Posted on 07/11/2018 6:12:07 PM PDT by marshmallow
Fort Worth, Texas, Jul 7, 2018 CNA/EWTN News.- The Diocese of Fort Worth is removing signs notifying people that concealed and open carry of firearms are both banned on church property – but the policy against guns has not changed.
Removal of the signs was recommended by a security team whom the diocese hired as consultants after a mass shooting at a Baptist church in Sutherland Springs last November, NBC reported.
Tony Perez, a parishioner at St. Patrick’s Cathedral, has a license to carry firearms, but had been advocating for the removal of the signs.
He told Dallas-Fort Worth’s NBC affiliate that the signs were “effectively advertising a gun-free zone,” which notified individuals seeking to do harm that the location was vulnerable.
Instead of posting signs near the entrances of churches throughout the diocese, notification of the gun ban will be included in weekly Sunday bulletins, NBC said.
(Excerpt) Read more at thebostonpilot.com ...
... Where and how it that statement limited only to governmental actors...
Where in the Bill of Rights does it say business owners can’t limit free speech?
The NFL sure as heck does when it forbids it’s players from taking a knee? But, they can and they do now.
Every Amendment is a limit on government conduct, not individual conduct or business conduct
Think an employee locker is safe from employer search? Or your personal desk on it’s premises? Or, are they protected by the fourth amendment? No. The employer can go through them with no search warrant.
Remember how Obama bitched about how the Constitution was a document of negative rights, a list of things the Government can’t do?
Yes, the bill of Rights is a list of things government can’t do. The 14th Amendment makes the Bill of Rights applicable to what the states can’t do in addition to what the Feds can’t do. Nothing there to prohibit what individuals or businesses can’t do.
About 10-12 Colonies insisted on the Bill of Rights before they would sign on to the Constitution.
So this is short any choppy cause I’m on my phone.
Not every amendment (or right/power in the main body) is negative. Article I Section Eight is a full list of powers allowed to Congress - those aren’t negative rights.
NFL business owners can limit speech because they’re the ones who ‘own’ the property, who make the employment contract. As you say, freedom of speech is, by the amendment, a limit on Congress. Employers can go through your locker because they own it - but your employer can’t search your house or go through your car willy-nilly unless you give them permission to.
However, some of the amendments aren’t limits on Congress - Four through Eight deal mostly with the courts and civil/criminal legal processes. How many federal courts do you think were involved in suits of less than $20? So why would the Constitution even mention stuff that was going to be a state/County level court process? These amendments didn’t need to be incorporated against the states, they were, by their wording, a universal right retained by the people. The Second is the same - the right of the people shall not be infringed. None of the wording in the amendment itself or the preamble states it is limited to Congress. The wording within the amendment, too, entirely applies to the people, not to the government.
No. The Constitution places limits on the government, not on private entities.
...The wording within the amendment, too, entirely applies to the people, not to the government...
“[A] bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse.”
- Thomas Jefferson, December 20, 1787
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.