Now They’re Going After Crockett Keller

The Complaints Have Come In







Two things are apparent to me from the KVUE story:








Leave a comment ?

49 Responses to Now They’re Going After Crockett Keller

  1. Adam says:

    While I think discrimination on the basis of religion is ridiculous, I agree this man needs to be allowed the freedom to choose whom he'd like to instruct on any basis he wishes.

    Though I did not vote for Obama, and suspect the man was elected purely because he is black and our general population is addicted to novelty, I also think it is wrong to assume a person must lack intelligence or judgement simply because they do not agree with you. That seems to me a very short sighted view of things.

    • MarkAmerica says:

      Did I say "people who disagree with me" or people who "voted for Obama?" There are a lot of people with whom I disagree. Not all of them voted for Obama. This is one of those simple logic problems, like "all Oogs are Acks, but not all Acks are Farns."

    • Flag-Man says:

      I believe it is not because they disagree with him,
      but because they are stupid

    • Earl Lee Swagger says:

      Radial Islam is not a religion.

    • Liberta M. says:

      Intelligence is not necessarily indicative of wisdom. Nor is an education, as is evidence by that bunch of Harvard grads occupying the White House, who have been educated BEYOND their intelligence. I have shunned several friends because of and since the 2008 election. I will not, in any way, support those who would by design or default would strip me of my freedom. You prefer to wear a blue dress, and I prefer to wear a red dress. That is a difference of opinion. You make me pay for your blue dress. That is theft. You make me wear a blue dress. That is tyranny.

      The problem here is not one individual who wishes to express his beliefs and live by them, and by doing so affects only those around him. The problem is an intrusive government who will not allow him to do so, whatever motivates him.

      Anti-discrimination laws imposed beyond government agencies and extended to individuals, which are in MHO unconstitutional, have a far more sinister goal than to protect minorities. It is another method by which the government seizes control of the populace by gaining control of the culture, through seizure of their property and skills for a government purpose (does social engineering come to mind?), such as forcing landlords to rent to those they believe to be perverts, employers to hire those they believe to be lazy, restaurants to serve those they suspect as a result of past experience will not pay their bill, beauticians to cut the hair of someone they suspect has a communicable disease, those in a private organization or club to accept as members those who not share their beliefs . . . I could go on and on, but this sentence is already too long.

      These are the people and institutions, who over time, have created our culture. They discriminated in doing so, for various reasons. By discriminating, they caused those around them to assimilate, and thus, forged a united peoples. The fifty states (or fifty-seven if you believe One-Big-A$$-Mistake-America) were intended to be individual incubators of democracy, each employing what worked best for them. Those who chose not to assimilate into the local culture could find another or create their own.

      For the statists who claim to subscribe to true democracy, that is, majority rule (do the self-proclaimed “99%” come to mind?), this is untenable, and centralized government cannot abide the result. As a remedy, the left bastardized equal protection under the law and morphed it into equality of result, which is, in and of itself, a method of control. But this cannot be sustained because it is not the natural state of affairs; we are not all equal. Sooner or later, and I fear for us it will be much later, this truth will triumph when the left is forced to confront reality, that is, tyranny, poverty and despair that destruction of the individual, however flawed, produces.


      • Jeffrey says:

        I like this

      • JOE SAVAGE says:

        I have spent over 70 good years in this great country, defended America and contributed to its greatness. I'll be damned if I'm going to let a bunch of ignorant liberals and their muslim terrorist cronies try to take it away. We are the greatest in the history of the world; we are unique; we can't be defeated and we won't quit. We will be fair, Christian and we will protect our Constitution and our Flag with our lives if we have to; and I truly believe it will come to that some day. Don't f*** with my country or I will be one of many who will come after you; and it won't be pretty.

      • simply about says:

        interesting concept, nicely stated.

