Crockett Keller May Loose CHL Instructor Lic. for Radio Ad - Page 4

Crockett Keller May Loose CHL Instructor Lic. for Radio Ad

This is a discussion on Crockett Keller May Loose CHL Instructor Lic. for Radio Ad within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by HotGuns No one has to attend his class and it is his right to do as he pleases. If I don't want ...

Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 122
Like Tree126Likes

Thread: Crockett Keller May Loose CHL Instructor Lic. for Radio Ad

  1. #46
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,721
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post

    No one has to attend his class and it is his right to do as he pleases. If I don't want to teach Catholics then they don't need to apply, after all it is a PRIVATE affair.
    Sir, you are woefully ignorant of our laws; LEO or not; board moderator notwithstanding.

    This individual is not in trouble because he spoke in a manner some find offensive. He is in trouble because he stated that he intended to violate TX and Federal law by not serving people based on prohibited criteria.

    He operates a business open to the public at large, under an authority granted by the state of TX, and he can't simply do as he pleases.

    He can say whatever absurd thing he wants, but he can't act on his comments.

    If a woman in a Hijab shows up, he has to teach her. If a nun in robes with cross dangling shows up, he has to teach her. If a skin head with tattoos shows up--- he can reject the person. Think carefully for a moment so you get to see the difference in these circumstances. The first is illegal discrimination on the basis of national origin, gender, and religion. The second is illegal discrimination based on religion and possibly on gender as well. The third example involves no issue of national origin, race, religion and so discrimination would be legal; but still wrong, because it is wrong to judge a book by the cover.

    You wrote:
    "If I don't want to teach Catholics then they don't need to apply, after all it is a PRIVATE affair."

    Let us go to your example-- "

    If you operate any business whatsoever or supervise any employees, you should know, and I will inform you, that such a position could cost you and your employer a $250,000 fine plus court costs for each
    time you made that choice.

    You would especially have no leg to stand on if your business required some sort of public authority's approval (as here for CHL instruction). You would teach all comers or you would face at least two possible consequences. 1) loss of authority to teach the course; 2) civil rights law suit with a $250K penalty.

    It really doesn't much matter whether you think that is fair or unfair. It doesn't much matter whether you think that somehow violates your privacy rights. It is well established law, and you would obey it or face consequences.

    Good grief.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson


  2. #47
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    Ditto on hopyards post. You may not like it but it is the law.

  3. #48
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,979
    Until he breaks the law, no law has been broken.

    A CHL Instructor does not have to teach anyone, at anytime.
    ErnieNWillis and JDE101 like this.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  4. #49
    Member Array Eaglebeak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Republic Of Texas
    Posts
    367
    This thread has been well exercised with many good thoughts and some not so good; but, for my humble 2-cents worth, I think azchevy pointed out the crux of the matter right up front with his first reply.

    Nobody will argue the fact that the goose with his particular credentials did a great injustice to CC people and firearms owners in general because it is outspoken, ignorant sounding buffoons like him who the well organized anti-gun establishment quickly pick as a "poster child" for effective use in a highly-publicized media blitz to purvey the concept that CC or OC people, CHL instructors, firearms dealers, and gunowners in general are all a bunch of ignorant, backwoods, uneducated, redneck bigots with a big mouth, big gun, and a bad attitude.

    Whether or not the guy gets raked over the coals, loses his licenses, gets sued for everything he has, and/or faces criminal charges will be up to the discretion of the local DA, the feds, and whatever well-financed, ultra-liberal organization may choose to pursue against him because he HAS broken a number of state, federal, and civil laws from what I can tell.

    1. "Freedom of Speech" is a Constitutional right; but it comes with many limitations that can quickly go against criminal and/or civil law if it contains harmful threats, illegal intents, commits perjury, incites to riot, advocates overthrow of the government, is treasonous, falsly slanders anyone, and a host of other legal offenses. In most places, one is entitled to express his/her opinion even if it may be discriminatory, prejudiced, and bigoted in nature; but where he may be in legal hot water is over the fact that his discriminatory rant went over the federally-controlled airwaves where such suddenly becomes illegal under FCC regulations and subject to massive fines and/or jail time if they choose to pursue it. (e.g. Janet Jackson could flash a boob on the street and maybe get a small misdemeanor fine from the local cops for indecent exposure - but do it on national TV, and the FCC slapped all parties involved with a few million in fines).

