Muslim rights group doesn’t like Muslim-free gun range
Yahoo News reports that the group that calls itself Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has asked the Justice Department to look into the private business called Gun Cave Indoor Shooting Range in Hot Springs, Arkansas which has declared that it is a “Muslim-free zone” and that they won’t cater to customers of that particular religious persuasion;
Jan Morgan, owner of the Gun Cave Indoor Shooting Range…, wrote in an online post last month. “This is a live fire indoor shooting range … Why would I want to rent or sell a gun and hand ammunition to someone who aligns himself with a religion that commands him to kill me?”
Morgan, who says she has “read and studied” the Koran thoroughly, found “109 verses commanding hate, murder and terror against all human beings who refuse to submit or convert to Islam.”
[…]
“I understand that not all Muslims are terrorists,” Morgan continued. “I also believe there are as many Muslims who do not know what is in their Koran as there are Christians who do not know what is in their Bible. Since I have no way of discerning which Muslims will or will not kill in the name of their religion and the commands in their Koran, I choose to err on the side of caution for the safety of my patrons.”
As far as her beliefs, I think that this goes beyond religion – as far as I’m concerned, she owns the business and it’s her choice who her customers are…the same way I felt about the bakers who wouldn’t bake a gay wedding cake. If a business owner doesn’t want to serve me because I wear jeans, that’s fine, I’ll find someone who will serve me. That’s what the gay wedding party should have done, and it’s what Muslims should do do in Hot Springs instead of being whiny little bitches about it.
Category: Legal
Well said…this is called a “Free-Market” for a reason.
Don’t like one place’s policy, go somewhere else!
If she is forced to allow them in, she should only put up targets that depict arabs…
Yes, thank you. Not all arabs are muslims or terrorists. (: .
I am reading the Koran right now…and it’s going to be hard to tell the difference, as they are allowed to lie about things to further the cause of Islam…
And they may not all be terrorist, but they are all shady, IMO
To get the full perspective on the Qur’an, read it in the order of ‘revelation,’ not the order it’s written. When there is a conflict of verses, the later verse takes precedence.
You’ll notice that it’s only the earlier verses that are all peace and love and kumbayah, while the later verses command Islam’s adherents to deal…harshly…with the infidel.
TacticalTrunkMonkey
If she is forced to allow them in, she should only put up targets that depict
arabsMohammad …/fixed that for you.
That or hang copies of the koran after they’ve been rubbed in lard!!
Thank you!
AMEN
Sounds fine by me, private businesses ought to have the right to refuse service! When was the last time anyone saw Christians, Jews, Buhddists or Hindus screaming and screeching for the deaths of everyone who wouldn’t convert to their religion? Islam is also THE most intolerant religion in this world, just try to build a church or synagogue anywhere in the Muslim part of this world and see what happens!
Your extremist Buddhists are currently waging a terror war in the golden triangle and along the southern end of Burma and Thailand about religion and religious reasons. http://world.time.com/2013/06/20/extremist-buddhist-monks-fight-oppression-with-violence/
It’s an amazing bit of wool that the Buddhists have pulled over the Western eyes about thier extremist views as well as thier violence filled past.
The Christians can be directed to either the former Balkans, the Irish or even the Flemish vs the world.
Then we could talk about the Jewish Defense League and thier teterror attacks against various targets and attempted attacks against the US government as late as 2001 and 2002.
This isn’t to excuse the violence that the radicals have taken with islam. Rather to say that there are radicals in all the faiths. That history has covered up the radicals in things like Buddhists and that still simmering in Europe is still Catholic vs Prostent with just as much “you can not built your devil church or devil worshipping” going on even now. Let alone those that chose to speak ill of the faith.
Moral equivalence much? I don’t recall any Christian, Jew, or Buddhist lopping off the heads of captured aid workers or journalists on video for propaganda or any other purpose. Have you?