      • Scott says:

        I love you :) Perhaps with several MILLION of us, true and REAL Americans, we may have a chance to SAVE this country. Only our FIGHT and God speaking His word, will save us. Our government is OUT OF CONTROL, no longer about US, but about their love for power and money. THEY are totally destroying the beloved Constitution. What a CRYING shame. This man in business FOR HIMSELF not for anyone else. If he chooses to only teach socialists, so be it (thank you Lord he did not make this decision), but this is HIS RIGHT as a business owner in AMERICA duuuuh. My license is expiring in April and I will drive to HIM AND HAVE HIM INSTRUCT ME. I will do that ASAP, just in case our liberal DPS tries to take his instructors license away. May I suggest EVERYONE OUT THERE use this man, no matter how far you have to drive. Amen and amen

    • Thomas Smith says:

      Based on the rationalization above, I should not have to cede oxygen to people who have shown that they don't know how to use it. This would definitely include Crockett Keller and many posters and probably the author of this "article". Personally, I like the idea. I have had a concealed permit since my military years. By publishing this Ad, Crockett Keller has shown that he does not have the judgement required to legally maintain a carry permit, let alone "teach" anything about it.

    • Scott says:


  2. dnr says:

    Maybe our discrimination laws need to catch up with the times. (BTW, I'd call his exercise discernment, not discrimination, anyway – the term discrimination has gotten a bad rap over the years.) PS – I am teaching my children to discriminate – between right and wrong, good friends vs bad, among potential consequences of various choices, etc. Discrimination in this context is not a random act, nor does it involve hatred or ill will. It is simply a matter of good judgment. In the case of Mr. Keller, he is doing what our federal government claims to do – in fact, one of its true delinated responsiblities – to protect the citizens. I applaud him for stating what I'd hope all other discerning firearms instructors would do – not put guns and training into the hands of those who would jeopardize public safety. Sorry, TxDPS – you must not have gotten the memo – most terrorists are Muslim males between ages of 17-40.

  3. I heard it on talk radio yesterday. I had a big chuckle outloud as I drove home. Not because it was funny, but because he is right and it was going to make the leftists and supposedly "superior" persons crazy. I am 100% with his right to teach whomever he wants.

    btw.. I did not vote for Obama either.

  4. Adam says:

    But that is rather my point. I know of intelligent people with good judgement who voted for Obama. I do not understand nor agree with that decision, but I would not make the mistake of doubting their intellectual ability or judgement based on that fact alone.

    • MarkAmerica says:

      It's not merely their intelligence that I question. I also consider character. Those who would vote for him a second time definitely have issues in my view…

      • Jeffrey says:

        Sometimes it has nothing to do with intelligence but everything to do with character and common sense most of the politicians have neither from what I have read from other posts and other websites I wonder if it has become epidemic. One quick question well actually two if this man trains a moderate Muslim (I don’t believe there are any) and that same person goes out with his brand-new fresh certificate to carry a concealed weapon walks into A school and kills 20 students before he is caught how many of you that are criticizing this guy would now want his head on a stick for training this person? And my second question why do you not use your first name or your whole name on the post when signing the post, thank you Jeff

  5. 8411c says:

    Figures. The Lefties run crying to Nanny government the minute anyone disagrees with them.

    Excuse my french, but what a bunch of pussies. I wouldn't teach them to use a gun either–simply because they'd probably shoot themselves in the foot and then try to sue.

  6. Karl says:


    I know very smart people who voted for Obama as well and as such I could not in good conscience hand them a weapon. If I can inform them of the plethora of issues around Obama and still they voted for him then certainly they ARE INCAPABLE of making a rational choice when not under pressure, I would not wish to have them making life or death choices when it really matters.

    When it comes to CCW instructors I want them to be able to refuse instruction to anyone based on even the slightest feeling of apprehension. I say this because intuition (sometimes called common sense) and the ability to follow it does save lives. Arming an idiot or a person who is unstable is ALWAYS a bad idea. You can not take back the bullet once it is fired.

    As for Muslims, if they attend a Mosque in the US there is a 95% probability they have been given instruction or have been exposed to lectures promoting violence against non-Muslims or other Muslims who are not following Sharia law. Again Arming someone who is unstable is ALWAYS a bad idea.

    One can only imagine how a certain number of instructor pilots feel about the training they gave.

