gate for weapons or outside food & drink, or why the hippie bookstore can ban guns on premises (unless there's a state law prohibiting such bans), or restaurants can set and enforce dress codes (including no "colors" or t-shirts or tats w/expressions they disapprove of, etc.). If a privately-owned tavern wants to ban a jacket saying "Fuck the draft" (like in your Cohen case... hey, remember the draft?), or a DZ ban a tat that says "Infidel", they can do so. In all these examples, you either comply or don't enter the premises (or risk being charged with trespass for doing so, just as much as you could be charged with trespass if you refuse my order to get off my lawn).

A public entity, however, generally can't restrict your freedom of expression on its premises (or criminalize the actual expression) nearly as much as the private party can. That's why the Cohen case you cite really does not apply here: Cohen was charged criminally for the very substance of his expression, PLUS he engaged in that expression in a public courthouse, where it offended a cop who saw him in the corridor. (Note that Cohen took his jacket off and folded it up before entering a courtroom, so there was never an issue of improper conduct in a courtroom.)

So if our Arkansas gun range owner wanted to ban a t-shirt saying "Support the right to unionize!" from her premises, she may do so, even though the public courthouse could not, because she's a private party with private property. That t-shirt would have a much tougher time being banned from the campus of a state university than a private one... for the reasons I've explained here.

Now then: is the Arkansas gun range's ban on Muslims unlawful? Yes. Is it because the ban violates the Constitution? No, because that provision of the Constitution only applies to government entities; it's silent as to private parties. The reason why the ban on Muslims is unlawful is because it violates the whole network of federal anti-discrimination statutes, which include religion as a protected classification.

[DanG 1]

Quote

4) Two muslims walked in to my range last week with allah akbar ring tone and message alert tones on their smart phones. They spoke very little english, one did not have proof of U.S. citizenship, yet they wanted to rent and shoot guns.
Their behavior was so strange, it was unnerving to my patrons. No one would enter the range to shoot while they were there. Some of my customers left.
(can you blame them?)

I think she has good reason to ban those two individuals.

Extending the ban to all Muslims is stupid, prejudiced, and ignorant.

- Dan G

[kelpdiver 2]

DanG

Quote

4) Two muslims walked in to my range last week with allah akbar ring tone and message alert tones on their smart phones. They spoke very little english, one did not have proof of U.S. citizenship, yet they wanted to rent and shoot guns.
Their behavior was so strange, it was unnerving to my patrons. No one would enter the range to shoot while they were there. Some of my customers left.
(can you blame them?)

I think she has good reason to ban those two individuals.

Extending the ban to all Muslims is stupid, prejudiced, and ignorant.

This.

Though the lack of citizenship isn't a valid complaint. I've taken many Canadians to shoot at the range. Valid ID is a legit requirement, but they don't need to be citizens.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

I've taken many Canadians to shoot at the range.

Oh, in god's name, why?? You do realize all the shit on our Southern border is a grand diversion, don't you? Wake up and smell the coffee.

[jtiflyer 0]

lummy

***California can't even follow its own court decisions
http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_26552046/american-flag-t-shirt-case-court-refuses-rehear

you do realize that you linked to a case that was heard in the 9th circuit, not a california court?

I was replying to the post above. The original case was from California, that's why it goes to the 9th. My point is in Cohen vs. California the precedent was set that its your right to wear clothing with writing or designs.

Now this school listed in the article I linked is able to remove the students rights to where clothing with the american flag.

Sorry if i made my point poorly

[jtiflyer 0]

kelpdiver

***

Quote

4) Two muslims walked in to my range last week with allah akbar ring tone and message alert tones on their smart phones. They spoke very little english, one did not have proof of U.S. citizenship, yet they wanted to rent and shoot guns.
Their behavior was so strange, it was unnerving to my patrons. No one would enter the range to shoot while they were there. Some of my customers left.
(can you blame them?)

I think she has good reason to ban those two individuals.

