Constitutional conflict - guns vs. churches

[a fantoche de meia]

http://www.startribune.com/stories/614/3900332.html

A new "right to carry" law in Minnesota has some churches up in arms. The Edina Community Lutheran Church is filing suit because the new law says it must allow people to carry guns in their parking lot. They claim this is an infringement on their freedom of religion. More churches, temples and synagogues are considering joining the suit.

[Kodiak]

How does a citizen standing in a church parking lot with a legally owned concealed weapon infringe on the freedom of religion? :confused:

[Supercharts]

Originally posted by a fantoche de meia
http://www.startribune.com/stories/614/3900332.html

A new "right to carry" law in Minnesota has some churches up in arms. The Edina Community Lutheran Church is filing suit because the new law says it must allow people to carry guns in their parking lot. They claim this is an infringement on their freedom of religion. More churches, temples and synagogues are considering joining the suit.
Is the parking lot on Church-owned land? Could be a trespass issue here. Example: Having a license to sell hot dogs doesn't mean you can do so on someone else's property. If you own the property you set the rules. Public land is held in common.

[shanek]

If the parking lot is on private property belonging to the church, they are perfectly within their rights to restrict the carrying of firearms on said property. The government should not be able to make a law requiring churches to allow guns in their parking lots.

Now, I haven't read the law, so I don't know if they're portraying the law properly or not. But it seems to me the only Constitutional law would be a law allowing the churches to allow guns if they so choose. Ultimately, it's their property, and their choice. If you don't like it, don't go on their property.

[Kodiak]

Thanks, Supercharts and shanek.

Now it makes better sense.

Am I correct to think then that it is a question of private property and not a question of freedom of religion?

Is there any interpretation of freedom of religion that could possibly address the possession of firearms on church property?

[jimlintott]

I thought that in the U.S., guns are a religion.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by jimlintott
I thought that in the U.S., guns are a religion.


That's what you get for thinking... ;)

[GrapeJ713]

I think property owners should have the right to not allow guns on their property. But the property owner should be liable for everyones security on thier property. So if a church or any other building doesn't allow guns and someone gets assaulted or killed they would be liable for not providing adequate security. They would either have to hire competant security or go the cheaper route and let people protect themselves. I think that would be the most fair solution.

[corplinx]

Most states that issue carry permits also require the establishments that do not wish firearms be carried there simple have to post a visible notice. Unfortunately, its hard to post a notice on a parking lot. Most people post signs on the doors of their establishments.

Now, with that in mind. Who carries a gun in a church parking lot if he can't take it inside? This is pure pap folks. Another one of these churches that no longer has a moral compass so it gets into political activism. As an atheist, I prefer christians teach the golden rule in the pulpit and not who to vote for.

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by Supercharts

Is the parking lot on Church-owned land? Could be a trespass issue here. Example: Having a license to sell hot dogs doesn't mean you can do so on someone else's property. If you own the property you set the rules. Public land is held in common.
Isn't the problem here that churches are subsidized by the taxpayer?
Not only do they aviod paying business or other taxes, but they often
get funds from the government for services like child care centers,
homeless shelters, and other realted functions.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by jimlintott
I thought that in the U.S., guns are a religion.

Correct! And the Satanic cults are trying hard to get them banned :p

You know, you might be on to something though, if we consider guns a religion we could keep them out of school and there would be no Columbine massacres! Case closed, world problems solved, lets go get a caramel latte and a bagel!

[Richard G]

Restriction of firearms in parking lots creates a defacto gun ban for citizens legaly entitled to carry for their defense. How many places do you go without your vehicle? If I can't lock my weapon in my vehicle before entering the building, that means I have to park off the property, then walk who knows how far, unarmed, and defensless. THAT is a violation of my individual rights, enumerated in the Constitution.

Restricting carry in a private building, by the owner is legal. Restricting it in my vehicle is not.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Richard G
Restriction of firearms in parking lots creates a defacto gun ban for citizens legaly entitled to carry for their defense. How many places do you go without your vehicle? If I can't lock my weapon in my vehicle before entering the building, that means I have to park off the property, then walk who knows how far, unarmed, and defensless. THAT is a violation of my individual rights, enumerated in the Constitution.

Restricting carry in a private building, by the owner is legal. Restricting it in my vehicle is not.

You always have the option of not going to the building.

This poses an interesting point, though: If something is locked inside your car, is that thing on your property even if you car is parked on someone else's property?

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by shanek


You always have the option of not going to the building.

This poses an interesting point, though: If something is locked inside your car, is that thing on your property even if you car is parked on someone else's property?

How does this apply to other civil rights? Could someone waive any your rights because you are on their property? If not, why is this particular right different? If so, that certainly makes for some very sticky situations.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Valmorian
How does this apply to other civil rights? Could someone waive any your rights because you are on their property? If not, why is this particular right different? If so, that certainly makes for some very sticky situations.

If you are on someone else's property, you have to abide by their rules. If you don't want to, don't go on their property. Simple as that.

This concept goes way back to British Common Law, upon which our Constitution was founded. A man's property was his kingdom.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by GrapeJ713
I think property owners should have the right to not allow guns on their property. But the property owner should be liable for everyones security on thier property. So if a church or any other building doesn't allow guns and someone gets assaulted or killed they would be liable for not providing adequate security. They would either have to hire competant security or go the cheaper route and let people protect themselves. I think that would be the most fair solution. So, if I allow people to carry guns on my property, and someone gets shot, then I would be blameless? But by not allowing guns, I am liable if someone gets shot? :rolleyes:

There is no reason to change the fundamental nature of our tort system. If security is called for, then it is the responsibility of the property owner to provide security. If security is not called for, there is no responsibility. Criminals are responsible for their own actions. Making property owners responsible for the actions of unforeseen criminals on their property is ludicrous.

To paraphrase Shanek's response, if you don't like the fact that I don't allow guns on my property, stay the hell off my property. (Or you might get shot ;) )

[GrapeJ713]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
So, if I allow people to carry guns on my property, and someone gets shot, then I would be blameless? But by not allowing guns, I am liable if someone gets shot? :rolleyes:

There is no reason to change the fundamental nature of our tort system. If security is called for, then it is the responsibility of the property owner to provide security. If security is not called for, there is no responsibility. Criminals are responsible for their own actions. Making property owners responsible for the actions of unforeseen criminals on their property is ludicrous.

To paraphrase Shanek's response, if you don't like the fact that I don't allow guns on my property, stay the hell off my property. (Or you might get shot ;) )

If you don't allow people to defend themselves, then you should be responsible for thier defense. It would mostly apply to companies and government agencies that would sometimes have a valid reason for not allowing everyone to carry that wants to. For example: If the president or governor was giving a speech at a hotel then firearms could be banned in the building, but the secret service or state trooper would be there for security. So if the airlines or some other kind of business wants to create a gun-free victim zone, they would have to provide adequate security or be held liable. Maybe airports would have better procedures and have higher wages for security people if they had to buy a new plane for the airline and settle hundreds of wrongful death claims every time a terrorist was able to take over a plane with a small knife because everyone was unarmed.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
So, if I allow people to carry guns on my property, and someone gets shot, then I would be blameless?

Yes. The person who shot the other would be to blame.

There is no reason to change the fundamental nature of our tort system.

Even if the tort system is fundamentallu flawed?

Making property owners responsible for the actions of unforeseen criminals on their property is ludicrous.

I agree. Now show me where I advocated that.