As the original posted noted, the church has an available remedy simply
by posting the specified legal signage, which would eliminate the
"conflict of rights" problem.
Would it be a cheap shot to observe that a pacifistic church that must
rely on the government to keep its own congregation pacifistic is an
ineffective creed indeed?
On Aug 6, 2005, at 11:17 AM, Guy Smith wrote:
I'm venturing into unfamiliar territory, but I think the church may
have
significant grounds.
1) The 1st Am. prohibition against free exercise of religion means, in
part,
that churches religious doctrine cannot be interfered with.
2) If a church holds that the presence of guns are in some way
offensive to
their religious tenets, the there is a conflict of rights (and given
the
rather pacifistic leanings of various religions, the claim is not a big
stretch).
3) Since the 1st Am. right is constitutional, and the CCW right is
legislative . . .
What grounds does a religious organization have for using the
courts to compel the government to prohibit certain activity?
--
Escape the Rat Race for Peace, Quiet, and Miles of Desert Beauty
Take a Sanity Break at The Bunkhouse at Liberty Haven Ranch
http://libertyhavenranch.com
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [email protected]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
