Churches in Minnesota win another round on gun ban

[ArmedBear]

would challenge you to provide your own claim to intelligence or bravery or courage.

Based on what do you challenge me? What gives you that right?

I suspect that there are a fair number on this forum who have spent years in the military including combat zones, and who also have education and experiences at least equal to yours.

I'm sure there are. And I'm sure that among them, you will find various beliefs, from fundamentalist Christianity to avowed atheism.

But what, exactly, prompts you to throw around the supposed experience, intelligence, and education of others as if you have some claim to them?

 

[ArmedBear]

don't ridicule or bash those of us who do not worship CCW or anything or anyone but Jesus Christ.

Where did I do that?

In fact Jesus said the world would hate us because they first hated Him.

It's quite arrogant, if you ask me, to elevate anything I've said to "hating you", so that you can put yourself in the place of Jesus. But note that I am still not ridiculing you for it.

 

[average_shooter]

Isn't it a bit strange to see something like this so soon after the recent church shooting? Especially when it ended in the manner it did? If there hadn't been an armed CCW holder in the congregation, it might well have been much worse.

You forget, according to all the media that was no average CCWer like you or I. That was a security officer. See, there's no reason to carry concealed in church.

It doesn't matter that she was basically just a goodguy with a gun.

 

[JerryM]

Hi teknoid,

While I would not agree that this is a reason for declining chuch attendance if that is so, I would agree that it should be obvious to pastors and church leaders that there is nothing sacred to many anymore.

Accordingly, when someone has been trained and desires to carry at church they should be permitted and even encouraged to do so.
I would not want just anyone carrying in such a crowded environment without some discussion and additional considerations of how to accomplish protection.

The percentage of attacks on churches is very, very small considering the thousands which meet on Sunday and some on other days or nights of the week. But it does happen and when there are those with training and mindset to combat such attacks upon those present it is good to permit and encourage them in my view.

Regards,
Jerry

 

[zxcvbob]

The thing to watch out for is churches being added to the "prohibited places" list. This did not happen. All the ruling means is that the No Guns signs at churches do not have to follow the prescribed format.

I for one am glad to see that the church in question has the good taste to prefer Colt SAA's (a.k.a. "Peacemakers")

 

[ArmedBear]

All the ruling means is that the No Guns signs at churches do not have to follow the prescribed format.

...which is sort of like legislating from the bench, but its impact is fairly minimal.

 

[Technosavant]

Deleted Post, before I say something I don't really want to leave out there.

Guys, let's keep this on topic to the decision at hand, no need to debate validity of belief systems. That's pretty non-THR.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Flaws

"would be inconsistent with its mission to provide a safe sanctuary and welcoming place of worship."

"Safe sanctuary" for . . . the congregation? . . . the guy who shows up to shoot the congregation? We already know the bad guy isn't going to follow the rules, so making it easier and more comfortable to disarm the congregation by using "friendlier" and more subtle signage, thus avoiding giving offense while still accomplishing disarmament . . . ?

I'm not impressed.

"We're especially thankful that the court recognized and protected our congregation's witness to peacemaking and nonviolence in all relationships,"

Let me know when the "witness" proclaimed to violent criminal actors achieves peace and nonviolence.

"It underscores the importance of freedom of religion in Minnesota,"

I'm not sure whether that means "freedom from being told how to ban guns," or perhaps, "freedom from having to allow guns on premises."

Either way, I'm not impressed.

We chose to do this because it is our duty and obligation to confront a culture of violence and build a culture of peace.

Which will, of course, work out just fine, because if we disarm and smile a lot, then the criminals will also disarm and join us in smiling.

Wow.

Now there's arrogance and meta-arrogance.

My answer is simple: if it happens that I attend a church, and said church ever decides to ban arms on premises, then I will gently inform them that, given that I hold my life, and the lives of those near me, sacred, I will decline further participation in a group setting that reduces security and increases risk for me and those whose lives I value.

If, in holding the ideal of peace sacred, you enact conditions that facilitate violence, then I won't be attending.

I checked, and I'm not on this year's sacrifice list.

 

[ArmedBear]

It is also quite arrogant to elevate yourself to the position of the arbiter of what is right and reasonable.