  7. Michael D. Penson says:

    Mr. Crockett Keller, I am sure the Texas Department of Public Safety will be on our case for not teaching non-Christian Arab or Muslim and socialist liberals and/or voted for the current campaigner in chief. As I see it, under the Laws of Texas (statutory & common) trespass is the first law and second law is the Castle Doctrine can and would apply. Since there have been no complains filed, their involvement Texas Department of Public Safety is moot point at this time.
    Since Mr. Keller decisions are based of his personal abilities to interpret the body language of a individual (Texas resident only) applicants, the Texas Department of Public Safety can only move into administrative hearing.
    In my opinion Mr. Keller has a very difficult task (to certify) in which he not only must he teach individual applicant how to operate his weapon (mental, physical, and lawful) but have the abilities and judgments to know when defend himself and others. (examples: Luby's 1991, in Killeen, Waco 1994 & 2009, Tucson 2010, Virginia Tech 2007,)
    By the exclusion of non-Christian Arab or Muslim and socialist liberals that part of his mental ability evaluation has been completed and expressed.
    Firearms Transaction Record, or Form 4473 must be relied as a guide only. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is now under public indictment along with the Office of Attorney General. Who is to know.
    Jesus Christ said: “Sell cloak and buy a sword.” Luke 22:36. Do the non-Christian Arab or Muslim and socialist liberals believe in Our Lord and Savior?

  8. dave says:

    Mr Keller mentioned Christians as his focus for training.
    I wonder which part of the Bible Mr. Keller takes his instructions for living from. Surely it is not the following verses that implore him to teach how to kill and hate…….Evidently all Christians don't follow the same rules…..
    This Jesus character almost sounds like a Liberal don't he……

    • Karl says:

      Maybe you should not try so hard to find things that are not there.

      Mr. Keller is obliged to use his judgement to determine is a student is a "risk". Since in his judgement he feels that a person lacks the necessary skills to safely handle a firearm if they exhibit certain traits or behavioral models such as voting for a person to be the leader of the free world when they have never demonstrated the ability to even manage a small fast food operation. Or they are from a particular group of people that 95% of whom receive regular exposure to lecturers and materials that promote violence.

      Note that not once did Mr. Keller advocate violence or even hatred towards these two groups only that he would not provide them instruction. He did not even advocate that other instructors not provide them instruction, only that he would not.

  9. Scratch says:

    This is not a matter of individual freedom of choice. Keller holds a TX state CHL instructor's certificate, a state business license, and has access to approve trainee's for the state's CHL program. As such he has to maintain the state's standards, which includes no discriminating on the basis of ethnicity/creed/religion. Obviously he isn't able to live up to those standards, so I guess it's time for him to find a new line of work.

    • MarkAmerica says:

      "This is not a matter of individual freedom of choice."

      Well, to you statists, what is? Maybe he shouldn't have a drivers license, either? States license doctors too. They can turn away people on any basis they like. What's the difference?

      • Scratch says:

        Doctor's can't turn away patients based on race or religion; doing so will get their license pulled. I don't know what makes you think otherwise.

        As for a driver's license; so long as you are driving your own vehicle for personal reasons as a private citizen, you can voice whatever opinions you like, just as if he would be is was the holder of a CHL license for personal protection. But he moment you get state certification as a driving instructor, you have to meet and uphold state standards as they relate to the public, as you are now the go-between for the state and the public at large. The state is not permitted to discriminate on the basis of religion, and so it's licensed agents aren't allowed to do so either.

        If Keller wants to discriminate against people based on religion, he is free to do so in his private life. He can give them dirty looks on the street, refuse to let them in his home, say whatever he likes about them to his friends and neighbors, whatever. But he isn't permitted to use my tax dollars to create a platform for his personal opinions and biases, and when he uses the state CHL instructor certification system to do so, then he has violated the law and the basic standards he is required to meet to hold the certification.

    • Liberta M. says:

      This is the problem I addressed above. The government should not be regulating businesses beyond what is required to ensure that a legitimate purpose of the regulation is fulfilled. The purpose of the regulation here is to ensure individuals that carry firearms do so safely. That is the standard Mr. Keller must maintain. For the state of Texas to involve itself further is nothing more than social engineering. Governments employ regulations and licenses to achieve this goal, using your logic.

