On 8/6/05 7:50 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Raises an interesting question, which I've occasionally encountered before:
>
> If they win, what is the remedy?
They're asking for an injunction that would allow them to continue enforcing
general trespass principles against those who bring weapons onto their
property, in spite of the statutory restriction.
> Person comes onto property with firearm (concealed or not). With exception
> stricken, what law has he violated?
None, unless and until the church asks him to leave and he refuses. They're
basically just asking for the right to call the police and have him forcibly
ejected if he doesn't leave voluntarily, which right they would undoubtedly
have if not for the enactment of these two particular provisions of the
shall-issue act.
Of course, it's all purely symbolic, for two reasons. First, it's pretty
unrealistic to think that somebody is going to openly carry onto church
grounds and refuse to leave when asked.
Second, the churches retain their right to exclude somebody from their
property for any reason *except* the fact that he's carrying a gun. So, for
example, they could still call the police and ask that the person be removed
because he didn't shave closely enough for their tastes, or he smells badly,
or they don't allow people with that particular hairstyle in.
--
Bob Woolley
St. Paul, MN
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Revenge is like serving cold cuts."
-- Tony Soprano
_______________________________________________
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.