Obviously you fail to get the point that I am trying to make. That to claim that these other religious groups are not committing atrocities is false and not aligned with the real world, let alone history. To be honest trying to read into the whole Buddhists terrorism events it is hard to get real and lightly biases news from anyone. But a quick Google or Bing shows that Aid workers in Burma have been threatened with violence. Maybe not with lopping of heads but for sure with bullets, rapes and bombs. Ditto for the JDL they will gun you down or blow you up if you dare speak anything that remotely sounds Anti-semitic. Though they don’t scream “Allah Akbar” while doing so, in published manifestos they have claimed attacks in the name of the dead of the Holocaust and to preserve the faith. Again some of the JDL attacks have been against government targets such as Rep. Darrell Issa or the police officers that provides protection to the various Arab embassies. Which if that isn’t terrorism then either you are blind or you are a direct support of the same. Seriously, to make a stupid statement to the effect that only Muslims or Islamic faith individuals commit hate crimes or terror attacks without looking at the whole world and seeing that they are occurring even without the media coverage here in the US. I mean in some European countries there are “Christians” blaming the Jews and the Islamic folks for the economic issues and in a few of the countries that have longer memories they are devoting argument time into who is the more faithful of the Christian splinters. That is happening now and being debated now in the beer halls and the papers and such of the world. Some of that is violence filled fights that go back to the days of Alexander of Macedonia. Some of the violence is continuing today. So again it ain’t such much as moral equivalency that I am trying to make here. It’s that all of our religious folks (including those atheists… Read more »
References please. Or are you just talking ****?
I generally disagree with a business deciding that they will not serve anyone based on that persons religion, color, gender, etc…
In this case though, the gun store has a right and an obligation not to sell guns or ammunition to anyone whom they feel may not be “right”. Just as they have the right to refuse to sell to someone who may havea clean background check, because they walk in appearing drunk, insane, spewing political rhetoric that is violent, etc.
Let’s face it, if I owned a gun store and some guy walks in with Nazi Tattoos, I am not selling to them.
Ah, ignorance in action. Just makes gun owners look like a bunch of redneck hillbillies. I’ll support her right to be an idiot, but she’s still an idiot.
Wonder if she would ban Massad Ayoob from coming in? I mean, his name sounds Muslim, right?
She should sell those pork-laced bullets, targets of Mohammad, and other such wonderful items.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5kE_WISNGs
I want everyone to pay attention to the comment by orionh3000. that is my youtube name. That incident really happened to me.
Doing what they can to make others mad at them, then whipping out their cameras to paint themselves as “victims’. They’ve been taking lessons from Westboro Baptists!
How about we let them on our firing ranges when they allow Christians back into their churches:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9bb_1366188398
Pinto Nag…Thank you and Amen to that!
A publicity stunt. In Arkansas there are some pretty decent peaceful Muslims, see the families at the library often. However, there is also the Nation of Islam crowd who are anything but. While many Muslims’ dress and appearance is distinguishable, the NOI crowd (when they are not wearing their bow ties) fit in with the African-American population because most are clean shaven. They offer more of a potential for a problem then the real deal Muslims. Regardless, on my next trip to Hot Springs I’ll check out the range.
The NOI is black supremacist group masquerading as a religion. Their beliefs are blasphemous to mainstream Islam.
As for Jonn’s accusations of whining on the part of CAIR or the gay wedding people, tough shit. If you want to believe in a free market economy that allows shop owners to discriminate based on things other than do-you have-enough-money-to-buy-this-item then you should also support people’s right not only take their business elsewhere, but also to organize boycotts and spread the word about discriminatory practices.
Huh?
Organizing boycotts and spreading the word is quite different than whining to the Justice Department in the hopes of having the government force the shop owners to conform to one’s way of thinking – which is what I took Jonn’s “whining” reference to mean.
You are aware that it is illegal to discriminate against customers because of their race, ethnicity, or religion, right? Is Jonn “whining” when he calls his local police department after being threatened by some crazy phony for the umpteenth time?
I’m aware. I’m also aware that such laws are contrary the “free-market economy” concept in your previous post, making your argument, challenge, or whatever you want to call it, a non-sequitur.
Also, the police example is irrelevant. Discrimination – at least the type being discussed here – is not a crime.
I’m aware. I’m also aware that such laws are contrary the “free-market economy” concept in your previous post, making your argument, challenge, or whatever you want to call it, a non-sequitur.
Also, the police example is irrelevant. Discrimination – at least the type being discussed here – is not a crime
Are you aware that it only became illegal for a business to “discriminate” against anyone because instead of taking their business elsewhere, someone cried to the nanny state.