      Please, do not misunderstand me. I do not encourage per se discrimination based on race, gender or creed by any individual. I simply do not believe it is a legitimate government function to intrude into the conscience of a free peoples and mandate rules for our relationships, beyond ensuring “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."

      Our founders included freedom of religion, speech and association in the bill of rights, without regard for the wisdom an individual demonstrates in the exercise of those rights. Couple that with the fact that the Constitution limits government actors, and you can see the perversion here; the government advances its illegitimate purpose of social engineering under the pretext of a licensing requirement at the expense of Mr. Keller’s explicit rights to religion, speech and association.


    • Liberta M. says:

      Scratch: (in reply to 31 October, 2011, 12:16 post in reply to MA)

      I am curious; why do you think that a person’s business is any less entitled to protection than other personal property? In large part, it was private property, without differentiating a business from personal, the founders had in mind when they provided for a republic, not a democracy, for fear of greed of the majority. (5th Amend: cannot be deprived of life liberty or property w/o due process – commerce clause: power to regulate commerce AMONG the several states); our founders understood the importance of private property to an individual’s independence, business or otherwise. Government is co-opting your explicit rights under the pretext of regulation, another term that has been bastardized, but I will save that for another day, and you are not concerned.

      You want a real-time example of the ultimate effects of government social engineering via regulation? Look to the fed. government’s mandates forcing federally licensed banks to make bad mortgage loans. Does the housing market crash mean anything to you?

      As for your driver’s license analogy and "rule," what if you are driving your personal car to your place of business, which also happens to be regulated? Under your rule, is this use “personal reasons?” As the owner of a busniss, are you a “private citizen?” If not, can you be censored? Your license revoked? Your business seized?

      Is there anything for which you believe government cannot require a license? What will you do when the government requires a license to operate a computer? Obtain an internet connection? To blog? To comment to a blog? Is there any status, characteristic or position in life you believe the government cannot designate “protected?” Add an ever-increasing number of “victims” to the list to the ever-increasing number of areas of life (heretofore considered private) to be regulated, and you WILL BE SILENCED. Your premise, that government has the unbridled right to regulate “business,” carried to its logical conclusion, leads you to this result.


      • Scratch says:

        The CHL instruction end of Keller's business is not just about his personal property; it also includes the issue of his state certification as a CHL firearms instructor. The whole reason the certification exists, and the whole reason that most people would bother to take his class in the first place, is so that he can function as an intermediary between the public and the state for the purposes of gaining the State's CHL.

        There is no getting around it; when he is utilizing his state certification, he is supposed to be doing so under the auspices of the State of Texas. To do so, he has to also abide by the rules laid out by the State of Texas, one of those is that he cannot discriminate against the public by ethnicity (Arabs), or religion (non-Christians, Muslims). If he cannot find it in himself to abide by the state's certification requirements, then he needs to give up that certification and get another job. Just like if an electrician decided to ignore his state certification requirements, and wanted to go wiring homes up without grounding the electrical system.

        It's the choice he was given when he applied for the certification. He could have been a 100% private firearms instructor, and picked and chosen his students by whatever criteria he liked. But he wouldn't have access to the state's CHL program if he did so, and his instructions wouldn't have met the state requirements for giving his students a state permit. Or, he could apply for the State instructor certification and have his training recognized by the state; but to do that he would have to play by their rules, and one of those rules is that he abide by the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He made his choice, but now he doesn't want to live up to his end of the bargain.

        • MarkAmerica says:

          He said "non-Christian Arabs, or Muslims". That's not a racial bit, but a religious one. Besides, we all know what makes you mad is that he doesn't like Obama, and doesn't want to teach Obama supporters the class.

          As to your other point, again, one could say that if the state forces him to comply with this regulation, they are discriminating on who they certify to teach the class on the basis of their religious beliefs, could we not? If Mr. Keller's conscience will not permit him to teach "non-christian Arabs, or Muslims," then what the state is saying is that people who adhere to matters of conscience in this issue are forbidden from being firearms instructors. See how this works? We can go back and forth on this all day long, but the simple fact of the matter is that he can choose who the heck he wants to do business with. Period.