    2. "Discrimination" comes in two forms - one legal, and one illegal. Discrimination based on race, religion, color, creed, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, and a host of other factors is illegal by any public or publically-advertised business, agency, organization, institution, activity, property rental/sale, or opportunity whether the public or publically-advertising entity involved is for profit or non-profit in nature. However, "discrimination" is fully legal when based upon financial aspects (such as qualifying for a loan), criminal record (for certain employment positions or firearms sale), highest qualifications/ability (for job applicant selection), and for denial of service or entry to anyone who is either offensive or obviously dangerous to the establishment, patrons, members, clientele, visitors, or bystanders (drunk, naked, loud, violent, vulgar-mouthed, mentally deranged, brandishing an Uzi, etc.). I'm sure I'll be quickly corrected if wrong; but I think a CHL instructor (as with any other public business) can "legally discriminate" against anyone falling into any part of this category and turn them away without service. However, his public proclamation based on "illegal discrimination" may in itself be a violation of the law (depending on what court may hear the case), and will most definitely be a violation of the law if he should deny service to anyone on those grounds.

    I think our discriminatory laws are fair, just, and Constitutional to provide equal rights, freedoms, and opportunity to every citizen and legal alien. I am also just as angry and frustrated as everyone else about how those laws are being manipulated, twisted, unequally, and contradictorily enforced/applied (in the very same "discriminatory manner for which they prohibit) by liberal, special-interest minority factions to override "majority rule via the ballot box" into fulfilling their agenda by "minority rule via the court system". Unfortunately, I have to admit that Bozo has shot himself and everyone else in the foot while concurrently making himself legal cannon fodder on a number of fronts.
    JDE101, DefConGun and rably like this.

  5. #50
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Originally Posted by Bill MO
    Question, What did Crockett say that was not truthfull and just? He only stated what he would not do and who he would not allow in his class.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    And that statement was that he would break the law. It is not free speech when you proclaim that you will take an illegal action. And that is why DPS is considering revoking his license.
    Should he be punished if no one has been discriminated against or actually harmed. I can see the State taking action if someone who has been discriminated against complains but until that happens should any sanctions against him be brought?

    Unless he backs up his threat with action has anyone been harmed? I understand there is a law against certain forms of discrimination. Can you break that law without actually discriminating against a person? Can I be arrested for proclaiming that I will drink and drive?

    Michael

  6. #51
    Distinguished Member Array Bill MO's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    1,477
    Quote Originally Posted by mlr1m View Post
    Should he be punished if no one has been discriminated against or actually harmed. I can see the State taking action if someone who has been discriminated against complains but until that happens should any sanctions against him be brought?

    Unless he backs up his threat with action has anyone been harmed? I understand there is a law against certain forms of discrimination. Can you break that law without actually discriminating against a person? Can I be arrested for proclaiming that I will drink and drive?

    Michael
    In this Country as it is today YES.
    It's gotta be who you are, not a hobby. reinman45

    "Is this persons bad behavior worth me having to kill them over?" Guantes

  7. #52
    Distinguished Member Array ErnieNWillis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Willis, TX
    Posts
    1,230
    QUOTE=Hopyard;2065745]Good. He deserves to lose it. Maybe his FFL too.

    Why? It's HIS place of business right?

    Comes across rather eccentric to tell the truth. Not a good model for responsible gun owners and instructors at all. Guys like that become the posters for antis. Guys like that make the rest of the Texas population look really really bad.

    I dont think he make the population of Texas look bad. Seems to me this guy is standing up for his PERSONAL beliefs.

    He had opportunity to fix what he had done but chose to dig his heals in and rant
    in front to the cameras.

    Fix what?

    Too late now.[/QUOTE]

  8. #53
    Member Array WvHiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    310
    Would this discussion look any different if he declared he wouldn't give the class to any Methodists or people who voted for Reagan? How about if it were Baptists and people who didn't bother to vote at all?

    Like it or not the days of separate water fountains for some people are long gone. We have these laws because for a long time people tried to keep people different from themselves in separate schools, separate seating on the bus, and out of the ballot box. If this guy thinks it's violating his civil liberties he's free to contact the ACLU; before the flaming that the ACLU wouldn't take his case because of his race or beliefs look into them representing the Nazi Party's right to march in Skokie, Illinois.

    It's not illegal to be racist or a jerk. It is illegal to be racist if you teach a class that requires you to be licensed by the State of Texas, or any other State for that matter, and act on your racism. It's not just black people or brown people or certain religions that prompted these laws. The Irish used to get this kind of bigotry, the Italians got it, women got it; we have these laws because of that part about all men being created equal.

    I don't think it makes Texas look bad; you have idiots everywhere. This guy isn't what keeps me out of Texas; it's the phrase "103 degrees in the shade" that does it.
    TonyDTrigger and 9MMare like this.

  9. #54
    mrm
    mrm is offline
    Member Array mrm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by dukalmighty View Post
    He paid money and took the class to get his CHL Instructor certificate,this is America and IMHO he has the right to refuse to do business with people he don't like,I believe that people who are offended by his Ad will not seek him out to take his classes,It could very well have a negative effect and he will see the number of people signing up for classes dwindle.
    I can guarantee you unlike water and or electric companies he doesn't have a monopoly on CHL licenses,there are probably 50+ Instructors in his area.
    I second this completely!!!
    "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
    - Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

  10. #55
    Senior Member Array gilraen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    668
    I had this kind of idiot as my CHL instructor. I am a liberal-turned-moderate, and he ticked me off royally. Did he have a right to say "Every democrat is my enemy"? Sure. Did he have a right to call anyone not a religious conservative names, insult us, rail against us? Sure.