Everybody or group of people seem peaceful till the shooting starts. Heard of sleeper cell? They in plain sight till the time to start the attacks. Farmer by day -Cong by night. Joe
Let them sue her. It was established a LONG time ago that business owners have the right to refuse service to anyone they choose, no matter what the basis was for it.
This means that a restaurant owner has the right to ask parents with disruptive out-of-control children to get them under control or take their business elsewhere.
A bartender has the right to refuse to continue to sell liquor to a customer who is already intoxicated.
There are plenty of other examples, but the sum of it is that business owners are allowed to determine who they want as customers, despite that gay wedding cake crap.
A business is allowed to reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. This reminds me of an incident I witnessed about six years back at my favorite gun shop. Like many such businesses, the majority of the staff were either retired or off-duty sheriff’s deputies and city cops working a second job. I was about to make a decision on the SKS I wound up buying (great rifle BTW) when a pair of hispanic-looking lads walked in. I paid them no mind, so I didn’t notice the matching hoodie sweaters. The old-timer (retired cop) I had been talking to immediately motioned for me to move aside and drew his .40 on the newcomers. The three other guys behind the counter (off-duty, second job guys) immediately did the same. The old-timer calmly said, “You two better get the fuck outta here. Now. And don’t come back.” The two unwelcome visitors tried to argue and bluster for a second, but were told, “If you don’t leave now, you’re going to jail. If you try to resist that, you’re going to the morgue.” The two jackasses figured out that the shop staff were serious about Options-B and -C and selected Option-A instead. When they were gone and all weapons were holstered, I asked the old-timer what the hell had just happened. He asked me if I had noticed what the were wearing, which I hadn’t. Turns out they were both wearing colors for an active hispanic gang, plus one had a gang tattoo on his neck showing above his collar. My response was, “Good looking out,” and proceeded with my purchase. Imagine the bleeding-heart “that’s wacial pwofiwing!” response libtards (in their infinite hypocrisy) might bleat if they saw that. Except that, no, these shitheads were displaying distinctive gang colors in a room full of law enforcement professionals who know how to recognize them. And these clearly-gang-affiliated lads were obviously looking to obtain guns and/or ammo for some illegal and nefarious purpose. Or another incident, this time with me as an active participant, also while going through the process of purchasing another vintage… Read more »
Is it really that much of a burden to take your business elsewhere? Or is it just that important for CAIR to be a bunch of drama queens?
I’ll take choice #2 for $25.
Sounds good. Perhaps you can take part of your winnings to help teach people how to go to another business?
Absolutely.
A sign at the door that says ‘We reserve the right to refuse to serve people at our discretion for the protection of our regular customers.’
A stack of cards redirecting people who want that service, to a company or companies that will serve them.
No explanation is required of the business owner.
Ex-PH2: There is a big difference between your examples, your conclusion, and this particular matter. The examples you gave reflect behaviors exhibited by particular customers. Certainly, a businessperson may refuse to serve or sell something to a customer who is disruptive to the business, filthy, drunk, what have you. But refusing to serve or sell to a customer based on the customer’s religion is another matter. Doing so may violate state law, including the state’s Constitution, or it may run afoul of Federal law. In part, the size of the business matters here. CAIR did not file a suit. It has filed a complain with the DOJ, asking for the matter to be investigated. I’m guessing that it won’t turn out well for the business owner, if for no other reason than the time, worry, and expense the Feds poking around will mean to her. Private discrimination remains untouched, and this includes private clubs which meet rather strict criteria for being truly private. The bakery case was quite different than this range case. The baker held strict religious beliefs that precluded him from assisting the celebration of a gay marriage by making a cake for the happy couple. He was run over by the gov’t steamroller but, at last report, he was doing so well that he was focusing on cream puffs and cupcakes of the edible kind, to the exclusion of wedding cakes and cream puffs and cupcakes of the walking, talking kind.
Oh, I understand that, 2/17AirCav, but I didn’t want to use religion as an excuse.
However, there are some strict kosher shops which will not serve or sell products to non-Jewish people because of dietary laws. Now, that is based entirely on religious preference, and the shop owners are only following the tenets of orthodoxy.
In this case, the range owner could have avoided any arguments by saying she would not give them range time but could direct them to a range that would accommodate them. She didn’t have to bring religion into it at all. While I understand her viewpoint and personal feelings, she could have handled it better.
