« Florida self-defense bills introduced in Michigan | Main | Judge Roberts on guns and interstate commerce »
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).
Hmmm...
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.
7 Comments
Do Exit signs and Occupancy limit signs necessary for the safety of the people and the public in the church restrain their free speech and freedom of religion? If it can be shown that they have standardized signs inside the church, then they may very well have no case.
It looks like the court already decided they have a case.
I'm no lawyer but I can tell you in Virginia, a violation of a property owner's no-gun policy is considered tresspassing and is a misdemeanor at most.
It's pretty recognized that the worst thing that will happen is the management will ask you to leave, and, if you refuse, the police will ask you to leave. You will only be charged if you refuse to leave once the Police ask you to. That would be pretty stupid.
Personally, I don't care what wording they use. Any establishment that fails to recognize the basic right of self-defense and the basic Christian responsibility to defend innocents incapable of defending themselves is not an establishment that I will be associated with. Cute wording on signage doesn't mask bigotry.
I've seen several pieces on Christianity and self defense. This one is a pretty good one: The Bible and Gun Control
The law allows property owners to forbid carry, but to do so they must make a "reasonable request that firearms not be brought into the establishment".
For private residences, the owner may make that request "in any lawful manner".
But for establishments that are open to the public, the operator must "prominently post a conspicous sign at every entrance". And it establishes the minimum size, specific language, etc.
See lines 11.6-12.15:
href="http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/bldbill.php?bill=S2259.2&session=ls84">
http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/bldbill.php?bill=S2259.2&session=ls84
Do I understand correctly that the church objected to a provision in the law allowing the church to prohibit CCW in the church?
Do I understand correctly that the church objected to a provision in the law allowing the church to prohibit CCW in the church?
Exactly so.
The prior law allowed police chiefs and county sheriffs to issue permits, and provided no statutory mechanism by which churches could exclude individuals carrying under a permit from the church.
The churches could have posted signs, but they would have had no legal force.
None of the churches in question had chosen to do so, and as I understand it, none of them had formal no-gun policies in place.
The new law made issuance non-discretionary. And the number of permits issued doubled. The number of permits issued in the Twin Cities increased ten-fold.
But the new law also provided a mechanism by which churches could legally forbid permit holders from their premises - by posting signs with specific language.
These churches object to having to use specific language.
It seems a bit absurd. They didn't have the ability to ban guns at all, before the law was passed. So if they don't put up the signs, they're in exactly the same circumstances they were in prior to the passage of the law.
I have only read what is on this site, but it almost seems as if the purpose of the lawsuit is to make it so that "public" establishments do not have the authority to prohibit the carrying of arms.
In Oregon, a "shall issue" state, some department stores, namely the May Co (now Macy's) and Nordstrom's, both tried to ban CCW. An opinion came out, I believe from the AG, that said that there wasn't a provision that permitted that, and for there to be permitted exceptions, they had to be specifically included in the law (courthouses, public schools, etc).
Consequently, the most a store can do is exclude you.