CAIR Sues Oklahoma Gun Range Owners

Yesterday, Raja’ee Fatihah, a board member of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) of Oklahoma, with the assistance of CAIR legal counsel and the ACLU, sued Chad (a disabled Iraqi war veteran) and Nicole Neal, the owners of the Save Yourself Survival and Tactical Gun Range, which is located in Oktaha, Oklahoma.

AFLC is representing the gun range owners.

Fatihah, a self-proclaimed sharia-adherent Muslim, alleges that he was not permitted to use the Neal’s firing range because he was Muslim in violation of state and federal anti-discrimination laws.

But the facts will prove otherwise.

On October 23, 2015, Fatihah entered the Neal’s facility with an AK-47 over his shoulder, magazine inserted.

The firing range is an outdoor range, and it was pouring rain that day—no one in their right mind (at least no one without a nefarious agenda) would even consider shooting on a day like this.

Consequently, Fatihah was the only one at the range that day (in fact, there was an indoor range available to him in Tulsa if he was truly interested in only shooting).

These facts alone raise enough suspicion for the owner of a gun range (an inherently dangerous business) to ask the person to leave. But there was more.

While no one at the range ever asked Fatihah what his religion was, he became confrontational with the owners over his religion and his adherence to sharia, further raising the owners’ concerns about this man’s motives and intent. In fact, the owners seriously feared for their personal safety.

Consequently, they asked Fatihah to fill out a form and then told him that they would get back with him regarding whether he could fire at the range. The owners then promptly (and rightfully so) did a background check on Fatihah and found out that he was a board member of CAIR—an organization with ties to terrorism—confirming the owners’ suspicions.

Consequently, this case is not about religious discrimination; it’s about public safety. We should applaud Chad’s and Nicole’s vigilance. Such vigilance is the only way we will keep our society safe from violent jihadists. Had others been as vigilant with Army Major Nidal Hasan or the San Bernardino shooters, we may very well have averted those tragedies.

Indeed, the law does not require a gun shop or gun range owner—owners of an inherently dangerous business—to equip or train the next jihadist.

CAIR is a Muslim Brotherhood-Hamas front group, it was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation criminal trial—the largest terrorism financing trial prosecuted to date, the FBI has severed all ties with CAIR, and the UAE has declared CAIR a terrorist organization.

Consequently, our clients’ public safety concerns were entirely justified. Not only do our clients have a right to refuse to serve someone they believe to be a public safety risk, they have an obligation to their other customers, employees, and the community to do so.

It is evident that this lawsuit is part of CAIR’s “civilization jihad” against America and our freedoms.

Lawsuits like this are designed to intimidate and threaten law abiding American citizens so that they take no action when confronted with a situation involving a potential Islamic terrorist.

Remember the neighbor of the San Bernardino jihadists. He feared being sued or labeled an Islamophobe by groups like CAIR and the ACLU, causing him to remain silent.

And his silence proved deadly.