Guns in Church, SCOTUS gives it a pass for no guns.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...8d8-11e2-b8b2-0d18a64c8dfa_story.html?hpid=z3

Georgia has banned guns in church and it was challenged. Issue went up to SCOTUS after the ban was supported at a lower federal level. SCOTUS passed on the issue.

This annoys me. The rationale for a gun ban should be based on some criterion that makes sense:

1. Technical - no gun by the MRI - BOOM!
2. Private property bans (I disagree with this by the way) that has some basis in rights and law.

However, the mandatory banning in religious institutions is based not on some direct measure of safety or rights but in a mistaken emotional belief that such places are sacred or whatever. You insult whatever you believe in by having a gun.

Well, the deities can take care of themselves. If they don't want guns, let them speak.

The state cannot set the conditions for worship if it is not a direct issue of safety. Your opinion of sacred cannot tell a religious institution how to worship. Can the ceremonial knives of Sikhs be banned in GA?

These bans are clearly unconstitutional infringements on the conditions of religious practice. Shame of on SCOTUS. If Scalia thinks this is reasonable, well - then he is not.

 

[UtopiaTexasG19]

That is odd. Here at my very large congregation in S.E. Texas we have a rotating armed security detail for every service. They stay in a separate room from the main assembly room with a huge 4' x 8' "one way" glass mirror for Sunday services. There is no shortage of volunteers and those on the detail "do not" open carry so no one knows who they are from week to week. Out pastor is a avid hunter and we even have a yearly wild game dinner where congregation members harvest and cook the wild game.

 

[Alabama Shooter]

I am NOT going to be the one to tell the minister.

 

[sigcurious]

I wonder if there is some sort of history with this type of challenge coming from Utah, as they also have a no carry in church law. I tried a search by my google-fu failed to find anything.

Aside from the obvious issues of church and state etc, these days there seem to be a lot more churches that operate in temporarily occupied spaces or non-stand alone spaces(strip malls etc). I hope the wording of the law recognizes some of these things and isn't in broad terms that might accidentally make it illegal to carry in a store that happens to be next to a church in a strip mall or something.

 

[Shotgun693]

In the past, SCOTUS has said that States can have certain rules and regulations on the Bearing of Arms. Some of this seems to mean things like if a State restricts carry in a limited number of places, like schools, churches and hospitals that it not so restrictive as to infringe in the general Right to Bear Arms.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

BEAR!

Not bare - that is going to the naked church!!

Show Spelled [bair] Show IPA adjective, bar·er, bar·est, verb, bared, bar· ing. adjective. 1. without covering or clothing; naked; nude: bare legs

 

[Tom Servo]

Not bare - that is going to the naked church!

What is this "naked church" to which you refer, Dr. Meyer? I am intrigued

I was critical of this case from the beginning. The matter should have been resolved through the legislature and not the courts.

Yes, I think the ban is wrong and unconstitutional. However, it's hard to make that argument in a court case. In this one, the plaintiff's claim was that his right to free expression was violated because he couldn't carry a gun to church.

The easy (even if it's cheap) rebuttal is "well, where in your religious creed does it say you have to be armed to worship? Nowhere? OK then." Plaintiff's attorneys seemed to lack a response to that.

What we were left with was a case capable of only setting bad precedent, which it did when quoted by the dissent in Moore v. Madigan.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I will not discuss the upcoming ban on naked churches.

I agree that freedom of expression may not be it. It is setting on condition on freedom of worship.

Ha - be gone for a bit.



Glenn

 

[D.W. Drang]

SCOTUS does not often get involved in state laws. Note subsequent comments about armed security details at some churches in some states. Ergo, SCOTUS probably decided this was a state issue.

Bare churches="sky clad"=I know for a fact that there have been threads here regarding pagan gun owners...

 

[KMAX]

BEAR!

Not bare - that is going to the naked church!!

Glenn: Spellin an grammer jist ain't whut thay usta bee!

 

[Fox1]

Glenn E. Meyer
I will not discuss the upcoming ban on naked churches.

I agree that freedom of expression may not be it. It is setting on condition on freedom of worship.

Ha - be gone for a bit.

I will NOT discuss concealed carry at the naked church!

 

[Dr Big Bird PhD]

I fail to understand why the state needs a law on this.

Can't the church's just put a sign out front and regulate themselves...

Can our CHURCHES not even be held responsible for themselves anymore?

 

[BarryLee]

Tom is right this should have been handled by the legislature and each Church should have the freedom to determine how their private property is used.

As for “Naked Church” in Atlanta that would be a place called the Clermont Lounge. To paraphrase Jimmy Buffet if you’ve never seen it don’t try to describe it.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

TX had a religious institution ban (there are others than churches). Sane minds modified the law such that it was the insitution's choice to post the ban sign.

That's the way it should be.

 

[David13]

Well, I guess it can't be handled on a legislative basis (GA Leg.) as they are the ones that passed that law in the first place.
What's wrong with it, is that the decision in fact violates the right of the church to allow ccw, if they want. That is a right that is their property right and should not have been violated.
In fact, the decision seems to talk about their wishes on their private property, while the decision runs directly contrary to their wishes (as to the church that wants to opt FOR ccw.)
dc

 

[Hal]

These bans are clearly unconstitutional infringements on the conditions of religious practice. Shame of on SCOTUS. If Scalia thinks this is reasonable, well - then he is not.

Ahhhh - you said the "U" word.... ...
(just kidding)

SCOTUS passed on the issue

Yeah..frustrating how they get away with sidestepping issues isn't it?

Like the US vs Miller.
Miller was guility because the SC said a sawed off shotgun wasn't a "militia" arm.
Wonder what kind of dodge the SC would have come up with if Miller had a machine gun?
Probably the same "refuse to hear" thing. Just wait until a cherry picked case came along that fit the agenda...