[dandean316]

I heard on the radio this morning some churches are holding a press
conference to announce a legal battle to declare the Minnesota CCW
law unconstitutional.

Instead of dropping your money into the offering plate this week,
send it over to CCRN for the legal defense fund.

[Jack T.]

Gee, I wonder why the NAACP/ACLU/CNN/NOW/BradyBunch isn't crying about this blantant violation of the so-called "seperation of church and state"?

[JPM63US]

Well . . . it is unconstitutional . . . you should be allowed to own and carry any firearm WITHOUT a permit from the state government. Says so in the US constitution.

JPM

I am sure this is very Church specific.

[dandean316]

I am sure this is very Church specific.
The ELCA Lutherans (as always) and the Catholic church (the diocees leadership) are on board with this. In Minnesota, that will cover 80% of churches.
violation of the so-called "seperation of church and state"? I argue with my Christian friends about this all the time. It's GOOD to have a separation. Power given to humans to control other humans is always bad, even if it starts out as a good. BTW, I am not ripping churches and religion here. There are pro-gun or at least neutral-gun churches.

[Detachment Charlie]

Some people think certain religions are dangerous. Perhaps permits to worship should be required. :rolleyes:

[Quartus]

It's GOOD to have a separation.


Well, if you can persuade enough people to join you in your view, you can perhaps get a Constitutional amendment passed that would provide for such a legal doctrine. That is the only LEGAL way to get such a thing into the Constitution.


It ain't there now.



I'll be surprised if the United Methodists aren't in on this. Count in the various 'mind science' groups, too. Universalist, Christian Science, etc.

[Mark Tyson]

Well . . . it is unconstitutional . . . you should be allowed to own and carry any firearm WITHOUT a permit from the state government. Says so in the US constitution.

Actually, the Missouri state constitution says:

Section 23. That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.

[AJ Dual]

Well, I wouldn't worry too much. It's clear as day that the ammendment in no way blocks or prevents a law permitting CCW in MN, just that it in of itself it is not to be construed as permiting CCW. To somehow state that it bans any legislative act permitting CCW is legal and semantic contortions of the first order to the point of absurdity.

Looks to me like a good way for anti churches to waste money, or at least the pro-bono time of whatever doo-gooder sprout-eating, birkenstock wearing, lawfirm is actually willing to take such a loser of a case.

I'd think it's more likely a ploy to keep their gripes in the media spotlight. Simply stating their opposition isn't likely to garner attention anymore since that has allready been run to death in the news in MN already. Adding the word "lawsuit" adds spin so that anti-CCW biased news editors can find sufficient new context, however thin, to run the story yet one more time.

The media is under no obligation to later report the most likely outcome, that the case went nowhere. :rolleyes:

[fish2xs]

It's just sooooo convenient to have God on your side.....

Is the US Constitution in the New or Old testament? I keep forgetting...

[fish2xs]

I wonder how they feel about the abuse of children?

[TallPine]

The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Not the Missouri, or any other, state constitution.

[dandean316]

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/6953814.htm
http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/4140536.html

23 churches file lawsuit challenging gun law
Associated Press

A group of 23 churches seek to have the state's concealed handgun law overturned, contending the law infringes on religious freedoms guaranteed in the state and federal constitutions, according to a lawsuit prepared by the group.
It is the second church-based challenge to the law prepared by David Lillehaug, a former U.S. Attorney for Minnesota.

The group complains that the handgun law denies them the ability to chose the wording of signs posted on church property informing the public that guns are banned there.

The lawsuit also said the law illegally prohibits the churches from banning guns from their parking lots and from church-owned property that is leased to others.

Among the denominations represented in the lawsuit are Roman Catholics, Jews and Protestants. Most of the churches are in the Twin Cities metro area.

In June, a Hennepin County district judge issued a temporary restraining order saying some churches didn't have to comply with parts of the state's new concealed-carry gun law.

Lillehaug filed the lawsuit on behalf of a Lutheran church in Edina, claiming notification requirements in the law were an unconstitutional infringement of religious freedom.

The law required churches to both post signs _ which were described in great detail _ and verbally inform parishioners at the door that pistols were prohibited.

Judge Marilyn Brown Rosenbaum granted the church's request for a temporary restraining order against the signage and personal notification requirements.

But she denied their request for similar orders which would enable the church to restrict guns in its parking lot and nearby buildings.

[Skunkabilly]

Call me naive, but churches that I have attended have had people on staff who had their opinions but were mature enough to keep it out of church policy. When did churches get into (or get back into, rather) political lobbying that is irrelevant to the mission of the church?

