Conceal and Carry headed back to court  
Updated: 08/01/2005 02:29:32 PM
Print Story |  Email to a Friend

By BRIAN BAKST
Associated Press Writer

ST. PAUL (AP) - Opponents of a controversial state law covering who can carry a handgun in public resumed their legal fight Monday, a couple of months after the Legislature reinstated the measure the courts had struck down.

Two Twin Cities churches filed a new lawsuit in Hennepin County District Court, saying the law continues to violate religious freedom.

The law allows people at least 21 years old with a clean record, no mental illness and proper training to get a permit to carry a gun. Prior to 2003, local law enforcement authorities had more say over who received a permit.

Churches fought the law, arguing they shouldn't have to let guns on their property. One challenge that dealt with the 2003 process for passing the law led to its invalidation. But the 2005 Legislature made a slight change before reinstituting the law in May.

Attorneys David Lillehaug and Marshall Tanick, who respectively represent the Edina Community Lutheran Church and the Unity Church-Unitarian in St. Paul, are seeking an injunction that would free religious institutions from having to abide by it.

"We're not arguing about the wisdom of the law," Tanick said. "We're saying it's unconstitutional as it relates to religious institutions."

Specifically, the churches object to having to allow people with guns on their property unless they post signs prohibiting it or tell people not to bring them. They also don't like the provision permitting people to store guns in vehicles in church parking lots.

The 2003 law required churches to both post signs - which were described in great detail - and verbally inform parishioners at the door that pistols were prohibited. The 2005 law lets them pick between the notification options.

Joe Olson, president of the Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance and a chief proponent of the law, said he expects the law to withstand further challenge.

"They are not suing over religious freedom. They are suing because they don't like guns," Olson said, adding later, "Essentially they want a special deal and they want the state to come along and establish their religious beliefs as more important than someone else's personal safety."

The case was assigned to Judge LaJune Thomas Lange. A hearing date had not been set on Monday.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Glad I got mine when I did. If don't have one now better get one quick!

Glad mine came in the mail last week or I would really be worried that I wasted my money

they are just talking about churches and I doubt if any of the people in church knew that anyone was carrying that didn't advertise it............

It should start to become obvious to the average Joe citizen that these people simply hate guns and have a bone to pick.  (I hope, anyway).

it seems to me that a lot of people that go to church are CC permit holders also....I think the pastors and ministers are getting a little out of hand and need to be talked to by gun owners...

They just want them out of the church's.  It doesn't look like they're not trying to take the CCW away all together (like they did last time).  

I've always hated church (I hate church, not religion).   I guess this just reinforces that.  It seems that they get too carried away with "church" and "church activities" that they forget why they are there in the first place?  Plus according to all the churches were I grew up, you were only going to heaven if you donated money!  Isn't that blackmail?

I even know of Pastors that have their carry permit... obviously they all don't think this is a problem.

Only takes a few to mess it up for the many!

Quoted: I think the pastors and ministers are getting a little out of hand and need to be talked to by gun owners...

I think the IRS would be more persuasive

Quoted: Quoted: I think the pastors and ministers are getting a little out of hand and need to be talked to by gun owners... I think the IRS would be more persuasive

agree, if they keep insisting on getting into politics, maybe they should start paying taxes on the church's property...

It sounds like a crock of shit to me

Quoted: agree, if they keep insisting on getting into politics, maybe they should start paying taxes on the church's property...

There was some discussion about this in the news during the last presidential election.  With churches starting to push candidates, there was talk that they are becoming PACs, not non-profit religious entities, and they should loose that non-profit status when they cross the line....The problem is, no one wants to draw the line.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I think the pastors and ministers are getting a little out of hand and need to be talked to by gun owners... I think the IRS would be more persuasive agree, if they keep insisting on getting into politics, maybe they should start paying taxes on the church's property...

Sounds like the best idea yet.

Quoted: They just want them out of the church's.  It doesn't look like they're not trying to take the CCW away all together (like they did last time).

No, that is exactly what they are trying to do. They have shopped for a judge and we now know that the appeals court will uphold anything that is handed to them that is anti gun. I am going to the CCRN meeting tonight at Hamline Law School at 7:30.  I will keep everyone updated with what they know.  Joe doesn't think that they can get the law overturned but he told me when we were at the capitol getting it passed again that he did not believe they would be able to file suit again so I think he is underestimating them. We need to do something to stop these criminal cult members from politically lobbying. It is illegal but anything anti gun is given a pass.  We need to find a judge that will take on a suit against them. It is time for everyone to get involved again. If they get Pawlenty out of office we will never pass the law again. There are no words to express how fucking pissed off I am.  


www.mnccrn.org/

It seems to me, anyone who attends a church like this should inform the council of the error of their ways.  I guess that's one of the reasons I don't attend church, but if I did, it's easier to change from the inside out than from the outside in.

Well here is the scoop from the CCRN meeting.  Joe is quite clear that they will not be able to overturn the law based on constitutional grounds.  The Attorney General is on our side on this and has the ammunition he needs to shut down such a challenge.  What this appears to be is Lillehaug has some money left over from the last law suit and wants to keep it in his pocket and will use this case to do it. He also mentioned that this is not a class action suit so it will affect only the churches named in the suit, I think there are about 30. If they win it will affect only them.  It does not look like they will be able to do what they want with this one.  I lost my file on the churches that were named in this lawsuit. If I can get that I will post it so everyone knows who is creating the problem.

That is so stupid!  Everyone wants to be special and say the law does not apply to them.  If a church I went to was part of this lawsuit then I would be shopping for another church...