Ga. church shooting shows attacker aided by law disarming victims

Gun Rights Examiner ^ | 26 October, 2012 | David Codrea

[marktwain]

The executive director of GeorgiaCarry.org, a state gun rights group, took to the airwaves yesterday on Atlanta’s NBC 11 Alive to weigh in on Wednesday’s shooting at Pastor Creflo Dollar's World Changers Church International, a College Park megachurch. Jerry Henry faced questions from news anchor Ted Hall and assertions by disarmament advocate State Senator Donzella James to explain why his group believes the choice should be left to the churches.

Henry’s group is leading a fight to overturn a state law dictating disarmament, and has submitted a petition to the United States Supreme Court, presenting a single question:

"Does a state criminal law that targets religion, and is neither neutral nor generally applicable, pass strict scrutiny muster under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment?"

Donzella James showed that’s precisely the question and unwittingly underscored Georgia Carry’s point. Aside from disingenuously answering “No, of course not” when asked if she was preventing people from protecting themselves, she revealed a wholly inappropriate basis for enacting legislation when she asserted “I think that a holy place is not a place for weapons.”

Since when is it a legitimate and constitutional function of government for legislators to impose their religious convictions on others under force of law, and how is that different from Taliban-imposed Sharia? That's the real issue, and thus one so-called "progressives" refuse to even acknowledge, let alone object to if they are to be consistent with that church/state "wall of separation" they rush to erect every time it suits their agenda.

Her recommendation that church protection should be limited to security personnel ignores the reality that, per The Huffington Post, alleged shooter “Floyd Palmer was part of a security detail at a Baltimore mosque in June 2001 when he shot another man working with him, wounding

[marktwain]

The state law may allow churches to give express permission for people to be armed on their property. This is attempting to reverse the long standing principle that "everything is allowed that is not forbidden", and changing it to "everything that is not allowed is forbidden", a much more restrictive doctrine.

[duffee]

Our local theaters have posted gun free zone signs, making their theaters too unsafe for my family.

[BitWielder1]

Any suggestion that we're trusted to carry HERE but not THERE makes no sense.
It's only an attempt to nibble away at our rights, little by little.

[Jumpmaster]

Gun Free Zone = SOFT TARGET

[nodumbblonde]

Ping! :-)

[Terry L Smith]

In the Ta’anach, or for those of you confused by that title, the ‘Old Testament’, the Israelites were reported as rebuilding their Temple with a spear in one hand, and a brick in the other. (I’m thinking ‘The Book of Ezekiel’).

And THAT was a ‘holy place’, too, was it not?

Seems these days, there are more morons doing moronic things, to prove that the 2nd Amendment, meant ‘everywhere’!

There is still Robert A. Heinlein’s axiom of truth:
“An armed society is a polite society.”

[Terry L Smith]

Than, by all means, to that theatre, and wherever else that “gun free zone” sign is displayed, send them this:

---

“Dear Sir or Madame,
I have noticed the sign posted at your establishment that expresses your wish that no handguns are allowed to be carried in or around said establishment. This causes me to question your motives for the posting.
Have you made enemies you are afraid will do you some harm? If so, a mere sign surely would not deter a person bent on doing so.
Are you “Just following orders” from a superior or person of authority? Please forward this letter to them.
Allow me to point out a few things to you:
First, I am licensed to carry a concealed firearm by the State of ‘x’. I passed a training course, TWO background checks (state and FBI), a proficiency test proving my ability to safely handle and shoot a handgun, and paid almost ‘x’ in fees, not to mention the cost of my firearm. You are probably safer from crime because of this, since a criminal never knows whether they are accosting an armed or unarmed victim.
Secondly, The Constitution of the United States, in the Second Amendment, states “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Thirdly, The Constitution of the State of ‘x’, Article ‘x’, Section ‘x’, states “The citizens of this state shall have the right to keep and bear arms for their common defense.”
Lastly, keep in mind that an armed person is a citizen, an unarmed person is a subject!
I would also like to express my gratitude for your acceptance of the liability of my personal safety while in your establishment since you have seen fit to deny my right of self defense.
Because of your sign, I will seek out and patronize other businesses and establishments that allow the LAWFUL entry of LEGALLY armed citizens.

Thank you,
An Armed Citizen

---

Folks, anybody that wishes to use this letter form to inform a business of their choice of ‘gun free’ or not, copy this letter, BUT MAKE SURE YOU PLACE YOUR PARTICULAR STATE’S INFO WHERE THE (’X’)’S ARE, PLEASE?

[Hoodat]

[TXnMA]

There is good precedent for going armed to church...

[duffee]

Very good letter.