http://www.volokh.com/2012/07/20/ge...s-and-gets-permission-from-church-management/
It seems to me that the court tried very hard to focus the decision on private property rights as opposed to dealing with the limits or extent of either First or Second Amendment rights. I am not sure I totally agree with their approach, which seemed to be that the churches make the ultimate decision as opposed to whether or not the enacted law violates a right.
Private property owners always had the option of saying they did not want firearms carried (openly, discretely, or in locked shipping containers) on their property. There was no need to create a separate law giving that power/ability to them - and, yes, I know that laws do not give powers but impose limits.
The law in question interjects - IMNSHO - the government into the discussion between the church through its property owners and the individual by creating standards which the individual must follow/steps the individual must comply with. No longer is the conversation between the individual and their church - the state now has a voice in the matter of how church and parishioner interact. To me this becomes a state-imposed restriction on how the individual expresses his religion. The issue of whether or not the carrying of a handgun is a tenent of belief or not is a red herring. And if they had honestly followed that line they should have come to the conclusion that all religions insist that self defense is a central expression of the religious belief. (Yes, some religions exalt those who martyr themselves for the sake of the religion, but none require it as a condition of expressing adherence.)
Up until the passage of the law churches, through their property owners, could control whether or not a person carried a firearm on that private property. The law only created a specific set of actions the parishioner must follow in seeking the permission of the private property owner - no more. The state criminalized the failure to follow these imposed steps, not the carrying of firearms at a worship service.
I'm not faulting the attornies for Georgia Carry for how this case was decided. I'm just sharing an opinion on why I think the outcome might have been different if the focus of the challenge was more along the lines suggested above.
The decision makes me realize again how fortunate I am here in Virginia where I am only constrained from carrying a weapon to a worship service for frivolous reasons - if my reason is "good and sufficient" I'm good to go. Of course, I still must comply with any decision of the private property owner. The state stuck its nose in only so far as to tell me to be serious about carrying at a worship service.
Good luck, Georgia.
stay safe.
It seems to me that the court tried very hard to focus the decision on private property rights as opposed to dealing with the limits or extent of either First or Second Amendment rights. I am not sure I totally agree with their approach, which seemed to be that the churches make the ultimate decision as opposed to whether or not the enacted law violates a right.
Private property owners always had the option of saying they did not want firearms carried (openly, discretely, or in locked shipping containers) on their property. There was no need to create a separate law giving that power/ability to them - and, yes, I know that laws do not give powers but impose limits.
The law in question interjects - IMNSHO - the government into the discussion between the church through its property owners and the individual by creating standards which the individual must follow/steps the individual must comply with. No longer is the conversation between the individual and their church - the state now has a voice in the matter of how church and parishioner interact. To me this becomes a state-imposed restriction on how the individual expresses his religion. The issue of whether or not the carrying of a handgun is a tenent of belief or not is a red herring. And if they had honestly followed that line they should have come to the conclusion that all religions insist that self defense is a central expression of the religious belief. (Yes, some religions exalt those who martyr themselves for the sake of the religion, but none require it as a condition of expressing adherence.)
Up until the passage of the law churches, through their property owners, could control whether or not a person carried a firearm on that private property. The law only created a specific set of actions the parishioner must follow in seeking the permission of the private property owner - no more. The state criminalized the failure to follow these imposed steps, not the carrying of firearms at a worship service.
I'm not faulting the attornies for Georgia Carry for how this case was decided. I'm just sharing an opinion on why I think the outcome might have been different if the focus of the challenge was more along the lines suggested above.
The decision makes me realize again how fortunate I am here in Virginia where I am only constrained from carrying a weapon to a worship service for frivolous reasons - if my reason is "good and sufficient" I'm good to go. Of course, I still must comply with any decision of the private property owner. The state stuck its nose in only so far as to tell me to be serious about carrying at a worship service.
Good luck, Georgia.
stay safe.