          Oh, and do you really want the services of a surgeon, for instance, who has been compelled to work on your liver against his religious views? Do you? I sure don't. You know, this is the problem with you statists: You always see everything as a matter of state power over individuals, and never as a matter of individual liberty.

      • Liberta M. says:

        Scratch: (response to your post of 31 October, 2011 at 15:05)

        Typical leftist tactic; hide behind your interpretation of an existing rule and ignore the more important issue the mere existence of the rule raises, that is, the source of the gov’t’s power, or lack thereof, to promulgate the rule in the first instance. Any law, no matter its motivation, reasoning or efficacy, is invalid if the gov’t has no authority to pass it. (See my post above.) Also, typically, you failed to address my question; what is the result of your newly announced rule (G-d knows from where you plucked this one) restricting the free speech of those who hold drivers’ licenses to words spoken while engaged in exclusively personal activities? Where do you people come from?

        By the by, are you aware that Congress limited the reach of the Title 7 of the CRA in a weak attempt to comply with the commerce clause? It applies only to businesses that employ 15 or more employees for a certain number of days. (States are bound by the 14th Amend. but that is a discussion for another time.)

        As for your analogy to the electrician, nice try but no cigar. Requiring the grounding of the electrical system in a home is a legitimate standard because it fulfills the purpose for which the regulation was promulgated, that is, safety (see my post above), and is by no stretch of the imagination social engineering, a subject about which you avoid sharing your views. Perhaps you approve . . . ?

        I, for one, am not willing to surrender my freedom to the gov’t (state or federal) in its quest to bring about its own vision of utopia? (Utopia: “an imaginary and indefinitely remote place” from two Greek words that mean “no place”.) Care to comment?


  10. Jim Humbert says:

    Not All Muslims are killers but Radical Muslims kill . How do we know who is who ? By using your brain !

  11. Scott says:

    God loves man that is committed to his beliefs. I like an American that stands up for me, my family and his country. Crockett Keller I would be proud to call you my friend and stand with you in protecting the great America that is slipping away from us.

  12. Luke says:

    Why is it that normal white people cant have an opinion on what they want to do and whom they wish to do it with? I am so sick and tired of having every ethnic background force their collective agenda down my throat as to what I should and shouldnt put up with. Theres a black student union at my college–if someone wished to charter a white student union everyone would go bezerk. I dont think civil rights are equal rights, civil rights are diminishing the rights of whites to have free will and free speech and free choice. I dont think black people should ride at the back of the bus but I dont think I should be forced to sit next to someone I dont want to on the bus either. If these groups want special privledges which is what they are requiring, why cant whites have the same thing? White Student Union, White College Fund, Miss White America, White Magazine, White Housing Administration, the list can go on forever to match non-white counterparts that already exist. You know why we dont have those things? Because they are racist–just like the counterparts of special interest and what I call 'special-race' that already exist and are fostered by this country–RACIST. Whites dont get to be a special race evidently. We get to pay taxes that go to a welfare program that is predominantly non white and sit and take it. Basically, shut up and pay the bills. I unfortunated voted for Obama the first time. It was a HUGE mistake. I comfort myself by thinking at least I didnt vote for that huge idiot Bush ever, but still, enough people made the same mistake I did and now we are really in the S%#T!

  13. REDDCANNON says:

    Love all your comments, but I can sum it up is a lot less words.


