Churches in Minnesota win another round on gun ban

[Groovski]

We already refer to Sunday morning clay shooting as "The Church of the Broken Bird." Maybe the gun club should reincorporate as a religion! It'd save us some property taxes and give us other rights that vary from state to state.

And it was thus said unto them when John Moses returned from the mountain, "There is but one commandment unto you. Thou shalt use thy blessed shot against the forces of the wicked pidgeons, that their breakage shall be pleasing in the eyes of thy Creator." And John Moses said to the pidgeons, "Wherupon you came from dust, so shall you return to dust."

Remingtons 8:70

 

[The Canuck]

Wow, I can't believe that these churches would revolt against the word of Christ like this.

"Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
LUKE 22:36

Christ was NEVER a pacifist. He tossed the money changers out of the Temple using great and terrible violence. He has been quoted numerous times about how a man should always be ready to fight for the right things, not over insults or slights.

Also, is there a provision in the law that states that any entity that forbids the carriage of a firearm on the premises is now liable for the safety of those so forbidden? If not, there ought to be.

I have many thoughts on this, but I will start with these ones...

Maybe somebody should walk in carrying a big honkin' two handed sword...

 

[JerryM]

{Maybe somebody should walk in carrying a big honkin' two handed sword..}
In my church if he did not immediately drop it he would be dropped immediately.

I am surprised at how little so many know about the Bible and the local church. Guess I should not be, considering what I see in the world around me.

Best,
Jerry

 

[Doggy Daddy]

JerryM
But whether you like it or not, the Bible gives the local church the right to dictate certain things to members of that church.

Why would I restrict myself to attending a church just because it's "local". I choose a church because it aligns with my undestanding of the Bible. One of my understandings is that I am not to present myself as a victim... I should defend myself and my family. A church that demands otherwise, is a church I would not attend. Not because the gun is more important, but because the church does not align with my beliefs.

 

[jfh]

While I appreciate watching the thread drift demonstrating differences in fundamental beliefs by intelligent posters, it would behoove us to keep Richmond's posts' points in mind:

"...Essentially, this has been the tactic of the anti lobby, that lost in the effort to defeat the MCPPA, Minnesota's "shall issue" legislation. Having lost on the legislation as a whole, they are still fighting to bit by bit erode the scope of the law.

The Court of appeals invalidates 3 provisions on grounds of unconstitutionality:
1. sign requirements
2. parking lot restriction
3. ability of church to restrict tenants and their guests (see (e) in the statute)

Looking at it in one sense, you could agree with Prof. Olson - that this is fairly insignificant, and that is probably a good way to present it to the media. On the other hand, this is a long term strategy by the anti movement, and I would not ignore any of their efforts or successes, however small.
And it isn't about religion - it is about guns."
​

(emphasis added)

Jim H.

 

[ArmedBear]

I am surprised at how little so many know about the Bible and the local church. Guess I should not be, considering what I see in the world around me.

I'd be willing to bet I know a bit more about it than you do.

For one thing, you repeat a party line instead of what it says, and most conspicuously you misuse the word "church". For another, has it ever dawned on you that the writings of St. Paul the Misogynist don't sound much like the words of Jesus quoted in the Gospels? That their approach is actually quite different?

But no matter. I'm a slave to the Devil. You go listen to what your leaders tell you and be a good sheep.

 

[princewally]

I am surprised at how little so many know about the Bible and the local church. Guess I should not be, considering what I see in the world around me.

And I am consistently surprised by the way some people interpret parts of the Bible, while claiming they have the one, true understanding, and everyone else is a slave to the devil. That kind of humility is certainly paving the road to hell, dontcha think?

I dig the circular logic, too. It's great, and resolves all problems. "You must obey your minister because the Bible tells you to, and I know this because my minister told me the Bible is telling me to obey him."

Jesus preached "spread the word" not "set up a hierarchical bureaucratic tyranny designed to control lives". He didn't found a church, he didn't tell his followers to found a church.

I'll argue this on your terms. I'll ignore the "I have faith because I have faith" and "I obey because I was told to obey". I will ignore reason, logic and law and I will argue using nothing but what was included in the Bible, if you are willing to do the same. You haven't, yet.

Blessed are the meek (οι πραεις): for they shall inherit the earth (κληρονομήσουσιν την γην).

Holier-than-thou is not meek or humble.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Eyes On The Road, Gentlemen

Guys, keep it on-topic.

You want to discuss the merits of churches and religions and philosophies and obedience, take it over to APS.

Today's discussion is the laws and guns and laws about guns and people bending/breaking/making laws about guns.

I can tolerate a little drift, but thou shalt not preach thine gospel on The High Road.

 

[#shooter]

Churches are private organizations on private property so like any private business or homeowner they can dictate what is allowed on their property and what is not.

 

[princewally]

Churches are private organizations on private property so like any private business or homeowner they can dictate what is allowed on their property and what is not.

Three things:

1. Private vs Public is not that simple. Churches are not exactly private in that they are open to the public, and at least some of them are owned by the membership.