[dandean316]

When did churches get into (or get back into, rather) political lobbying that is irrelevant to the mission of the church?

ELCA Lutherans, who started this nonsense, have been involved in gun control for a long time:

1989 - ban semi auto "military style" weapons
http://www.elca.org/dcs/elca_actions/ca89_2_10.html

1993 - support for the Brady Bill http://www.elca.org/dcs/elca_actions/ca93_6_10.html

They also support "banning" South Carolina because of the confederate flag.

[Scyvthe]

I don't have anything against a church's right to ban guns either on church property or in their parking lot (as long as they own it). It is the same concept I hear a lot from you guys about freedom of property. I somewhat understand a mandatory sign (although for the most part I still disagree) however having to notify people at the door is outrageous.

How about this: If a church, or any religious organization, does not want firearms, or what have you, on their property, they can ask you to leave or dispose of the gun, and if you don’t, then legal action can be taken against you. However, if they do not have a sign or any notification of a sort visible, then you can carry as long as you are not directed otherwise. However, if they do have a sign or some other form of notification that is visible then legal action can be taken against you for carrying on their property.

I know this view is going to be very unpopular with alot of you. Please do not think that I am anti-gun, because I am not. I am not advocating that churches ban guns on their property either, just that they have the choice.

[TallPine]

I am not advocating that churches ban guns on their property either, just that they have the choice.
It seems that they already have that choice right now, but are still unhappy about it.

[dandean316]

I somewhat understand a mandatory sign (although for the most part I still disagree) Well, then I want to have a different handicapped sign at my business. The reason for the same sign is simple: to keep guns out if they want, then there is no question on EITHER side.

Churches do have the right to ban have guns if they post. But they don't want to post like the law says.having to notify people at the door is outrageous. The dems didn't want to vote on the bill in the senate, so the bill was attached to another bill to get the vote. They could have got this removed, but they refuesed to hear the bill.

Your second paragraph is pretty much how the MN law is already.I am not advocating that churches ban guns on their property either, just that they have the choice. They do have the choice, they are just whining about it. They couldn't win in the legislature, so they want ONE judge to overturn the whole law.

[F4GIB]

This is old news. They got 5% of what they wanted in Hennepin County. That's all they'll get on the best day.

This is the same lawsuit. It should be consolidated into the Hennepin county suit.

Lilihaug ran for US Senate in 2002 and LOST. He wants to run again in 2006 and desperate to keep his name in the news.

[memorex]

I'll stop going to mine, and donating, if they get involved in politics.

They almost lost me when they started talking about the war in Iraq- thankfully, they stuck to a pretty middle of the road viewpoint.

A simple letter to the pastor stating why you're xferring your membership to another church and won't be donating any further is probably strong enough if your church does this.

[EWTHeckman]

Churches need to stick to teaching what the Bible says and making sure that they stick as close to it as they can. Nothing angered Jesus more than church "leaders" distorting scriptures in order to push their own opinions which were often contrary to what the scriptures teach. He called such people, "brood of vipers," "whitewashed tombs full of dead men's bones," "children of their father, the devil" and so forth. And the only recorded time he physically attacked anyone was when he threw the money changers out of the temple for turning it into "a den of thieves."

He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." Luke 22:36

[Poodleshooter]

There's nothing wrong with churches and politics being intertwined. Both faith and politics affect your life and one another. To pretend otherwise is foolish or requires either ineffectual politics with no effect on your life or behavior or ineffectual faith with no effect on your life and behavior. Churches espousing views on politics does not equal "establishment of state religion".

[Lone_Gunman]

Every organization, and special interest, should have a right to enter into political discussions, and churches should be no exception.

[TallPine]

And now, from the same busybodies who brought you Prohibition .....

:barf:

[ARperson]

The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

The U.S. Constitution is a document that outlines and prohibits behavior, actions, and whatnot limited to the federal government. Now, there is a handy amendment that says states can't violate the civil liberties of the people outlined in the Constitution anymore than the federal government can, but beyond that, states are supreme. Or rather, they should be. However the federal government and the ignorance of the people have bastardized the whole thing to create the boondoggle we have now.

Regardless of where we are today, the Constitution was created solely out of a desire to limit federal powers against the people and the states, based on the failures of Britian they saw at the time, not to set a standard for the states to follow. Why do you think each state has its own Constitution? And why are some of them different?

In fact, had some founding fathers had their way, the phrase United States of America would be plural, not singular. More in line with the original Article of Confederation prior to the Constitution. I for one think it would be better if we could have kept it that way.

[Quartus]

Every organization, and special interest, should have a right to enter into political discussions, and churches should be no exception.


