Minnesota church rulings
From what I gather, Minn. law permits establishments to bar licensed CCW holders from carrying, if the establishment puts up a sign to that effect. A church challenged the provision and a local district court has entered a ruling striking it down. The argument was apparently that it abridged freedom of speech and religion by requiring a specifically-worded sign (the church cleverly worded a sign that had a religious msg. and didn't quite conform, so as to set up the suit).
1. As to freedom of religion, the church can always rule out packing with a sign, so it really comes down to the sign.
2. As to freedom of speech... there is a doctrine that requiring speech is the same as forbidding it. But does this mean that we can object to the myriad of required signs? Those things with notice of workers' comp, elevator inspections, and yes, the signs required to be posted in gun shops? The signs posted on everything in California (even indoor parking garages) warning that this or that (in that case, exhaust fumes) are "known" by the state to be carcinogenic?
3. The effect may hinge upon how the law is worded. Here in AZ, for instance, the law defines misconduct with a firearm to include carrying if the establishment is signed or personal notice is given. If you strike the sign requirement, I don't think that makes carrying a violation of that statute. I think basic due process would forbid prosecuting a person who is conforming to the clear face of the statute, whether or not he's familiar with the caselaw. I suppose a church could charge persons with trespassing for refusing to obey. I'm not sure how one would reconcile calling armed police to imprison a person consistent with such fine feelings of nonviolence, but I suppose the church would find a way.