  14. Andrew says:

    Personally I'm disgusted by what Mr. Keller is doing. I don't care about him refusing to teach Muslims, I'm offended by how proudly he advertises this fact. He's using discrimination as a soundbite in a commercial to try and sell more CHL courses. How is it any different than having an ad for a restaurant and saying, "Eat at the redneck stakehouse, where blacks aren't welcome!" Disgusting. While I personally wouldn't revoke his license over this, it does seem a reasonable course of action. As has already been pointed out by others, he can't discriminate, it's a clear violation of the US and TX State Constitution. It would be no different than a doctor refusing to treat black people or a teacher refusing to teach hispanics or a company refusing to hire women. Like it or not his course is a state-licensed course. He can operate a non-state-licensed course however he wants, but he can't be a ward of the state and openly discriminate. I don't think we should need licenses to carry handguns at all, but the law says we do, and that be the way it be. If someone living in his area wants to get a CHL they go to the state saying the want a license and the state then tells him where to go and get it. It's no different than requiring a license to perform electrical work on a building or repair an aircraft or practice medicing or engineering. This man has been licensed as an agent of the state to perform an instructional function on behalf of the state. He is the vessel by which the rest of us get our CHL licenses. PE-licensed engineers are the vessels by which we get a bridge or skyscraper or new electronic device built. MD-graduated and licensed docs are the vessel by which we get medical work done. Otherwise any Joe could put out a sign and call him/herself a doctor and start killing people. Some hobbyists that doesnt understand math and physics could design a bridge that collapses and kills people or an electronic device that electrocutes kids. Things can be overregulated for sure, and perhaps CHL licenses is one of those cases, but that's how it is. Mr. Keller is a ward of the state and he's clearly discriminating. Muslims are protected by the Constitution just as much as Christians or Atheists or anybody else.

    On another level though, does Mr. Keller not realize that equipping and training Muslims is almost our entire mission in Iraq and Afghanistan? LOL. Muslims train how to fly figher jets at air force bases in TX… our special forces train them in all sorts of weapons on the ground. Mr. Keller is an idiot.

  15. Randy Wyatt says:

    I am disappointed by the banter back and forth. I am also shocked by the hate speech and complete lack of unbiased evaluation of the facts here. The opinion that some how revoking a state instructors license (when the licensee agreed to the conditions of that licenses) is somehow violating their 1st amendment rights is ridiculous. They exercised their right by agreeing with the conditions this is plain and simple.

    One final note; after living for over 50 years, serving my country for 20 in the military, I really getting tired of these types of discussions and can't beleive they are still going on. For me, I do not hate all Muslims, i hate only those that attack my country. For that matter I hate and will defend against anyone that attacks my country even white supremacist such as timothy MacAfee and or Keller, yes i think he is a suprmacist. He hinds behind his right to be prejudice, behind religion calling himself christian (bull not any christian i know). I wish people would stop hiding behind the 1st amendment to spew hate, it sickens me. However if that is how you want to practice your right, please its people like me that have fought to defend that right and most hate munggers havent done one thing to support that right other than hide behind it.

    • MarkAmerica says:

      Thanks for your service. I also recognize that not all Muslims are the same, but I also know that to call Keller a hate-monger is nonsense. Frankly, I thought his line about liberals was right on.

      People have a right to hate. I may disagree with their hatred, but guess what? You can't stop people from hating, and you can't stop the from speaking about it. To call Mr. Keller a "white supremacist" is a grotesque smear based on what we know about him and what he actually said. He didn't say a damned thing about white supremacy. Whatever you think about him, to try to brand him with that label is absurd. As for his Christianity, who are you to assert what he believes isn't Christianity? How do you know? What sort of liberties are you taking with this in order to reach that conclusion? Are you in an equal hurry to condemn every muslim who condemns all non-muslims?

    • Liberta M. says:

      Andrew and Mr. Wyatt:
      I do not question your position regarding your interpretation of any specific words or ideas Mr. Keller expressed, to the extent you find them disgusting or hateful. In fact, I might agree you. But I was addressing the broader issue of gov’t censorship and control, and the not-so subtle steps it takes to achieve them.

      As your comments indicate, free speech exposes beliefs for what they are, and if unacceptable to society, the words will not persuade. What counters unpopular speech is MORE speech, not suppression, which only serves to engender resentment. If his peers find Mr. Keller’s position intolerable, they are free to counter him and even boycott or ostracize him.

      My point is that society should shape our culture, not the gov’t; those running it have not proven themselves to be worthy of the task. Witness what the gov’t has done to our schools and families with its social engineering. Witness the resulting crime and debauchery (now there’s a word for you). And our founders, having foreseen the potential for its corruption, attempted to limit gov’t’s power and reach, in part with the 1st Amend.

