Skip to comments.Handgun law back in legal bullseye
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 ...
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".
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.
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.
Well, it seems that's the thing. They want to disarm the victims, but they don't want anyone to KNOW they are disarmed.
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.
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.
Thanks for that link!!
The proposal to post the signs was dropped.
Well, I worship at The United Church of Mauser. You can find me on Sunday am on the 200 yard Pews . . .
...and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. - Luke 22:36
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:
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 anyones 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 wouldnt have put this person in charge of the country if he wasnt meant to be there by Gods 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 didnt 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 didnt 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.
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.
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...
"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.
if these churches spent as much time worrying about saving souls as banning guns, heaven would be crowded.
There's a tagline in the making!
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."
Yeah, it's getting sorta twisted up.
Gay sex.....We support you!
Bravo!!!! Nicely done...!
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.
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!"
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.
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.