    But narrow-minded ignoramuses like this do nothing to advance 2A rights, or help anyone make their lives safer.

    I'm glad this guy outed himself, but sorry for the image he is projecting on the rest of us.
    "I pledge allegiance to the war banner of the united states of Totalitaria. And to the Republic, which no longer stands, several bankers, who are now god, indivisible, with Bernanke bucks and credit for all."

  11. #56
    VIP Member Array wmhawth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Western Colorado
    Posts
    4,488
    Seems to me this guy is standing up for his PERSONAL beliefs.
    I doubt it. I suspect his little speech at the end of his ad was less about his convictions and more about grandstanding for the home crowd. He may actually be aligned with enough ignorant yokels who will slap him on the back and tell him what a patriotic American he is for speaking out to make it pay off when some of them actually sign up for his classes. Their opinions won't constitute a consensus among serious supporters of our RKBA.
    As for his rights...Well, my opinion only of course, but......He has the right to remain silent. Anything he says can and will be used against us in the courts of public opinion.

  12. #57
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,721
    Quote Originally Posted by mrm View Post
    I second this completely!!!
    You completely miss the situation, as have the others who post things along the lines that "it is his right."

    If you are a "hair stylist," (we used to call them barbers) you are providing a public service and you may not hang a sign on your door saying we won't cut the hair of, say for example, Unitarians. There are two reasons for why you would get into trouble, and one of these is the fact that you hold a state issued license to cut hair and the state prohibits that type of discrimination.

    In Tx the CHL instructor has a state issued grant to teach such a course. He is authorized by the Dept. of Public Safety to sign state documents regarding the applicant's qualifications for a state issued concealed handgun license. The state won't issue a license until the licensed instructor signs off on the passing of both the range test and the test on the relevant law. In short, at least here in TX where this unfortunate episode arose, the state has its own interests in the behavior and competency and indeed character (honesty, integrity, sound judgment) of the person signing these document.

    It is indisputable that what the man did is not legal, and it sure as h is not moral.

    The word "fool" comes to mind, and we should not be applauding the foolish acts of someone engaged in a serious endeavor of instructing and evaluating others in the safe and legal use of handguns.

    There is a subset of people on this board who think we should turn the clock back to 1870 on all manner of issues economics to social and cultural. They are entitled to their misguided beliefs, but they are not entitled to act on them when doing so is plainly no longer legal.

    A good chunk of the opposition to HR 822 here has centered on a belief system (not dissimilar from the pro-Crockett thinking) that the world should operate as it did after the failed impeachment of the first President Johnson and the subsequent thwarting of Grant's attempt to ensure black suffrage in former Confederate states. The fourteenth amendment was put into place to moderate the worst instincts of some of the states, and that same section of the post Civil War amended constitution is what enables HR 822 to be legal. Every state now has at least some law of its own which parallels the Federal law anti-discrimination laws.

    If you want to live in 1872 and re-litigate the events and legislation which occurred between 1861 and 1872, if you want to dispute the social-justice and legal progress made in this nation under Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson during the 1950s and 1960s, you have my pity, but not my respect.
    gilraen likes this.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  13. #58
    Member Array Billspider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Holbrook, New York
    Posts
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMac View Post
    Losing our American freedoms didn't start in the 1960's. I likely started around 1789.

    There are logical arguments how the change in federal taxation to support the War of 1812 had a deleterious effect on individual and state freedoms. The Revenue Act of 1862 to support the Civil War became the foundation for federal empowerment in our lives. The 16th Amendment in 1913 definitely can be cited as can Prohibition. The New Deal and Great Society initiatives also changed the fundamental role of government and curtails certain freedoms of the citizenry.

    We often make a mistake of looking at history like the world began the day we were born. This has all been acted out before in history. The wheel keeps turning.
    Brilliant reply, and history is made one day at a time.

  14. #59
    Senior Member Array Chad Rogers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Metro DC
    Posts
    958
    He got the conflict he sought. And probably the 5-minutes of fame.

  15. #60
    Member Array Maxwell47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    425
    So... Democrats are the same as tattooed skin heads...?

Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

ccw radio ad
,
chl instructor loses license for speaking about a civil war
,
chl utube comercial
,
crocket keller
,

crockett keller

,

crockett keller discrimination

,

crokett keller

,
how much can a chl instructor make
,

how much do chl instructors make

,
how much does a chl instructor make
,
kettleman+racist+chl instructor
,
racist chl instructor
,
racist chl license
,
texas gun chl comercial
,
tx chl commercial
Click on a term to search for related topics.