(MN) Church sues over new handgun permit law

Status
Not open for further replies.

Drizzt

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
2,647
Location
Moscow on the Colorado, TX
The Associated Press State & Local Wire

May 20, 2003, Tuesday, BC cycle

6:02 PM Eastern Time

SECTION: State and Regional

LENGTH: 460 words

HEADLINE: Church sues over new handgun permit law; Pursuing MNAH101

BYLINE: By ASHLEY H. GRANT, Associated Press Writer

DATELINE: ST. PAUL

BODY:
An Edina church sued the state Tuesday, asking that portions of a new handgun permit law be declared unconstitutional.

The church council at Edina Community Lutheran Church took action after congregation members unanimously supported the lawsuit during a Sunday worship service. They say the law infringes on the Minnesota Constitution's guarantee of religious freedom.

"We don't want people carrying guns onto our property, a place we think of as a sanctuary," said pastor Erik Strand.

The law, scheduled to take effect next week, requires sheriffs to issue handgun permits to most law-abiding, mentally stable people who seek them.

The part of the law church officials are suing over, however, allows guns in privately owned buildings such as businesses and churches unless signs are posted at all entrances to let people know otherwise. The law also says people entering should be verbally instructed that guns aren't allowed on the premises. And the church isn't permitted to ban guns in its parking lot.

While the lawsuit is pending in Hennepin County District Court, the church will be in violation of state law. It has banned guns on all of its property, including the church, parking lot, childcare center and playground.

"It's an issue of hospitality," Strand said.

The Edina church has invited others to join them in challenging the law, which takes effect May 28. The attorney representing the church, David Lillehaug, said it's the first such lawsuit he's heard of.

"Many other states exempt churches and do not allow people to carry firearms into places of worship," he said. "We believe this is a tremendous intrusion on religious freedom."

Rep. Lynda Boudreau, the House bill sponsor, said the lawsuit sounds baseless to her. Under current law, permit-holders can already carry guns onto church property, she said.

"We don't change any of that, except we allow churches and others to make further restrictions," said Boudreau, R-Faribault.

She also said that had the bill carved out special rules for churches, it might violated the Constitution.

"To place an overall restriction on churches in the bill, I believe, would violate the free exercise of religion and is not something the state should be doing," she said. "We give churches and private establishments those options already, and since they have those options, I fail to see where there is any need for changes to the new law."

C. Peter Erlinder, a professor at William Mitchell College of Law, said he hadn't heard of similar cases in other states, making the outcome difficult to predict.

"I don't have an easy answer for this," he said. "This is an issue that's right on the dividing line."
 
Oh lookie I got my name in the paper. That ought to help fill the ole collection plate.

Two ways to play this. Fight it tooth and nail and try to make it as expensive as possible. Get it thrown out.
 
I have had it

these clowns will never allow this law to stand.how and the
heck does carring a gun prevent their right to practice their faith.
this attempt makes me sick.for one thing i doubt many people
will carry to church anyway. this church is in a rich suburb of mpls
they have the money to toss at this lawsuit.its not right to be wasting church money to fund a lawsuit.i wonder who else might be funding it.some liberal atty took the case.are we seeing more
whinning here than other states have? is anyone else tired of this
I REALLY FEEL THE LEFT WILL FIND A WAY TO KILL THIS LAW AT
SOME POINT I hope Im wrong bring on the 28th
 
The Lord said.......
Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Jesus knows I don't have the wherewithal to conceal a sword, so I'm sure that he understands why I carry a forty-five in The House of God.
 
The church seem's to have an agenda. I as a land owner in my state should have the right to tell someone entering my property to dissarm, and if the church has decided to not allow guns on its property, its the churches right. I might not agree with it, but, that is what makes this country great. Its up to the people that frequent that facility to effect a change, not the government, not any court, and certainly not any lawyer.

Thats my humble opinion.


