Minister sues to carry gun in church, citing First and Second Amendments

ATLANTA — A minister in Georgia is challenging the state's ban on guns in churches after the U.S. Supreme Court recently issued a decision supporting Americans' right to keep and bear arms.

The Rev. Jonathan Wilkins accuses state officials of violating his First Amendment freedom of religion right and his Second Amendment right to bear arms. Wilkins' attorney John Monroe said Friday that the minister wants to carry a gun to church for protection considering church shootings over the years.

Link: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gjkJ6cfXaMA5E2UTaHRxN61Yk_cQD9GRPG7O2

I agree. It is a violation of the First and Second Amendments, at least, for the state to presume to set gun policy in a church.

"Blood in the streets"... "Wild West"... "People will SNAP and go on killing sprees".. "Who NEEDS a gun in church?".. "He's compensating for something"..

Did I miss any of the classic anti rights canards?

coveteousness, hatred, racism, ...

and only preach about the love of God. :evilgrin:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Naturally, you are more authoritative on that subject than THE PASTOR.

No doubt you have the highest possible theological understanding of every religion and sect in existence, as well as the legal and cultural knowledge to make such a statement.

Why should a church be different than a department store, in the eyes of the law? Because $DEITY hates guns? If so, how do you know this? And why is it the state's business whether $DEITY likes guns or not?

I personally think carry policy should be up to the individual church. Licensed concealed carry to/from/in a place of worship is allowed here in NC unless the church/synagogue/mosque decides not to allow it, as is their right. I think this is as it should be.

Unless the firearm is required by church doctrine I'm not too sure it's a first amendment issue.

1) singing
2) clapping
3) musical instruments
4) skits
5) plays
6) Pastor appreciation day

or many other things they do as DOCTRINAL REQUIREMENTS, but it would still violate the First Amendment to interfere in their behavior.

The practice of religion is basically the shared experience of faith, and all of those activities further the objective of that experience (except maybe pastor appreciation day which might be better described as an exercise in authoritarianism and capital enhancement, but I digress).

Now, if everybody wore a gun to church, and that activity somehow was understood by the group to be a part of a shared experience of faith, I think they would have a better first amendment argument. They would also have a pretty screwy church.

Whether or not the pastor has a firearm should not affect his ability to lead his flock or to attend to his pastoral duties, including saying pretty much anything he wants from the pulpit.

That's what makes it a tough call. If you wanted to run around the house swinging a dead chicken over your head while wearing water wings and call it a religion, you're free to do so. If you could get a flock of others to share the experience, you'd have a church. So theoretically there could be a "gun religion" and if that happened the first amendment complications could get very entertaining.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirpan

eta: another link cited by the above wiki- http://sikhcoalition.org/LegalUS0.asp

Perhaps a better argument is the one I make in post 25--the state singles out churches for special treatment by depriving the pastor (and the parishioners) of a constitutional right in the church building. That would seem to violate the First Amendment as well as any other constitutional right involved.

The church is privately owned and operated, so such a ruling in favor of the plaintiff could have very interesting ramifications for all other private property as well. It could put a whole new spin on the guns in the workplace issue. I might not mind a ruling that results in an understanding that churches are just another form of capital investment for business to take them down a notch, but maybe that's a little scary too.

It never ceases to amaze me how the guns forum and R/T are almost interchangeable. Guns, as a piece of technology, seems to have special cultural and utilitarian status due to the circumstances surrounding their carriage, possession and use. Churches as private property seem to enjoy special status because of their use as well.

However every state ALLOWS (but doesn't require) private property owners (including employers) to prohibit firearms on their property.

The church is treated special and different than other private property owners in that the State is placing a prohibition that is not wanted by the actual owner of the property. If the "special" ban on churches was removed any church that didn't want firearms could simply prohibit them just as any other private property owner can.

I have a right to carry a firearm but I don't have a right to carry one into your living room. We don't need a "living room prohibition" simply property rights are more than enough. Should the state ban firearms in all living rooms on the off chance you don't want it there or should they simply leave that decision up to the private property owner (you)?

as opposed to clubhouses and other privately owned places of public meeting, seems to be discrimination based on religion.

:)

He would have a better case if we had precedent already on the "bear" portion of "keep and bear" arms.
So now that I think about it the case might have more of a chance on the 1st amendment grounds.

The second's 'bear' provision doesn't have a Heller-like test case yet, but it's only a matter of time.

I wonder how many states statutorily prohibit firearms in places of worship. Be interesting to troll through handgunlaw.us and see if this is much ado about nothing (from the inevitable wharrgarble about guns in church from the prohibitionists) much like restaurant carry is legal in most states, but that doesn't seem to be common knowledge.

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-283


I would consider self-defense to be a "good and sufficient reason". :) To my knowledge nobody has ever been prosecuted for this.

Churchs should have no special standing. They are private property and thus is private property owner wants to prohibit firearms it would fall under that (appropriate signage and all that).