      I personally hope I will never tire of these discussions. More importantly, I hope we retain the right to have them.


      • Andrew says:


        Nobody wants to suppress Mr. Keller's speech. He can say whatever he wants. Couldn't care less. The issue is his being a licensed CHL instructor for the State of Texas. Revoking his license isn't suppressing his speech, it's just revoking his license.

        The other side of this coin is that if the state doesn't revoke his license aren't they tactitly supporting him… and thereby tacitly profiting from discrimination as well? Looked at that way, revoking his license seems like the only reasonable option.

      • Liberta M. says:

        Andrew: (2 November, 2011 at 10:36 )

        I concur; you and I do not wish to suppress. But as individuals, we do not have the power to do so in the same sense gov’t does, nor can we cause the harm it does, which is why the Const. limits it and not us. If gov’t takes Mr. Keller’s license because of what he said, it has penalized him for his speech. That constitutes suppression. As Karl correctly pointed out, Mr. Keller has taken no discriminatory action, although he certainly got his money’s worth in advertising.

        Gov’t does not “tacitly” approve speech by remaining neutral, which they are supposedly legally bound to be, and sometimes are; gov’t is prohibited from suppressing the speech of unpopular groups by denying them permits to assemble based on speech/ideas, even where the speech offends and might lead to disorder (referred to as the “heckler’s veto”). This does not render gov’t in tacit approval of these groups. Boycott Mr. Keller, if you wish. Texas can certify others to instruct, if need be. But get gov’t out of the business of social engineering under the guise of regulation.


    • Karl says:

      You want an unbiased fact? Mr. Keller made a radio commercial. It had both factual and non-factual claims just like many other commercials.

      Many here, yourself included are operating from the idea that he has already discriminated against someone but the fact is we have zero proof of that.

      What is a fact is that in terms of money spent he has grabbed a much larger share of the airtime than he paid for. Another fact is he has put is tiny store on the national stage. If it cost him his ability to teach the CHL courses so be it he probably did not teach that many to begin with. I would be willing to bet door traffic and sales are up.

      • Hyle says:

        That's a good point. They cannot revoke his license for what he has said but they could if he acts in accordance with his beliefs in regards to "non-Christian Arabs and Muslims". This is assuming they identified as such and he refused on those grounds. I imagine CAIR has already sent someone to inquire about his services so they can have grounds for such revocation.

  16. Terry says:

    Islam radical or not, they all go by the Koran. It says to kill folks who do not believe like them. Is that not premeditated murder?
    Yet they are allowed to practice their Koran belief in this country.

    The Bible saya days will come when evil will be called good.

  17. Randy Wyatt says:

    Like so many discussions today, this blog is being steered into a platform for all political wingnuts to spew their respective view points, completely missing the points of the original discussion point. I like others here have been caught up in that, for that i am sorry.

    I will try to be clear before my departure and not get caught up in the emotional garbage. What i should have stated in my original post was this; by virtue of being a representive of the state ehen he teaches the CHL class then he has to follow those state regulations on the books, he is not guilty of violating those regulations until the act. Simply stating his intention on the radio is not a violation, until someone shows up and he turns them away based on his personal position. If the later is the case mr. keller has two options, teach them or turn in his license to conduct the class and sever any ties tot the state.

  18. Michael D. Penson says:

    Mr. Keller can and did invoke his First Amendment rights on radio about his CHL business. As far has refusing to “teaching non-Christian Arab or Muslim and socialist liberal and/or voted for the current campaigner in chief”, I believe CHL certification business could be impacted, but only if any complain been filed and adjudicated with the Texas Department of Public Safety.
    What if Mr. Keller “instruct in {them} how to use a dangerous weapon” but the non-Christian Arab or Muslim and socialist liberal could not “pass” Texas’s initial requirements demanded to obtain a CHL? Who is at fault?
    When you pull up the web site: “Information regarding any psychiatric, drug, alcohol, or criminal history (new users only)” is stated.
    Mr. Keller is only applying the Concealed Handgun Licensing information set forth by Texas Department of Public Safety.
    Have any complains been filed with or against the Texas Department of Public Safety?
