Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Handgun law back in legal bullseye
StarTribune ^ | August 2, 2005 | Associated Press

Posted on 08/01/2005 3:47:48 PM PDT by ButThreeLeftsDo

Opponents of a controversial state law covering who can carry a handgun in public resumed their legal fight Monday, a couple of months after the Legislature reinstated the measure the courts had struck down.

Two Twin Cities churches filed a new lawsuit in Hennepin County District Court, saying the law continues to violate religious freedom.

The law allows people at least 21 years old with a clean record, no mental illness and proper training to get a permit to carry a gun. Prior to 2003, local law enforcement authorities had more say over who received a permit.

(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; US: Minnesota
KEYWORDS: banglist; gungrabbers; minnesota; secondammendment
Here we go again.....
1 posted on 08/01/2005 3:47:48 PM PDT by ButThreeLeftsDo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ButThreeLeftsDo

What do CCW laws have to do with religious freedom? If this has to do with carrying in church, the church can post a sign. "Disarmed Victim Zone".


2 posted on 08/01/2005 3:52:16 PM PDT by Disambiguator (Making accusations of racism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Disambiguator

And, as we all know, bad people don't hang around churches, do they?

Except, maybe, for the moron who said some very bad things about God with a can of spray paint on MY chucrch this past week. He then proceded to vandalize a local playground across the parking lot from the church.

Bad people are everywhere, even around God's house.


3 posted on 08/01/2005 3:58:09 PM PDT by ButThreeLeftsDo (Carry Daily, Apply Sparingly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ButThreeLeftsDo

These are the types of churches that need their congregations to get active and walk out and leave with this crap.

Just a few liberals here throwing a monkey wrench in the picture for the whole state.


4 posted on 08/01/2005 3:58:12 PM PDT by George from New England
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Disambiguator

Well, it seems that's the thing. They want to disarm the victims, but they don't want anyone to KNOW they are disarmed.


5 posted on 08/01/2005 3:58:22 PM PDT by I still care (America is not the problem - it is the solution..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Disambiguator

To be frank, the CCW law, as written, violates private property rights, by forcing certain property owners to accept those carrying guns.

Similarly, property rights are violated by forcing property owners (malls, churches, etc.) to accept people of all races.


6 posted on 08/01/2005 3:58:37 PM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Your FRiendly FReeper Patent Attorney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: George from New England
Unity Church-Unitarian, St. Paul

Unity worship intern Melissa Ziemer, who has trained at Meadville-Lombard Theological School in Chicago, told the story of a lesbian couple who wanted to adopt a baby. She challenged the congregation -- comprised mainly of heterosexual couples, same-sex couples and single adults at the late-morning service -- to accept that which they cannot control.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/1707/4210943.html

7 posted on 08/01/2005 4:04:30 PM PDT by Taxbilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Taxbilly

Wholly Crap!

Thanks for that link!!


8 posted on 08/01/2005 4:09:37 PM PDT by ButThreeLeftsDo (Carry Daily, Apply Sparingly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ButThreeLeftsDo
Whern some activists at my synagogue urged the membership to post "Gun free zone" signs, I suggested we get to the heart of the matter and post signs that said, "Unarmed Jews Here! Come on in and bag your limit!"

The proposal to post the signs was dropped.

9 posted on 08/01/2005 4:16:26 PM PDT by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Disambiguator
What do CCW laws have to do with religious freedom?

Well, I worship at The United Church of Mauser. You can find me on Sunday am on the 200 yard Pews . . .

10 posted on 08/01/2005 4:16:33 PM PDT by Petruchio ( ... .--. .- -.-- / .- -. -.. / -. . ..- - . .-. / .. .-.. .-.. . --. .- .-.. / .- .-.. .. . -. ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ButThreeLeftsDo

Ping!

11 posted on 08/01/2005 4:20:25 PM PDT by FraudFactor.com (Support redistricting reform to end gerrymandering and achieve more honest and responsive government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Excellent!


