Church Carry

Discussion in 'Places Off-Limits' started by jerry, Oct 18, 2010.

  1. jerry

    jerry New Member

    125
    0
    0
    So GCO has filed for a summary judgment in the church carry case. If that judgment comes back in our favor and strikes down the prohibition on church carry will churches (and all other houses of worship) be viewed as any other kind of private property (like a retail store) under the law?
     
  2. frankr

    frankr Active Member

    1,122
    0
    36
    Maybe. What if the church also hosts a grade school on the property?
     

  3. rmodel65

    rmodel65 Yukon Cornelius

    11,620
    41
    48

    it would be off limits under a different code section 16-11-127.1
     
  4. higabyte

    higabyte New Member

    126
    0
    0
    wouldnt only the grade school portion be off limits and then church be ok to carry in?
     
  5. higabyte

    higabyte New Member

    126
    0
    0
    ehh maybe not, i dunno... lol
     
  6. 70755

    70755 Guest

    Lots of churches have pre-school kindergartens. I don't think they fall under the coverage of 16-11-127.1, though.

    As to those churches that do have elementary schools, it would seem they do fall under 16-11-127.1 - even over summer break or Sundays.......
     
  7. jerry

    jerry New Member

    125
    0
    0
    But back to the original question. If the church or house of worship in question DOES NOT house a school, would it be treated as any other type of private property if the restriction on church carry is struck down?
     
  8. GAGunOwner

    GAGunOwner Active Member

    "Any other private property" is a broad statement. Private schools are private property. Bars are private property. Nuclear power facilities may be private property, I don't know.

    Anyway, if this law were truck down in court I would assume that carry there would be legal, if asked to leave you'd have to or face a trespassing charge. Just like a restaurant or Wal-Mart. This is assuming that the church doesn't also have a school in it that qualifies as an off-limits location.
     
  9. CountryGun

    CountryGun New Member

    7,594
    0
    0
    It'll be wrong, but I'm betting that, if GCO prevails, the law will read that prior permission must be obtained in the same way that it is for a bar. Go figure! "Businesses" at opposite ends of the spectrum.
     
  10. GAGunOwner

    GAGunOwner Active Member

    I don't think they could do that with a lawsuit but the General Assembly could do that through legislation.
     
  11. CountryGun

    CountryGun New Member

    7,594
    0
    0
    The law suit will result in "places of worship" being dropped from the list of off limits places. I think the original text required prior approval. Wouldn't we expect it would revert back to that?
     
  12. mb90535im

    mb90535im Well-Known Member

    3,857
    32
    48
    I don't see where it would revert back to text that was never codified. If the church carry prohibition language is struck wouldn't churches simple be like any other private property at that point, schools in churches not withstanding.
     
  13. CountryGun

    CountryGun New Member

    7,594
    0
    0
    One would hope so!
     
  14. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,427
    113
    If there is a law that says you cannot discuss health care policy, and the judge strikes it down as unconstitutional, would that mean that you need prior permission to discuss health care policy? I am just asking.
     
  15. kkennett

    kkennett New Member

    2,139
    0
    0
    The State has advocated for an atextual permission schema similar to that for bars. The trouble is that the lawmakers plainly know how to spell out that scheme (ala the bars language), and failed to do so for churches. Judges, if they are true to their tasks, are not authorized to rewrite laws so that they comply with the Constitution. 'Intepreting in' an exception that does not follow the plain pattern of the language will also be difficult. If the judge declares the law unconstitutional, it will most likely simply become a nullity, until and unless the Assembly makes changes.
     
  16. mb90535im

    mb90535im Well-Known Member

    3,857
    32
    48
    They didn't do a very good job of making the bar language clear either if you remember back to the several long discussion threads on exactly what "unless the owner permits...." means.
     
  17. jdh31313

    jdh31313 Active Member

    2,532
    0
    36
    Please don't beat me up for this question, it is just a well intentioned question...Should this be something for the general assembly to take up as opposed to the courts?
     
  18. rmodel65

    rmodel65 Yukon Cornelius

    11,620
    41
    48

    the court is to protect against any encroachment of Constitutionally secure rights
    -boyd v. u.s., 116 US 616
     
  19. mb90535im

    mb90535im Well-Known Member

    3,857
    32
    48
    Except when we disagree with the court's decision, then apparently it becomes "legislating from the bench". :wink:
     
  20. GAGunOwner

    GAGunOwner Active Member

    What the legislature gives through legislation, the legislature can take away through legislation.

    What the courts strike-down as unconstitutional, the legislature cannot take away through legislation.