Anti-gun media, alive and well...

M

MLeake

New member
... in this case, trying to start a scare over the possibility of the GA legislature getting rid of the ban on guns in churches.

http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2010/12/01/when-the-gunfights-return-churches-and-maybe-campuses-will-be-in-the-crosshairs/?cxntfid=blogs_political_insider_jim_galloway

Be warned, the AJC readership is mostly anti-gun, and a good number of the pro-gun posters don't do our side much good; racism is a recurring theme.

Intelligent comments to help our side can't hurt, though, if anybody is in the mood.
 
I remember the AJC made a big fuss when the MARTA ban was lifted.
So far no blood running out the bus doors, by legal GFLs that is.

With the past rash of church shootings, this is too long coming.

Now you are aware in Ga you can carry in a church with written approval from the church oversight. The pastor may carry himself.
 
Now you are aware in Ga you can carry in a church with written approval from the church oversight. The pastor may carry himself.
Click to expand...
Unless I'm reading the revisions wrong, that part didn't pass. 16-11-127 still prohibits carry in a place of worship, though guns may be kept in vehicles in the parking lot.
 
A guy I took my CPL class with was a pastor at a local church. Said he decided to get his CPL license because one day he was in the church working and a woman came in screaming that someone was chasing her. Soon after a male entered the church and murdered her in the chapel in front of the pastor's eyes.

He said the church is supposed to be a place of safety and he realized he can't protect anyone. So now he can.

Here in MI anyone can carry in a church with the "permission" of the "administrator". This is scary because what constitutes permission and who is the administrator? The pastor, the church board, the entire congregation?
 
There are two main issues here, one of which reflects a post McDonald determination.

In a post McDonald world, what is a sensitive place? Currently, in Georgia Carry Inc v. Georgia, the State is arguing that a church, being a refuge, is in fact, such a sensitive place. The State further argues that there is an exception in O.C.G.A. § 16-11-127(d)(2) that gives the church's administrators/owners the lawful authority to decide whether or not anyone can carry and who that should be. As the plaintiffs point out, there is no such exception in the passed legislation.

Then there is the Establishment Clause. Such an argument should preclude any government the authority to tell how a church should conduct its services. However, as the State of Georgia says, that argument has not been brought forward and that the Court should ignore any implied 1A challenge.

In this, the State may very well prevail. No such argument can be found, except in passing.

I think that this is a mistake on the part of those arguing that such laws (ban on carry - concealed or otherwise) are only a "sensitive place" argument.

I understand the reasons for making only a "sensitive place" argument. It is to get a record (and thereby a precedent) within case law. If both arguments were made, then a court could easily side-step the "sensitive place" argument and rule solely on the Establishment Clause argument.

It's risky to make an argument that may well get shot down, when another argument has a much better chance (much precedent on Establishment Clause cases) to achieve the ends.

But the goal here, is not the ends. The goal is to establish precedent on 2A grounds alone.

So while I applaud Georgia Carry, I am also apprehensive.
 
Quote:


Now you are aware in Ga you can carry in a church with written approval from the church oversight. The pastor may carry himself.


Unless I'm reading the revisions wrong, that part didn't pass. 16-11-127 still prohibits carry in a place of worship, though guns may be kept in vehicles in the parking lot.



My apologies, I failed to realise SB 281 died on the floor.
 
Does Georgia currently have Opt-Out statutes? If churches were not subject to special state control, would a given church (under current law) still have the option (as a private premises) to post notices declaring itself a gun-free zone?
 
If churches were not subject to special state control, would a given church (under current law) still have the option (as a private premises) to post notices declaring itself a gun-free zone?
Click to expand...
Yes, they can, though the signs would carry no legal weight. The only penalty for disobeying the property owner's wishes would be criminal trespass if one refused to leave.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top