12 posted on 08/01/2005 4:22:07 PM PDT by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Abram; AlexandriaDuke; Annie03; Baby Bear; bassmaner; Bernard; BJClinton; BlackbirdSST; ...
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
13 posted on 08/01/2005 5:35:51 PM PDT by freepatriot32 (I WONDERED WHY THE FRISBEE WAS GETTING BIGGER AND BIGGER... THEN IT HIT ME)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ButThreeLeftsDo


...and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. - Luke 22:36


14 posted on 08/01/2005 5:37:54 PM PDT by freepatriot32 (I WONDERED WHY THE FRISBEE WAS GETTING BIGGER AND BIGGER... THEN IT HIT ME)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Disambiguator

This reasoning is similar to a good one that IMO can also be argued against the drug laws. Since you own your body and answer to God, not governemtn, you are responsible for what is put in it. My guess is that they have similar reasoning with this law. FYI:

http://www.neoperspectives.com/foundingoftheunitedstates.htm


Before the United States came into being the laws of Europe were codified around what was known as ‘the Divine Rights of Kings’. That is, it was thought that the King of any given country received guidance from God and thus his word was law. The King could take anyone’s life or property by snapping his fingers because he was the law. King Henry the 8th of England killed how many of his wives? The circular argument was that God wouldn’t have put this person in charge of the country if he wasn’t meant to be there by God’s Will. Therefore the Kings used religion, often with the help of ministers, priests, and bishops, to brainwash their subjects and retain complete control of power. The pope complicated things a bit for these Tyrants, as he had an enormous amount of political power over Catholic nations – one of the reasons that led to the rise of Protestantism. German princes, and eventually, the Dutch and English, were eager to be free from the moderating tentacles of Rome in order to gain more power for themselves.

There was no freedom of religion in most of Europe. You were often heavily taxed, excluded from social circles, and sometimes persecuted and killed if you didn’t conform to the state religion. Religious authorities were appointed and monitored by the King and dismissed, imprisoned, or killed if they became too outspoken. Thomas Paine later rightly said, "All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." (29)

Political opponents had their property seized, confiscatory taxes financed the constant wars of the Kings, which kept the people in a state of fear of foreign powers (preventing rebellion), and the top down socialistic economies of the King (or his Vassals) were the rule, as it enhanced the power of the King. A hierarchical society dominated by titles, ranks, and nobilities bestowed by the King gave the King further power through the resulting loyalty of his Vassals. If someone started to become wealthier than the King, the King just took his money! The King was always the wealthiest person in his country. Needless to say, all this didn’t go over too well with quite a few people and, upon hearing of cheap land and political/religious freedom in the colonies, they left for America.

The many groups that came here may have been quite different in language, ethnicity and religion, but shared the common bond of fleeing Tyranny, and so set up a radically different form of government then had ever been done before in human history. They established the first codified separation of Church and State. They knew, as Justice Roy Black said, that "..a union of government and religion tends to destroy government and to degrade religion..."(29) They believed all men were equal under God and despised the Vassals that were made more equal then the common man under the Kings and so wrote in article I section IX of the Constitution: “No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.” (74) Finally, they wrote laws that removed the King and eliminated the artificial Middle-Man between the common man and God. Each man was the King of his own private property, including his physical body, and thereby only answerable to God, not government. What took place was a massive decentralization of power to the individual. There was no longer any King who owned and lorded over all the land; the people owned and lorded over their own land. The people were free.

Pennsylvanian William Pitt gave a famous speech to the British Parliament describing a basic American principle, every man a King, that would become ingrained in our Constitution:

”The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter, the rain may enter -- but the King of England cannot enter; all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!” (29)

This idea of ‘ownership’ and ‘property rights’ consistent with the rule of law is the only reason why the United States became the most powerful nation on earth.


15 posted on 08/01/2005 5:51:12 PM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/janicerogersbrown.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks

Thus, in conclusion (sorry, should have included this in other post), since these Churches own their own land and answer to God, not government, they should be able to control their own property. IMO, they have a valid argument. However, their argument should not apply to any one else's home and certainly not any 'public' property.


16 posted on 08/01/2005 5:55:35 PM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/janicerogersbrown.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks

Just read the story again. Obviously someone must know what rules apply on someone's property and so I don't see what the Churches find at fault with the posted sign/ verbal letting know rule...


17 posted on 08/01/2005 5:59:07 PM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/janicerogersbrown.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
To be frank, the CCW law, as written, violates private property rights, by forcing certain property owners to accept those carrying guns.

I don't see how this law violates private property rights. If the church doesn't want guns on their property, all they have to do is either post a sign or verbally notify the congregants. I don't think it's unreasonable for a property owner to make his/her wishes known.
18 posted on 08/01/2005 6:00:40 PM PDT by Turbopilot (Viva la Reagan Revolucion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba

"To be frank, the CCW law, as written, violates private property rights, by forcing certain property owners to accept those carrying guns. Similarly, property rights are violated by forcing property owners (malls, churches, etc.) to accept people of all races."

Bump to that. "Can't we all just get along!?!?!" should not be a federal or state law. Getting us not to harm each other is the role of government, not getting us to love one another. That's a crappy 60's lyric, not good public policy.