2. The issue isn't IF they can ban guns. The issue is if they can ban guns any way they want and still expect the regular penalties to apply. The churches involved want special exemptions just for them, so their members can get the penalties by doing something in a way that is not illegal ANYWHERE in the state.

3. Read the thread. Your points have been addressed.

 

[Henry Bowman]

Churches are private organizations on private property so like any private business or homeowner they can dictate what is allowed on their property and what is not.

:banghead: Is anybody listening here?

The law did not address churches specifically. The law said that you can prohibit CCW by putting up a sign. That included churches. The churches who sued want the state to dictate what is allowed on their property. THEY WANT THE LAW TO SPECIFICALLY BAN CCW ON CHURCH PROPERTY without them having to put up a sign. They are claiming that the sign requirement is unduly burdensome and messes with their "message of peace."

They want the law to be "opt out" like Ohio's (CCW prohibited in churches unless specifically authorized by the church) rather than "opt in" (put up a sign if you want to prohibit CCW).

 

[jfh]

For those of you not attuned to the nuances of this challenge, it is important to understand that the lead lawyer for the churches is arguably the leading anti-gun Democrat in MN, working on it (probably) pro bono while employed by one of the largest and 'prestigious' Democrat law firms in Minnesota, and that the two primary churches involved are two affluent, 'liberal-activist' churches--of which Lillehaug is a member of one (the Lutheran church, naturally--this is MN).

I don't need to keep my tinfoil hat off to recognize a stalking effort on the part of the national antigun movement, and that the political factions involved in contesting this have made a calculated effort to breach the MNPPA.

As the collective wisdom here seems to be recognizing, there is an emerging effort by the antigunners to work their way around written law and to subvert the intent of it.

Jim H.

 

[USAFNoDAk]

The law did not address churches specifically. The law said that you can prohibit CCW by putting up a sign. That included churches. The churches who sued want the state to dictate what is allowed on their property. THEY WANT THE LAW TO SPECIFICALLY BAN CCW ON CHURCH PROPERTY without them having to put up a sign. They are claiming that the sign requirement is unduly burdensome and messes with their "message of peace."

They want the law to be "opt out" like Ohio's (CCW prohibited in churches unless specifically authorized by the church) rather than "opt in" (put up a sign if you want to prohibit CCW).

Not exactly. They don't want the state to ban CCW in churches, yet. However, these specific churches wanted to be exempted from having to follow the existing law. Specifically, they wanted to be expempt from having to post signs IF they banned CCW in their churches. They also wanted to be able to ban guns in their parking lots, which the state says that they cannot do, as the law is written. They found a judge who said that the state is not within its powers to enforce those last two aspects of the law on churches. However, any other church can still allow CCW if they so desire, or they can post signs if they want to ban CCW inside the church and don't have a problem with signs.

What isn't quite clear to me is if a church has not posted signs, can they then immediately prosecute a person, who has come into the church carrying a concealed weapon, for trespassing. I don't believe they can. They can ask him or her to leave, and if he or she doesn't, then they can likely charge him or her with trespassing.

The likely scenario would be a non church member attending a wedding at a particular church which bans guns but does not post a sign. How is the non member supposed to know he is trespassing? He wouldn't. However, if an official of the church happened to spot his gun and then told him he cannot have a gun in the church, he would have to leave. Since the court says that churches can also ban firearms from their parking lots, this person would have to drive off of their lot, park somewhere else, leave his gun in the car, and walk to the church. I don't believe, if he did so, he could be charged with trespassing for the initial infraction of not obeying their policies, since they did not POST their policies against guns.

Of course, I could be wrong about this, but I think I'm at least pretty close.

 

[Sage of Seattle]

I am Lutheran; I never really considered myself proud of my religious affiliation, but I guess I always was proud to be Lutheran.

It's things like this that make me cringe. What a flimsy excuse to demand, and receive, special dispensation under the law. Because Luther put the famed 95 Theses on a church door -- just as EVERY message meant for general consumption (as I understand it) was done at that time -- means that the church now shouldn't have to put a specific sign conspicuously at entrances?

How about "These doors to remain unlocked during business hours" or "Fire Exit" or "office --->" or any of the other ugly signs that are required of churches to post conspicuously?

Hey, that NEON FIRE EXIT SIGN is really distracting me from my worship service! How dare they?

One of my understandings is that I am not to present myself as a victim... I should defend myself and my family.

Well said. In that, I disagree strongly that the Lutheran church takes the stand that guns are evil in and of themselves. I guess the Catholics didn't get everything wrong....

 

[Groovski]

What isn't quite clear to me is if a church has not posted signs, can they then immediately prosecute a person, who has come into the church carrying a concealed weapon, for trespassing. I don't believe they can. They can ask him or her to leave, and if he or she doesn't, then they can likely charge him or her with trespassing.

