TexasCHLforum.com

A-R wrote:

Keith B wrote:

A-R wrote:This is a compelling argument I hadn't considered. I think it was WildBill above who mentioned something about not banning someone who believes in RKBA but ok to ban the actual gun. Interesting thought exercise is to ask if not OK to ban Muslims but OK to ban men wearing turbans?

Unfortunately still invalid as the turban is part of their religious clothing and would be protected.

OK, what about a person with a cross necklace or a cross tattoo? That's not an essential part of the religious clothing.

If the tattoo or cross necklace was actually deemed part of your religious attire (i.e nun's habit or Amish bonnet), then I would say you would have an argument that it could not be banned. But when you get down that low a leve, you would have to say all necklaces or all people with tattoos were banned. The military is now doing it for tattoos totally, where it was just that they couldn't show in uniform.

A-R wrote:This is a compelling argument I hadn't considered. I think it was WildBill above who mentioned something about not banning someone who believes in RKBA but ok to ban the actual gun. Interesting thought exercise is to ask if not OK to ban Muslims but OK to ban men wearing turbans?

Unfortunately still invalid as the turban is part of their religious clothing and would be protected.

I would liken the example to the 1st amendment. You have the right to free speech, and without previous reason I can't ban you physically from my store. However, I can prohibit what you say in my store and have the right to ban profanity if I so choose.