Give it up ... ... ! -- Mod edited--
Actually, Congress and the individual the states (before and after the 14th Amendment incorporated the 1st against the States) can and historically have passed many laws regulating what can or cannot be done in a church. As a few examples: laws regulating the number of wives one may have at any one time, prohibiting the taking of female virginity by church representatives, the sacrifice of either currently living or formerly living human beings, and the ritual slaughter of animals in ways/by means considered inhumane. On the other hand, neither Congress nor the individual states seem very interested in enforcing the existing laws on civil insurrection, incitement to riot, nor sedition with regard to the preachings of various and sundry church leaders.
Further, the civil restriction on where a church can locate itself, the hours during which it may ring it's bells, the size and location of it's parking lot, and the manner in which it resolves internal operational disputes (among other issues) have all been upheld by SCOTUS.
Virginia, fortunately, has a long and rich history of rather limited state involvement with the operation of churches and current law allows the carry of firearms during religious services so long as one has "good and sufficient reason", whatever that means. Our current Attorney General has recently opined that self protection is a "good and sufficient" reason - especially in light of the fact that there is no case law to guide the interpretation of that phrase.
So, Redreed - where did you get the notion that it was illegal to carry in church? Especially in Virginia? Or were you confusing the private desires of some specific church to control the activities of its members and guests with state action?
stay safe.
The Commonwealth of Virginia notwithstanding, I suspect that there are many states out there that allow carry of firearms in most places, but prohibit carry in church.
I think that it IS illegal to carry in church in Virginia, unless you have a "good and sufficient reason". The fact that the Attorney General has stated that self-defence is a good and sufficient reason is irrelevant. What happens when the next political appointee issues a ruling saying that it is no longer sufficient? Or worse, not good? I will answer that. It is the same thing that happened before the "Opinion" was released; A large number of people either did not carry to church, or they did not attend (guess which one I was). After all..."good and sufficient" implies that both "goodness" and "sufficiency" must BOTH be present (hence the word "And"). Clearly, it was the intent of the law to prohibit us from carrying in church. And now that the Attorney General has submitted his finding, you can rest assured that the anti-gunners will attempt to "clarify" their intent in the upcoming legislative session if they can get away with it.
And so that brings me to my particular canundrum. It is bad enough that my church was the ONLY church in my former state that chose to prohibit firearms in church (I quit going as a result, praise the Brothers who visit my home and pray and teach). But when a government recognizes an opportunity to block my attendance through legislation, well that is just wrong. And in my opinion, unconstitutional.
By the way, I do not believe that the law against the ritual slaying of animals stood the test. It failed constitutional muster because it was not applied equally across the board. There was a provision that allowed the Jews to do it (Kosher), but other faiths could not. And certainly I agree that the government is within it's authority to apply zoning laws, but watch and see what haapens when someplace somewhere says "No churches allowed here!!!". It also has quite a compelling interest in not allowing physical injury to take place ANYWHERE. They can do so because the law is applied evenly across the board. But HERE, the government says that "Yes junior, you MAY carry anywhere you want to, except for that little building over there with the cross on top of it. Carring over there is immoral (after all...why would anyone need to carry in church???) and therefore verbotten". And in truth, I can think of no other excuse to try to prohibit carry in church, other than the possibility that it might be immoral (Again I ask the favorite sheeple question..."Why would ANYBODY need to carry in church?). (I guess that if somebody attacks a church, we can all put our head in a circle and defend ourselves by firing bolts of rightiousness out of our backsides. But, of course, who would ever attack a church. That would be immorral!!!)
It is sufficient that the law allows any church to post firearms as off limits if they choose to do so. That is their right, and I very strongly support that.
Sorry, I am not a writer and I tend to ramble and try to cover all points, but I really feel that the government should not be allowed to pass legislation that restricts my freedom to worship as I please. And again I would like to point out that when such laws exist, then people like me (those gun nuts over there...Why does he need to carry that thing in here anyway?) are placed in the position that I am forced to choose between giving up my first amendment right to worship freely, or my 2A right to bear arms.