Posted on 09/12/2005 3:57:04 PM PDT by ButThreeLeftsDo
Minnesota churches deserve an exemption from a state law requiring them to either post a sign or verbally inform people that concealed handguns aren't allowed on their property, a judge has ruled.
Hennepin County District Judge LaJune Thomas Lange granted two Twin Cities churches a temporary injunction Friday, the first legal blow to a 2005 law that was passed after an earlier version stumbled in the courts.
"The 2005 Act impermissibly intrudes into the free exercise of religion by arbitrary definitions, which dictate restrictions on the use of church property for worship, childcare, parking and rental space,'' Lange wrote.
Her ruling applies in Hennepin County until a trial is held. But an attorney for the churches hinted at a forthcoming push to have the order recognized elsewhere, too.
The law allows people at least 21 years old with a clean record, no mental illness and proper training to get a permit to carry a gun. Prior to 2003, local law enforcement authorities had more say over who received a permit.
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
What's going on here, TG?
What is wrong with these idiotic people? I'm sure a criminal will be deterred by a sign.
This won't change my behaviour.
Well, I don't know about "arbitrary definitions" of other things but I'm pretty sure "concealed" means nobody knows you've got it. DUH!
Of course, it being a church matter and all, it's hard to pass up saying something about people carrying guns "in front of God and everybody". Couldn't resist.
Basically saying that the government cannot tell a church what they can do - period. as I read it anyway. As it should be.
Arbitrary definitions is anything and everything a politician, a lawyer or their masters say.
So they don't have to inform people that they don't want guns on their property in order to take action against people who carry guns on their property? How exactly is this a freedom of religion question?
In other words churches don't have to obey the law? Even when the law in no conceivable way regulates their teachings and preachings?
If the same churches prohibited gays, you can bet there'd the loads of sympathetic judges to force the church to bend to their will.
OK. Here's the scoop.
The law required that those who didn't want to let guns on their premises had to use a specific set of words on a sign, or in a verbal communication.
The churches sued, saying they should be allowed to pick which words they use to communicate a gun ban. Some apparently didn't like what the specific words were, the article doesn't tell us what those words were.
The judge has ruled that churches should be free to "inform" using any language they want. They still have to inform, they just don't have to use the specific language dictated by the law.
I've got no idea why churches need this, but whatever....
Ahh - an anti-religion zealot?
Have to grasp at extremes?
Ok - for centuries (millenia), Church property has been sacrosanct and civil authorities have no authority over the Church .
There is a reason for this - look at the UK and the Church of England and most protestant churches in Europe where the state is the religion and the religion is the state.
Our founding fathers added that little clause into the constitution because of those abuses that the state/churches were infamous for - by then the Catholic Church had pretty much fallen away from trying to control a state (Inquisition era).
Congress shall make NO LAW - to paraphrase here - either FOR or AGAINST a church. In other words the govt cannot be the church and the church cannot be the govt.
Minnesota was simply doing what all good communist and other tyrannical govts do - take over total control of a church - just as the federal US govt has been attempting for decades with the 501(c)3 IRS control over churches. Do something the fed doesn't like, they confiscate the church for IRS rules!
I believe that is one of the main reasons this country was settled by Europeans --- to get away from that tyranny! and now it has returned.
Should I be so foolish, I can forbid guns on my private property. Seems like churches and private businesses ought to be able decide whether guns are allowed on their property.
"Seems like churches and private businesses ought to be able decide whether guns are allowed on their property."
They can.
Put up a sign, or inform verbally.
Simple.
"Congress shall make NO LAW - to paraphrase here - either FOR or AGAINST a church."
No one is trying to establish religion, here.
Upon rereading, it seems that churches and private businesses retain that right. I'm kind of at a loss to make sense of the law though. How else would anyone know that guns were not allowed, if someone did not inform them verbally or in writing?
The churchs' involved want to ban guns on their property. They don't want to have to do the same things other establishments are required to do to effect the ban.
Apparently these religions believe that no one should carry guns, at least around church. Fine (whatever). But they also believe as a matter of doctrine that they should not reveal this particular doctrine publicly but nevertheless should enforce it. In other words, you can't bring a gun to church, and the church can't tell you that you can't bring a gun.
I'm not terribly sure how they arrive at these doctrines, but leave it to liberal Minnesotans who spend too much time freezing their brains to devise such dogma.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.