Once again, you are telling me that I did something I didn't do, and this time after ignoring my post showing where you had misquoted me.

there's no need for anybody to toss around comments regarding the validity of any particular belief system here

And I did that when?

I said I didn't want to go to church. I actually never commented on any belief system at all. Look through the thread if you want to.

 

[USAFNoDAk]

The anti carry folks have been losing right and left, with 40 or more states now having some laws that allow citizens to carry. Any time they get a ruling that flows against CCW, they are ecstatic, as their victories have been few and far between. They do want to take this to the next level however. If churches can ban guns in their parking lots and buildings without having to post signs, why can't other "private" businesses do the same?

What's really funny about this whole thing in the land of 10,000 lefties, is that they got the courts in Minnesota to rule that the Mall of America is not a "private" entity and could not ban protestors, because they open their doors to the public. This means they have to allow public protests to be conducted on their property, just as if it were a public street or town square. Well, aren't the churches open to the public by that standard? Aren't their parking lots open to the public during church services at least?

What about the tobacco laws and anti smoking laws? Minnesota says it can control smoking in certain private establishments, such as bars and restaurants, because those establishments open their doors to the public. Last time I checked, you didn't have to be a member to attend most churches. Isn't that opening their doors to the public? Shouldn't they then be subject to the same laws? This doesn't mean all that much for now, but it certainly is hypocritical on the part of our courts in liberal lakes, MN. The anti CCW folks will try to ride this victory like a sled down a snow covered hill at the St. Paul Winter Carnival.

 

[Jaenak]

I hope they take this case to the supreme court. This is the first brick in crumbling the idea of concealed carry. Now commercial businesses will take it to court in hopes of getting an excemtion for them too.

Besides, I don't care who bans them where, I'm still gonna carry it. If they want to arrest me for it, well then f*ck them too. If I get aquited for it I'll sue and put the place out of business out of an act of revenge. If federal buildings didn't have metal detectors and guards posted, I'd carry there too. The fact though that security is so frickin' tight there reassures me that if I can't get in with a weapon, then a bad guy can't either and therefore I don't need to carry there.

 

[ArmedBear]

This means they have to allow public protests to be conducted on their property, just as if it were a public street or town square. Well, aren't the churches open to the public by that standard? Aren't their parking lots open to the public during church services at least?

I don't like the ruling, but I really don't think so.

Malls are entirely different. If The Sharper Image said, "Buy this product now, or you will spend an eternity in Hell!" (as the poster wrote to me above), you could probably sue for false advertisement unless they could prove it, or claimed it was protected speech as parody. Churches, however, can say whatever they want within their doors, and this is protected by the Constitution as it should be. And they don't sell any of the necessities of life, so you really never have to go unless you want to. They're really not public like malls.

Again, I'm not too comfortable with either ruling. However, I think they are different situations. The problem is, the courts seem to make up their interpretations according to whatever Boomer college professors want, not what the Constitution really says.

 

[JerryM]

Hey ArmedBear,

Have you noticed that you are repeating yourself. What is that a sign of??

Best,
Jerry

 

[Winchester 73]

Have you noticed that you are repeating yourself. What is that a sign of??

Maybe that he's Armed with a Winchester Repeater.
Now that was awful.

 

[Jaenak]

Neither churches or malls are public property. If someone had to purchase the property, that makes it private property. The church bought the church land and the company that runs the mall bought the property the mall is on, therefore it makes it private property. They simply invite people onto their land and into their building. Same idea as a grocery store or McDonalds, those are private property as well. Hence the reason why they can tell you to leave and you have to comply. If it was public property they wouldn't have the right to tell you to get out.

 

[ArmedBear]

Uh, that I have a bad Internet connection?

Or maybe I'm possessed by a demon or something. Or a daemon.

But Unix jokes are SERIOUSLY not funny.

 

[Erebus]

Here's my take.

Churches are private entities. They should have the right to forbid firearms on their private property. However if the state requires a standard sign to indicate that firearms are forbidden they should not be exempt from posting that sign. They can post whatever other sign or statement they would like indicating their reason for forbidding firearms on their private property but the standard sign should be required as it is what people look for when trying to determine if forearms are forbidden. Basically the sign should be required for the sake of preventing confusion.