(In the early days of this country it was law to carry a weapon to church...... my how times, no, people's perception of safety, have changed)
 
This will probably upset some but I consider religion and government to be basically the same when it comes to needing watched. Look at the world.
 
Don't blame Christianity...

... for the liberal decline of many churches.

Many of these main-line denominations have become socialist and actually support the tearing apart of this country. Strange as it may seem, such churches are on the wrong side of the culture war.

But again, this has nothing to do with Christianity. More fundamentalist churches have no part in this and are a bulwark against this decline.


Matis
 
If the state may (as indeed it can) regulate the number of handicapped parking spaces in the church parking lot or crequire basins to catch the runoff of water from paving the lot over, the state can regulate (allow) carry permit holders to carry there. A parking lot is not a place of worship; nor is parking a religious act (not even in car crazy California). It is a matter of ordinary land use law (the state wins).

It's a B.S. case. But the attorney is David Lilihaug, a Clinton-era politico, who has his sights set on election to something.

N.B. All actions against the state of Minnesota must be brought in Ramsey County, Lilihaug filed in Hennepin County. He can't even find the right courthouse.
 
An Edina church sued the state Tuesday, asking that portions of a new handgun permit law be declared unconstitutional.
I think they call this an (oxy)moron where I was schooled.

They say the law infringes on the Minnesota Constitution's guarantee of religious freedom.
HOW!!!:what:

GT
 
The church HAS the right to ban guns on their property - as I understand it, all they have to do is inform people, through signs and verbal notice, that guns are prohibited in that church.

It seems they feel they have a "right" to demand that SOMEONE ELSE (i.e., the STATE) do the telling.

Hmmm . . . seems that when a church demands that the STATE provide for enforcing CHURCH policy, they're in effect asking for a state subsidy . . . which would seem to violate the principle of "separation of church and state" which liberals are always shouting about.

And unless their congregation is very small, it would surprise me if they "unanimously" approved a ban on handguns. (Of course Saddam was re-elected "unanimously" in Iraq last year, so maybe unanimous votes aren't impossible. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Actually Hank, they want the right to ban them in the parking lot as well as in the building. Too bad for them that the post above is right on about it being a public land use issue. The parking lot is already regulated to some extent by the state, and that church wants to make it illegal for someone to possess a legal inanimate object inside of their own personal property (car) in the parking lot. I am not sure how that would even be enforced. :rolleyes:
 
They could enclose the parking lot with a fence if it belongs to them (and if it doesn't, then they have no say in the matter) and post signs at the entrance. All the way back to the Middle Ages there's been a tradition (notice I didn't say law) of not carrying weapons in churches, monasteries, etc. Of course, there were plenty of exceptions to this as well, but the point is that this is hardly a new attitude. (Jeez, doesn't anyone read "Cadfael?")

Another possiblity would be for them to have the law amended so as to exclude "houses of worship," the way the Va. law does. (Doesn't apply to the parking lot, though.)

And, of course, any of their members who oppose this can communicate that by switching to another church, and telling the pastor exactly why they're doing so.

-0-
 
....the Church and minister should confine themselves to their main purpose and theater of operation...."SIN"...

Surely they don't expect me to haul all that offering money to church unprotected?
 
As another poster said "How does this interfere with their exercise of religious freedom?" Unless this particular chruch requires their parishoners to be nude during the service, I don't think anybody is going to know if someone is armed or not.
 
I've actually seen a similar argument

Using the first amendment to destroy the second. University of Utah, anyone? They claimed that the right to free speech would have been severely curtailed if people were allowed to carry guns, because of the fear factor.

All it does is give legitimacy to hoplophobia.
 
First post here. The sticking point here is the parking lot. In order to go about you’re daily business carrying a firearm you need to be able to disarm at establishments that post “no gunsâ€. If parking lots of various places became off limits it would make things tough. Can I have my gun in the parking lot of ???? There is a difference between the church parking lot where the public is going, and John Doe’s land.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top