So CAIR doesn’t like the policy of this business owner, some atheists don’t like displays of the manger scene at Christmas, a few activists with an axe to grind don’t like the name of a professional sports team. And everyone is supposed to come to a screeching halt and give a shit. I didn’t think that was how things were supposed to work in this country, but we have now become a nation that quivers in fear of offending a butthurt few who want things their way. As I used to tell my Marines, this aint fucking Burger King, you don’t always get it your way. DEAL WITH IT!!
“Come to a screeching halt and give a shit”
Love it.
Last time I checked my cares and concerns pocket, I pulled out nothing…I’m with you MGunz!
“…a few activists with
an axea tomahawk to grind don’t like the name of a professional sports team.…”There, I fixed that for you.
Nice.
Those activists are identified by traditional tribal names like Fauxcahontas, White Poser, Speaks Bullshit, and Pretends To Be Indian.
Believe it s the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that gives the lie to your assertions, PH2. In the examples you cite, eg. the bartender, they are refusing to abet a customer’s bad or potentially illegal behavior. If you open a public business, you can refuse to deal with someone because they are a deadbeat or if they try to get you to perform illegal acts like serving underage patrons booze, etc. but NOT on the grounds of race, creed, color, and such.
While I sympathize deeply with the lady who runs the range (and, judging by the pics they have published, she is SMOKIN’ hot) legally she is on clearly shaky ground at best. Now, if she took her inspiration from Kansas before liquor-by-the-drink was legal and made her ‘club’ private, and required a membership application and fee to be paid, she would be on much more defensible territory. She could ‘just happen’ to deny membership and access to everyone who filled in the wrong thing on their application.
“Race” is a genetic concept, rather than a belief structure. Does not apply.
Fringe, you may be correct regarding “race,” but I think “creed” is applicable here. (it’s not just a band – and I use that term loosely)
Since we have determined that MOST terrorist are Muslim…and ALL terrorist want to kill Americans, we can draw the conclusion that since murder is illegal in all 50 States, that she is denying them access due to the fact that they MAY be plotting murder.
Could we not? (If I am WAY off base, please excuse me, at lunch I drank one of those new herbal drinks, and didn’t notice that it was for sleep-time…barely holding on here.)
No, David, as in not, nay, nyet. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 doesn’t apply to all businesses. I would educate you but I don’t like the way you responded to Ex-PH2. So, stay ignorant or do some reading on the matter.
see Hondo’s response below. And what do you find offensive about my response?
I saw Hondo’s response, thanks. Your point?
And what I found objectionable about your reply was your saying that the CRA of 1964 “gives the lie to your assertions, PH2.” Perhaps your word choice was odd and you didn’t mean to be rude, but that’s the way I took it.
Shop owner needs to find a lawyer familiar with Katzenbach v. McClung. And while they’re at it, they might want to Google “Ollie’s Barbeque Birmingham 1964”.
For an establishment doing business with the general public, refusing service solely on the basis of race, ethnicity, or religion is generally a rather big “NO GO”.
Hondo,
Do you think it would matter if the gun range has little or no effect on interstate commerce? They likely don’t and I see that is mentioned in the Ollie’s BBQ case and the Heart of Atlanta Motel case.
It didn’t matter for Ollie’s BBQ. The reasoning there was that – even though he made his own BBQ sauce – some of the materials were produced outside the state of Alabama. So he was thus engaging in “interstate commerce”, and his business was indeed covered by the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
I thought that decision was a stretch, and that the SCOUTS reached there to justify a decision it wanted to make. I don’t think the reasoning there is particularly sound.
However, it’s now a SCOTUS decision legal precedent, and my guess is it will be found applicable here too. I very seriously doubt it will be impossible to find some nebulous connection with interstate commerce here, and that’s all it will take – even if the proverbial “reasonable person” would look at it and say, “Interstate commerce my azz. You’re nuts.”
I agree, I don’t think the gun range is going to win this one, just dicussing it to educate myself.
Thanks.
The main problem was back when private businesses were added to the anti-discrimination laws as providing “public accommodation”. They were originally intended to prevent hotels and restaurants from turning away black people, but morphed into being applied to ALL businesses who provide a product or service to the public.