If a church forbids firearms I will find another church to attend. If they all forbid firearms I will attend none of them and worship privately on my own or see about starting a church that shares by beliefs.

 

[Dimensio]

...which is sort of like legislating from the bench, but its impact is fairly minimal.

I see it as a dangerous precedent. The ruling essentially states that churches are a private organization that gets a special pass from the government that other organizations do not.

Other private buildings must have a specific state-defined sign posted. Why are churches any different? Why should they get a special pass from the government? The government should not be seeing the church building as any different than any building owned by a private business, except that they don't get property taxes from the owners.

 

[princewally]

Neither churches or malls are public property. If someone had to purchase the property, that makes it private property. .

Regarding malls: In Minnesota, landlords are not allowed to posts for tenants, which means no mall can legally post a 'no guns' sign.

Regarding property: Private vs publics is not the extent of the debate. IANAL, but there is 'private', 'public', 'publicly-owned/public', 'publicly-owned/restricted', 'privately-owned/open to the public', and a few other categories. Privately-owned/open to the public would include any form of retail business. Laws do dictate certain accessibility functions for these places. Handicapped access, and no 'no coloreds' signs being too glaring examples.

Regarding churches: Aren't churches owned by the members? If a member is part-owner, the posting would be meaningless anyway, wouldn't it? Bad question. I should be asking a Minnesota attorney.

 

[ArmedBear]

The government should not be seeing the church building as any different than any building owned by a private business

see princewally's post

except that they don't get property taxes from the owners.

And they should be getting them. If you've ever lived near a good-sized church, you know that they can be actually quite a nuisance and they most certainly burden the city infrastructure a great deal. There's no reason why a church shouldn't pay for police and fire protection, sewage treatment, roads and sidewalks, same as any other business or individual has to, especially without even having the burden of demonstrating non-profit status.

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, but there's nothing in it that suggests that any group that calls itself "church" should automatically be given special priveleges that aren't extended to, say, the privately-owned but open-to-the-public shooting range where I'm on the board of directors. That's especially true when the surrounding community must make up for the costs incurred by the church, even if they belong to a different religion or no religion at all.

 

[zxcvbob]

And they should be getting them. If you've ever lived near a good-sized church, you know that they can be actually quite a nuisance and they most certainly burden the city infrastructure a great deal. There's no reason why a church shouldn't pay for police and fire protection, sewage treatment, roads and sidewalks, same as any other business or individual has to, especially without even having the burden of demonstrating non-profit status.

I don't disagree with you, except that the power to tax is the power to destroy. If you don't believe me, don't pay your property taxes and see what happens. The county will keep escalating until you back down. If you resist long enough they will eventually kill you.

 

[F4GIB]

The revised STRIB article ends with this:

Hamline University School of Law Prof. Joe Olson, a supporter of the law, said the decision is so insignificant that it's hardly worth talking about. "If they're going to be charging someone with trespass, they still have to give them notice that they're violating the policy," Olson said. "In order to effectively give notice, they're going to wind up posting signs and they can't hide them behind a potted palm."

 

[ArmedBear]

Sure. And if the church doesn't pay its property taxes, it should suffer the same consequences as I would or the shooting club would. No more, nor less.

The 2nd Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms, but this does not imply a property tax exemption for the space required to store firearms safe from theft and rust.

The 4th and 5th Amendments protect private property ownership and use, but they have never been held to imply that property taxes need not be paid.

The 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of the press but does not absolve newspapers of obligations to pay taxes.

How are churches any different from newspapers, in terms of the specific freedoms guaranteed vs. a guarantee of tax-free real estate, subsidized by the taxes on the rest of the neighborhood?

 

[lance22]

In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

As for me, I want to thank the Lutheran Church and the Episcopal church for proving once again that Jefferson was right on the mark with his observations. I'm not sure when Karl Marx replaced Jesus among the traditional denominations but it's always evident that such is the case.

 

[ArmedBear]

I want to thank the Lutheran Church and the Episcopal church for proving once again that Jefferson was right on the mark with his observations. I'm not sure when Karl Marx replaced Jesus among the traditional denominations but it's always evident that such is the case.

What, you don't know about Tony Campolo?

It's not fair nor honest to just scapegoat the "traditional denominations" here.