In VA a business owner can ban firearms. There isn't a special business exception.
In VA a restaurant can be firearms. There isn't (any longer) a special restaurant exception.

No need for a special church exception.

I wonder how they would rule on that?

which maintains a reasonable security check system designed to screen out all guns from a specific area would most likely pass the constitutional test. For instance the terminal area of airports, courthouses with metal detectors, other public offices with security check points required before entry, and yes, the Supreme Court.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Must be hard after watching 2 decades of increasing and worthless gun control schemes to see it falling apart so quickly.

Fasten your seat-belt this ride ain't even close to over yet and no amount of gnashing of teeth, "what about the children", or "there will be blood in the streets" is going to change that.

"blood in the streets" will change that. I hope we never have to find out.

that currently allow concealed carry in their churches?

Is there blood in the streets? If so, can you provide any evidence?

If not, what makes you think that this particular state would be any different?

The point is we have been hearing from the gun-control crowed if we do X there will be blood in the streets for nearly 3 decades now and it simply never happen. Violent crime, homicides, accidental gun deaths all have declined. I am not saying it is because of firearms but certainly one can't make an argument anymore if the state allows X we will have blood in the x anymore.

That tired meme has never been true and we are going on 30 years of it being an incorrect broken records.

"there will be blood in the streets" perhaps you can provide 4 or 5 examples. I'm not saying anyone didn't say it. I just more people say people said that than actually said it.
Now when and if violent crime, homicides and accidental gun deaths ever do spike, others will all say there were those that said more guns on the streets will end gun crime. It will become the new tired meme.

Give me some scope to work with here.

And read anything by Paul Helmke, Dennis Henigan, or Josh Sugarmann.

That is why we changed the law to allow carry in churches. On Sept 14, 1999, Weddgewood Baptist Church was the scene of a mass shooting by a deranged person. He killed seven people, wounded seven others, then killed himself. He fired over 100 rounds and exploded a pipe bomb. At that time our CHL law did not allow carry in churches. Since our CHL law was in response to the Luby's shooting, the legislature changed the law about leaving churches unprotected.

However, if you are carrying to church, you are supposed to let the church leadership know.

Or are you just someone not content until you control the behavior of others?

How about people proclaiming to be liberals and progressives advocating for a conservative interpretation of an enumerated civil right? I thought, by definition, a true liberal would advocate a liberal interpretation of ALL civil liberties/rights? ..seems nutty to me.

source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/21496/gun-ownership-higher-among-republicans-than-democrats.aspx

While more Republicans and Independents own firearms than Democrats, almost one out of four Democrats personally own a firearm and surprisingly a higher percentage of Democrats own firearms for self defense than either Republicans or Independents.

Remember that many Democrats live in areas of the country that have considerable restrictions on firearm ownership. This may explain some of the difference in firearm ownership between Republicans and Democrats. Still, a large number of Democrats are firearm owners.

Therefore, it's far from surprising that many posters on DU support gun ownership. As an example a recent poll on DU found that 84% of the respondents believed that The 2nd amendment prohibits banning handguns.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=326937&mesg_id=326937

Just wants to increase his congregation.

of little faith.

I'll give benefit of the doubt and assume 50/50, wants protection, and wants publicity.

What, really?

"or else"

I'm just wondering about his church shootings remark.

Another one which left two teenagers injured in California in February. Plus George Tiller was killed at a church. Those are just the ones I know about off the top of my head--Google has 680,000 results for "church shooting."

Since 1/1/1999 to 7/12/2010 there have been 161 deadly force incidents in which someone other than the perpetrator was killed.

Five were stopped by law enforcement, seven were stopped by non-LEO, 149 were not stopped until the perpetrator was finished.

Breakdown of types of shooting events is:
Intimate Partner Violence 45
Personal Conflict 66
Robbery 50
Gang related 20
Other - includes random 51

Total killed or injured 491
Average killed when stopped by LEO: 2.40
Average killed when stopped by Armed Citizen: 1.29

In 2009 there were 53 fatalities from 104 incidents.
As of the above date in 2010 there have been 23 fatalities from 48 incidents.

“We prayed to our God and posted a guard…” Nehemiah 4: 9

http://www.carlchinn.com/Church_Security_Concepts.html

Unless the firearm itself is part of his religious belief, then he can't make a credible claim to infringement under the first amendment.

The state is treating churches separate and different from any other private property. The ban only applies to churches, therefore the ban only discriminates against those who wish to congregate for religion reasons. Those who wish to congregate on private or public property for other reasons don't face this unilateral ban. I think (in hindsight, thanks TPaine7) that is the angle the church is going with.

What authority does the state have to ban firearms on private property? They don't ban firearms on other private property, just churches. They trust all other private property owners with the decision to either allow or prohibit firearms based on the wants/needs of the owner.

Even if the church loses the 2nd amendment argument the court could still strike down the ban simply because it prohibits firearms ONLY in churches and not other private property. Therefore it creates a special burden on the exercising of 1st amendment (namely freedom of religion). A burden that only exists for for those with CCW who regularly attend religious services.