That violates private property laws under the Constitution. Private property means your business property, not just your home, and you should be able to provide (or not provide) any product or service to anyone you want to. Otherwise you end up with the current situation in NY where the business property is also their home, so they are being forced to allow gay couples to stay in their home as part of the wedding services they offer. So in trying to force “rights” of some people, you violate actual constitutional rights of others.
If people don’t like it, there’s the 1st Amendment. Most business owners don’t like the bad publicity and the loss of business.
As David noted above, the lady is SMOKIN’ HOT and a bit of a self promoter. However she does make the point that the presence of obviously Middle Eastern males, speaking in an unintelligible language and exhibiting somewhat strange behavior for a firing range is spooking her other customers and driving away business.
Ask yourselves how comfortable you’d feel under such circumstances especially if you had your spouse or children with you? I know for damned sure that I wouldn’t take my eyes off them for a moment so how am I supposed to relax and get in some range time?
She also points out that under the terms of her FFL she is instructed by ATF to refuse to sell guns to ANYONE who appears suspicious with the further instruction from the feds that it is better to err on the side of caution.
So, one the hand the government is telling her to refuse service to anyone who appears suspicious, and on the other, telling her she must provide services to everyone who enters her business, another typical federal government contradiction.
You actually may have stumbled upon the best reason she could have for refusing service – if she perceived that the folks in question had an inadequate grasp of English safety instructions or demands, she would for sure be able to bar them for safety reasons.
Honestly, at most public ranges by the time I try to keep an eye on the idiots practicing spray-and-pray, the folks with gang colors, the macho ‘just watch THIS’ types, the folks who insist on trying to handle or load their weapons while others are downrange – I feel like I need to be a human fly.
Guys,
We have a saying out here in Iowa that tell about all you need to know about this Lady that don’t give a good shit about who she allows to use her target range.” THE BULL CAN STAY,” BUT THE SHIT HAS TO GO”
Enough said.
Where the tall corn grows
Hmmmmm …. interesting concept.
A comment on Jan Morgan’s FaceBook page suggests the club adopt a porcine mascot. Hmmmmm …. that action would say a lot without saying anything.
Perhaps an live Arkansas Ridgeback would be appropriate.
All she needs to do is have say, a fiberglass sculpture or three of a Razorback Hog, that alone should repel them. I too have issues with the “Trailer Court Rambos’ on any range as well as the “know-it-alls”, and YES, I would have an issue with someone in islamic garb on the range, especially if he’s yelling “allah *BLEEP!*” when he shoots!
“…a
nlive Arkansas Ridgeback…”Sheesh.
The bakery case was a state administrative court decision that was based wholly on Colorado law. So, we can put that aside b/c it has zero applicability to the range matter. Second, the range case (not yet a court case) is a complaint put to the DOJ by CAIR raising the question of whether the range owner is illegally discriminating against Muslims. The range owner had been advised by ATF that if she felt uneasy about selling someone a gun, she did not have to do so. ( This is an example of the type of thing Ex-PH2 mentioned.) However, it appears that the range owner used that advice as a springboard to bar all Muslims from using her range. CAIR cited no specific law violated by the range owner, nor would I expect it to do so. It is now up to DOJ to pursue the investigation or not and, if it does, to determine which laws the range owner allegedly violated. Title VII of the CRA of 1964 does a number of things, including enforcing the right to vote, creating the EEOC, and prohibiting certain discrimination in public accommodation. Federal statute (42 US Code 2000a) prohibits certain discrimination in places of public accommodation. Public accommodations include private hotels, eateries, sports arenas, theatres, and the like. It is not an exhaustive list, necessarily, as a court may find, for instance, that a gun range a place of public accommodation. Is it? If so, the range owner is cooked (pun intended.)
Jonn: Thanks. This was fun for me. It knocked some dust off my noggin.
It looks like a publicity stunt for her to attract business. I wonder just how many Muslims have been frequenting her range.
An any rate shes dead wrong in what she is doing. Like someone said, keep an eye on them and report anything shady.
To me her pulling that shit in un-American. Im sure Moosa Ayoob woud be heartbroken if he could use her range’
Oh Hell, make the range private and she decides who shoots on her range. Guest shooters must be personally preapoved. Joe
“Muslim rights group doesn’t like Muslim-free gun range”
Fuck em.
’nuff said
So if Islam antithetical to our Constitution, but they use that Constitution to practice said political ideology what is that called?
Hypocrisy.