11th Circuit Court Upholds Church Carry Ban in GA

[Al Norris]

No. 12-486
Title:
GeorgiaCarry.Org, Inc., et al., Petitioners
v.
Georgia, et al.

Docketed: October 22, 2012
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Case Nos.: (11-10387)
Decision Date: July 20, 2012

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oct 16 2012 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 21, 2012)
Oct 23 2012 Waiver of right of respondents Georgia, et al. to respond filed.

QUESTION PRESENTED​

A single question is presented:

Does a state criminal law that targets religion, and is neither neutral nor generally
applicable, pass strict scrutiny muster underthe Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment?​

Looking at the law in question:

O.C.G.A. § 16-11-127(b) says, in pertinent part:

A person shall be guilty of carrying a weapon or long gun in an unauthorized location and punished as for a misdemeanor when he or she carries a weapon or long gun while:

(1) In a government building;
(2) In a courthouse;
(3) In a jail or prison;
(4) In a place of worship;
(5) In a state mental health facility . . . ;
(6) In a bar, unless the owner of the bar permits the carrying of weapons or long guns by license holders;
(7) On the premises of a nuclear power plant . . . ;
(8) Within 150 feet of any polling place. . . . ;​

Subsection (c) says that a “license holder . . . shall be authorized to carry a weapon . . . in every location in this state not listed in subsection (b). . . .”

In essence, Georgia considers the above eight places to be "sensitive places" where public safety outweighs a civil right.

However, both the district court and the appeals court refused to address the basic issue: That a law cannot burden religiously motivated conduct - here the conduct is attending a religious service - unless such conduct is also applied generally. Instead, the Circuit Court said that the law would be invalid if it burdened religiously held beliefs.

This is a distinct departure in how the Courts have, until now, applied laws, as they relate to religion.

Since this is a "published" opinion, it is now law in the 11th Circuit. There is now a circuit split. Whether or not it is enough of an issue to peak the interest of the SCOTUS, is the real question.

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari

 

[Al Norris]

More catching up....

A final entry for this case. From the SCOTUS Docket:

Oct 16 2012 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 21, 2012)
Oct 23 2012 Waiver of right of respondents Georgia, et al. to respond filed.
Dec 5 2012 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 4, 2013.
Jan 7 2013 Petition DENIED.

 

[MLeake]

I am still dumbfounded by the twisted logic in this court decision... and appalled that SCOTUS denied cert.

 

[Tom Servo]

and appalled that SCOTUS denied cert.

If they take a gun case this term, it'll only be one, and I'd rather that be something like Kachalsky. A local church ban is a minor question in comparison.

 

[MLeake]

That may be, but this case should have been a no-brainer.

The bizarre thing about the argument, with regard to private property rights, is that in this case the pastor and the church WANTED to allow guns on their private property; the state overrode the property owners.

The bizarre thing about the argument, with regard to protection of the first amendment rights of the church is that the church WANTED to allow guns on property during services; the state said the church could not, as state regulations said they could not.

The logic employed by the trial and circuit judges might make sense in one of Lewis Carroll's worlds, but it makes no sense at all in mine.

 

[Al Norris]

Yes, the logic is twisted. However, it does show one thing we have all figured out.

When it comes to guns, every other right will be twisted so as to deny.

 

[maestro pistolero]

And that, IMO is one of strongest arguments and risks associated with the denial of 2A rights, that the fabric of the entire document is undermined and weakened. I'll refrain from speculating on who might desire that secondary outcome.