Forcing churches to allow guns in their parking lots and use state-mandated language for signs forbidding firearms is an unconstitutional infringement on religious freedom, the state Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday.I guess my puzzlement is why any gun owner would want to go to a church like these. And why any predator would not--particularly at collection plate time.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Houses of the Holy
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
And what about the unconstitutional infringement on the right to keep and bear arms? Why does one trump the other??
I echo your sentiment regarding why any sane someone would choose to go to one of those "gun free" church buildings.
As for the owner's right to state what they expect of the visitors, I have no problem with that as such. Private property rights are very important.
On the other hand, should you be choose to impose your presence into an area in a manner different than the owner wishes, in places the owner opens to the general public as a matter of course, I see no problem with putting the onus on the owner to ask those who do not line up with his precise wishes to desist or go elsewhere.
What gets me of course is: why are we even having this controversy?
It's a church. Private property. Non of the State's business one way or the other.
C.H.
i kant reeeed! naw wut?
QUE?
See, e.g., 19 COLONIAL RECORDS OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA, PART 1, 138 (1911) (churchgoer “shall carry with him a gun, or a pair of pistols, in good order and fit for service, with at least six charges of gun-powder and ball, and shall take the said gun or pistols with him to the pew or seat”). Page 65 of the Heller argument.
It's insane. The entire damn world.
Well, perhaps this is a property rights issue. However, your property rights end at the soles of my shoes.
RobertaX is involved in a good discussion of this very point.
http://twowheeledmadwoman.blogspot.com/2008/02/stickin-to-my-guns.html
Post a Comment