Extending the ban to all Muslims is stupid, prejudiced, and ignorant.

This.

Though the lack of citizenship isn't a valid complaint. I've taken many Canadians to shoot at the range. Valid ID is a legit requirement, but they don't need to be citizens.


That may vary from state to state. I was with a Serbian at a Florida gun range, and he was refused for not being a citizen. Not sure if it was legal on their part, but we accepted it. he coached I shot no problem.

[rehmwa 2]

DanG

I think she has good reason to ban those two individuals.

Extending the ban to all Muslims is stupid, prejudiced, and ignorant.

this ^^^^

excellent - the key word "individuals". decision should be based on one's actions and impact on the business - not some irrational opinion based on stereotypes of a generalized group

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[BIGUN 1,053]

I really want to thank you for the time you've given this. So... Fair to partly cloudy.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[Andy9o8 0]

jtiflyer

******California can't even follow its own court decisions
http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_26552046/american-flag-t-shirt-case-court-refuses-rehear

you do realize that you linked to a case that was heard in the 9th circuit, not a california court?

I was replying to the post above. The original case was from California, that's why it goes to the 9th.

Not exactly; although in fairness it's the sort of technical thing that most non-lawyers don't necessarily know off the top of their head. Anyhow, as far as I know, the original case was not heard in a California state court applying California state law. Rather, it was heard in federal court (in a US District Court located in California), and applied US federal law.

Quote

My point is in Cohen vs. California the precedent was set that its your right to wear clothing with writing or designs.

Sorry, but as I explained in my earlier post (apologies for the length), Cohen dealt only with restrictions (and criminalization of speech) by public/government entities; Cohen does not, IMPO, apply to strictly private parties setting rules to be followed on their own private property.

Quote

Now this school listed in the article I linked is able to remove the students rights to where clothing with the american flag.

I think that if the US Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, it's a close enough call that I personally wouldn't try to predict the outcome.

[Shotgun 1]

rehmwa

***I think she has good reason to ban those two individuals.

Extending the ban to all Muslims is stupid, prejudiced, and ignorant.

this ^^^^

excellent - the key word "individuals". decision should be based on one's actions and impact on the business - not some irrational opinion based on stereotypes of a generalized group

That sounds reasonable, but it doesn't allow for publicity.

If I get bored enough, I may convert to Islam just so I can go visit her gun range and get away with it. Somehow I don't think they'll question the religion of a little white lady with a Texas accent.

[Andy9o8 0]

RonD1120

Did I not imply your point in sentence number two?

On reflection, yes.

[BIGUN 1,053]

Quote

I think that if the US Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, it's a close enough call that I personally wouldn't try to predict the outcome.

It will be interesting to say the least. If memory serves; this was in response to Hispanic children wearing the Mexican flag on school grounds; but forbidding other children from wearing the US Flag during Cinco de Mayo.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[Andy9o8 0]

BIGUN

Quote

I think that if the US Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, it's a close enough call that I personally wouldn't try to predict the outcome.

It will be interesting to say the least. If memory serves; this was in response to Hispanic children wearing the Mexican flag on school grounds; but forbidding other children from wearing the US Flag during Cinco de Mayo.

Yeah, if it gets heard, the Equal Protection issue - whether there's a double-standard - will probably be prominent.

[Stumpy 256]

Shotgun

******I think she has good reason to ban those two individuals.

Extending the ban to all Muslims is stupid, prejudiced, and ignorant.

this ^^^^

excellent - the key word "individuals". decision should be based on one's actions and impact on the business - not some irrational opinion based on stereotypes of a generalized group

That sounds reasonable, but it doesn't allow for publicity.

If I get bored enough, I may convert to Islam just so I can go visit her gun range and get away with it. Somehow I don't think they'll question the religion of a little white lady with a Texas accent.

This is a good point. I strongly doubt she has banned Muslims unless she asks everyone coming in what religion they are. What she has probably banned is "people who look foreign". However I would love to be incorrect on this one.

Never try to eat more than you can lift