I think you're close, but the way I read it, this ruling affirms churches (as well as church-owned facilities such as parking lots, etc) one of the institutions in Minnesota that can ban CCW, and the can use their own wording on their sign to do it. I take it churches could previously ban CCW in the church itself, but not in their parking lots, and they had to use a sign with certain wording to do it. Now they can ban in parking lots and their daycare centers while using their own words.

I don't think CCW is banned at all churches in Minnesota by default if no sign is put up - that would make no sense and would usurp the rights of churches who want to encourage CCW.

It is much more interesting than the mundane sign wording question. In doing this, the Minnesota Courts have effectively said churches, via "freedom of religion" have extra powers that others do not to usurp the US constitutional rights of the people under the Second Amendment. That extra power includes the parking lot (I gather other entities in Minnesota cannot ban CCW in their parking lots), as well as possibly a less stringent sign policy.

The next logical conclusion is that if churches, via freedom of religion, can restrict rights of the people to bear arms in their parking lots, they can also restrict the right to free speech there as well.

 

[USAFNoDAk]

It is much more interesting than the mundane sign wording question. In doing this, the Minnesota Courts have effectively said churches, via "freedom of religion" have extra powers that others do not to usurp the US constitutional rights of the people under the Second Amendment. That extra power includes the parking lot (I gather other entities in Minnesota cannot ban CCW in their parking lots), as well as possibly a less stringent sign policy.

You are correct that other businesses in Minnesota cannot prohibit firearms in their parking lots. The thinking that went into the law was that if a business or church banned guns in their buildings, a CCW permittee had to have some place to securely store their gun while they were INSIDE the building. Of course we can argue how secure a gun is in car, but that's for another day.

The next logical conclusion is that if churches, via freedom of religion, can restrict rights of the people to bear arms in their parking lots, they can also restrict the right to free speech there as well.

I'm not so sure they can't already do this, at least in Minnesota. If a group of atheists showed up at a church and tried to have a rally against God in the church parking lot, I believe the Church would be well within their legal rights in asking them to leave. If they didn't leave, the church could press for charges of trespassing. They'd certainly call law enforcement to have those people forced off of their property.

 

[ArmedBear]

I'm not so sure they can't already do this, at least in Minnesota. If a group of atheists showed up at a church and tried to have a rally against God in the church parking lot, I believe the Church would be well within their legal rights in asking them to leave. If they didn't leave, the church could press for charges of trespassing. They'd certainly call law enforcement to have those people forced off of their property.

AFAIK you're right, though there may not be any test case. Atheists generally don't figure on having anyone giving them extra points for wasting their time like this.

OTOH I did see a booth at an Earth Day festival (I felt dirty even being there, but had promised to help man a Libertarian booth) where a local atheist group was proseletyzing. I thought it was kinda funny, actually, despite being in general agreement with their thinking. Evangelical atheists. Go figure.

I don't think they were anti-gun, though, which is apparently more than I can say for several flavors of Christianity these days.

 

[USAFNoDAk]

AFAIK you're right, though there may not be any test case. Atheists generally don't figure on having anyone giving them extra points for wasting their time like this.

I was originally going to use an example of the KKK holding a rally at a "black church", but I thought that too many other mitigating factors would then get tossed into the debate. The atheist example seemed to focus more on the fact that atheists have a right to free speech, but would not necessarily have that right protected by the government in a so called private, Christian,church parking lot.

 

[ArmedBear]

I've never been to MN, but here in CA, many parking lots have signs that say something akin to, "Private Property. Right to pass may be revoked at any time by owner."

A church may welcome all who are interested to come on Sunday, but it is a private organization. I wouldn't say it's "so called private"; it IS private. The driveway remains open for the convenience of those who have business using the facility.

A freethinker's club or whatever need not allow a Christian protest on its property, either. It's got little to do with religion at all.

With a mall, it does become a little dicier, though I'm a private property guy and think the mall shouldn't have to allow anyone on the property for any reason. A mall is a sort of "public utility" in a way that a private organization isn't really.

 

[Groovski]

I'm not so sure they can't already do this, at least in Minnesota. If a group of atheists showed up at a church and tried to have a rally against God in the church parking lot, I believe the Church would be well within their legal rights in asking them to leave. If they didn't leave, the church could press for charges of trespassing. They'd certainly call law enforcement to have those people forced off of their property.

I was thinking more along the lines of the church being able to ban any two church members from sharing a subersive conversation (but non-public protest) about the church's CCW ban in the parking lot after the sermon - a private conversation that is not harrassing other church members - and posting signs such as "Thou shalt not discuss the church CCW policy in the parking lot."

Some Amendment 1 rights are almost universally protected I thought, regardless of location. No such luck for Amendment 2 rights.

Update:
I checked into this. A lot of information is at this link:
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/assembly/topic.aspx?topic=private_property

Presumably, thought control on private property would be allowed under Federal and most State Laws, although I'm not sure this has ever been tested regarding private conversations.

If the Supreme Court finds that the right to bear arms is an individual right, it remains to be seen whether an individual's right extends to private property that is not his own.