Judge frees churches from gun law's requirements

StarTribune ^ | 9/12/05 | AP

[Ken H]

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.

LOL. At least the Legislature got the main part right.

[Ken H]

On the bright side, it's good that they are debating this issue, rather than whether people should be allowed to carry at all. IIRC, MN just recently passed favorable carry laws.

[ButThreeLeftsDo]

"On the bright side, it's good that they are debating this issue, rather than whether people should be allowed to carry at all. IIRC, MN just recently passed favorable carry laws."

Those of us that follow this REAL close, understand that this is a foot-hold move in a bigger attempt to have the law overturned, yet again.

Remember, this is a BLUE state.

[Valpal1]

I think the anti-gun liberal dopes want to ban guns in their churches, but they don't want to post the necessary signs, because that would attract criminals.

They want their cake and eat it too. Cognitive Dissonance

[Oztrich Boy]

I think the anti-gun liberal dopes want to ban guns in their churches, but they don't want to post the necessary signs, because that would attract criminals.
They want their cake and eat it too. Cognitive Dissonance

You are failing to give them credit for a well thought out scheme. If a CCW holder is found breaking the law by carrying in a place where a unposted firearms ban is in place, s/he committed a firearms offence and the CCW can be revoked.

[inquest]

Ahh - an anti-religion zealot?

Because I expect churches to follow the same laws as everyone else? Find something in the writings of the founders that suggest they should be exempt.

In fact, making churches exempt establishes religion by giving them special privileges.

[patent]

>>>>>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 don't mean any offense, but you have no clue what you are talking about. These churches are an integral part of the "communist" part of MN. These communist portions of MN have been trying to get this law overturned by any means possible. These are liberal churches who, quite simply, object to ANYONE, carrying a handgun. They want the law overturned, and will use any means they can to do it. This is meant to be a chink in the law's armour, get part of it ruled unconstitutional on the way to gettting it all overturned.

These Churches always had the freedom to ban guns on their property by posting the sign or asking you to leave, but that isn't good enough for them. They want to ban anyone from carrying, period.

patent

[Fireone]

"They want to ban anyone from carrying, period."

Not even Morton Grove was able to accomplish that.
You can make it illegal, but you can't ban it.

[patent]

"They want to ban anyone from carrying, period."

Not even Morton Grove was able to accomplish that. You can make it illegal, but you can't ban it.

I think you mean that they can't entirely stop it, and I agree with that. They can ban it, however, as a ban is making it illegal, it means the same thing:

ban1 Audio pronunciation of "ban" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bn)
tr.v. banned, ban·ning, bans

1. To prohibit, especially by official decree. See Synonyms at forbid.
2. South African. Under the former system of apartheid, to deprive (a person suspected of illegal activity) of the right of free movement and association with others.
3. Archaic. To curse.

patent

[On the Road to Serfdom]

I don't see why churches would have the right to have government ban guns for them, sign or no sign. If they want to ban guns, let the church enforce their own ban.

Under current law they could ban guns without a sign. Then if a church discovers someone is carrying a gun he could be asked to leave, then if he refused to leave he could be charged with, at most, trespassing. Where would the *right* of the church to a stiffer penalty for the gun carrier come from?