I disagree with this statement, Lone. Let me restate it MY way and I think you'll see why.


Every organization, and special interest, has a right to enter into political discussions, and churches are no exception.


There's no SHOULD about it. That's what the First is about - even raving idiots get to spout their nonsensical ideas.



Just as we are free to point out that they are idiots! :D

[Scyvthe]

I somewhat understand a mandatory sign (although for the most part I still disagree)


Well, then I want to have a different handicapped sign at my business. The reason for the same sign is simple: to keep guns out if they want, then there is no question on EITHER side.

Churches do have the right to ban have guns if they post. But they don't want to post like the law says.

I see what your saying, and I agree now. (not trying to hijack this thread) But could this mean that our rights, even that of property, are limited?



having to notify people at the door is outrageous.

The dems didn't want to vote on the bill in the senate, so the bill was attached to another bill to get the vote. They could have got this removed, but they refuesed to hear the bill.


Not to sound hostile, but I really don't care how the bill was passed, or who could have made it different. I'm trying to debate on the principle of the bill itself, not on who did what to make it pass.


I am not advocating that churches ban guns on their property either, just that they have the choice.


They do have the choice, they are just whining about it. They couldn't win in the legislature, so they want ONE judge to overturn the whole law.

Yes, they have the choice they just have to notify people at the door. Once again, I'm not saying that they are going about this in the right or wrong manner, I'm simply debating the principle of the bill itself.

[twoblink]

He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one with a carbon fiber handle and make it look tactical." Luke 22:36

How is that for blatent misquotation of the Bible?

:D

All I gotta say is:

Jesus wore desert camo all his life :cool: He said the strong should defend the weak. I don't understand where the church leaders of MN are gettin' these. They are suppose to be SHEPARDS, who have a rod and a staff for a reason!! Goodness... If they need a Bible, I'll be happy to lend them mine!!!:cuss:

[Standing Wolf]

Minnesota's leftist extremists have earned the dubious distinction of being the nation's loudest bunch of sore losers.

[Quartus]

twoblink it's not a coincidence that the denominations that are left wing are the same ones that don't take the Bible seriously.

[dandean316]

But could this mean that our rights, even that of property, are limited?

In a perfect world, we should have ultimate control over our property. But in reality we don't. Take a lot of land you own. Depending on zoning, you can put a shopping mall, one house per 1/4 acre or one house per 40 acres. So yeah, our property rights are limited.

[Kentucky Rifle]

I think Kentucky's CCW laws were changed. A PREACHER wanted to be able to carry his concealed pistol in church! :) I think he was successful in getting the law changed too. Kentucky is a little...ah....
"different".:D

KR

[HankB]

Lillehaug filed the lawsuit on behalf of a Lutheran church in Edina, claiming notification requirements in the law were an unconstitutional infringement of religious freedom. The law required churches to both post signs _ which were described in great detail _ and verbally inform parishioners at the door that pistols were prohibited. So the churches want to ban guns from their property, and want the force of law behind the ban, but they don't want to have to tell anyone their own church's policy?

It seems to me that they're in effect asking the STATE to write a law to enforce CHURCH policy.

If you're one of those who believes there is a Constitutional provision mandating separation of church and state, please explain how having the STATE enforce CHURCH policy is NOT unconstitutional?

If you're a member of any of these congregations, I strongly suggest you stop donating $$$ to your church until they stop these pulpit politics. Inform your pastor what you're doing, WHY you're doing it, and take your usual donation and send it to the NRA, GOA, CCRKBA, CECC, or any other pro-gun organization.

And tell the pastor you're doing it.

[kentucky bucky]

You all need more Baptist up there. My father-in-law is a pastor, and has a permit and packs a piece most of the time. There is no doubt he would use it to defend himself and his family. I know quite a few pentecostals that feel the same way too. Even the Methodist around here haven't got a problem with it either!!:D

[dandean316]

You all need more Baptist up there.
Praise God!

I know some Baptist pastors who carry - heck, at my church I think 1/2 the guys have CCW permits - plus a high per capita gun ownership too!

[madmike]

They're trying to create a problem where none exists. The law says they must inform everyone of their no-carry position, clearly and legally.

What they want is, "Your honor, it was clearly marked by a 1" square sign on the back service entrance, and this man carried a gun in church, thereby committing armed felony trespass" and have it stick.

Then they can say, "See? Felonies in church with guns!"

Even though no criminal intent existed.

Local mall here has fine print about "no weapons allowed, will be prosecuted."

The sign is 50 feet INSIDE the door, in small print on a notic board I didn't "notice" for 6 months.:barf: