On 8/6/05 6:29 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If signage exempts the church, I'd be hard put to see a 1st Amendment issue. A
> religious objection to firearms is conceivable, but I'm hard put to see a
> religious objection to hanging a sign. Not that plaintiffs couldn't claim one,
> but it seems a rather long stretch.
With a sign they can exclude gun-carriers from their church building, but
nothing they do can exclude gun-carriers from their parking lots. So the law
causes them to suffer a loss of the right to exclude. The question is
whether it is a loss of that right sufficient to constitute a "taking."
--
Bob Woolley
St. Paul, MN
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and
degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling, which thinks that nothing is
worth war, is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing
to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a
miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so
by the exertions of better men than himself."
-- John Stuart Mill
_______________________________________________
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.