19 posted on 08/01/2005 6:01:34 PM PDT by LibertarianInExile (Kelo, Grutter, Raich and Roe-all them gotta go. Roberts on+2 liberals off=let's start the show!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Comment #20 Removed by Moderator

To: ButThreeLeftsDo
Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

if these churches spent as much time worrying about saving souls as banning guns, heaven would be crowded.

21 posted on 08/01/2005 6:39:55 PM PDT by Rakkasan1 (If at first you don't succeed, failure may be your thing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ButThreeLeftsDo
Two Twin Cities churches filed a new lawsuit in Hennepin County District Court, saying the law continues to violate religious freedom.

Funny how the Hysteric Left see no problem with Church run states as long as it seeks to impose their ideological vision thur Judaical fiat.
22 posted on 08/01/2005 6:42:06 PM PDT by MNJohnnie ( Iraq is a Terrorist bug hotel, Terrorists go in, they do not come out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rakkasan1

There's a tagline in the making!


23 posted on 08/01/2005 6:48:19 PM PDT by ButThreeLeftsDo (Carry Daily, Apply Sparingly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ButThreeLeftsDo

Whatta bunch moonbats! Somebody stores a gun in their car in the church parking lot, and they're violating somebody else's religious freedom? Sounds like those churches harbor a bunch of hoplophobes who probably wet their pants in fear at the mere mention of the word "gun."


24 posted on 08/01/2005 6:53:56 PM PDT by billnaz (What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billnaz

Yeah, it's getting sorta twisted up.

Guns....BAD

Gay sex.....We support you!


25 posted on 08/01/2005 7:07:08 PM PDT by ButThreeLeftsDo (Carry Daily, Apply Sparingly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
Whern [sic] some activists at my synagogue urged the membership to post "Gun free zone" signs, I suggested we get to the heart of the matter and post signs that said, "Unarmed Jews Here! Come on in and bag your limit!"

Bravo!!!! Nicely done...!

26 posted on 08/01/2005 7:16:13 PM PDT by TXnMA (Iraq & Afghanistan: Bush's "Bug-Zappers"...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Disambiguator
I went and read the entire article, and this passage explains more:

Specifically, the churches object to having to allow people with guns on their property unless they post signs prohibiting it or tell people not to bring them. They also don't like the provision permitting people to store guns in vehicles in church parking lots.

The 2003 law required churches to both post signs — which were described in great detail — and verbally inform parishioners at the door that pistols were prohibited. The 2005 law lets them pick between the notification options.

I wonder if their attendance will drop. Probably not at the Unitarian church, as they tend to be uber-liberal.

27 posted on 08/01/2005 7:19:48 PM PDT by Disambiguator (Making accusations of racism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Disambiguator; ButThreeLeftsDo
Specifically, the churches object to having to allow people with guns on their property unless they post signs prohibiting it or tell people not to bring them.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? If they don't post signs and they don't tell people, then how in the blue blazes are people supposed to know what the church does or does not want?

Sheesh, this sounds like arguing with my ex-wife. "You know what you did wrong and if you don't remember, I'm not going to tell you!"

28 posted on 08/01/2005 8:11:25 PM PDT by brbethke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: bobbdobbs
In this case I can't see what the churches want exactly. They have the means to keep guns out by posting signs.

Exactly. It'd be one thing if the law said the church was required to permit guns inside, but it doesn't. It just says that if the church (or, presumably, any other private entity) doesn't want guns on its premises, it needs to let people know of that desire. I don't understand what the objection is, or what the church wants to accomplish. What if I were from another part of the state and happened to attend that church while traveling - should I get hauled out in handcuffs because I was (otherwise legally) carrying concealed and the church decided not to inform anyone they didn't permit that on their premises?
29 posted on 08/01/2005 11:10:44 PM PDT by Turbopilot (Viva la Reagan Revolucion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Turbopilot

I don't see how this law violates private property rights. If the church doesn't want guns on their property, all they have to do is either post a sign or verbally notify the congregants.



I forgot about that.

You are indeed right, because the state has an interst in not having confrotations and conflicts (invloving gun carriers, especially) that could be avoided by a sign.


30 posted on 08/02/2005 6:44:54 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Your FRiendly FReeper Patent Attorney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba

Could it be that these "chuches" - sic - want it both ways.

They want to ban guns but at the same time they want no visible signs or notices to that effect?

That would make them "feel" safe knowing that the criminals might not know, but at the same time disarming the congregation.

Some criminals still rob banks even knowing they'll encounter gunning resistance. If the congregation is disarmed the effect can still be just as deadly.


31 posted on 08/02/2005 8:41:02 AM PDT by George from New England
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson