Georgia Carry, minister challenge ban on guns in church

With the recent decision by the Supreme Court in McDonald v. Chicago, which incorporated the Second Amendment to the states via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. As an aside, the court missed a shot at adopting an originalist view by incorporating via the Privileges or Immunities Clause. Justice Clarence Thomas was the only member of the Court to get that right.

Lawsuits are expected across the country to challenge gun laws that restrict that right, prohibiting individuals from protecting themselves.

It looks like the one of the first lawsuits may come from Georgia, as a minister is challenging a state law that prohibits an individual from bringing a gun to a church or house of worship:

The suit, mailed Friday to the Superior Court in Upson County, is brought by GeorgiaCarry.org; the Baptist Tabernacle of Thomaston; Ed Stone, the president of GeorgiaCarry.org and the Rev. Jonathan Wilkins. The suit lists Upson County and the state as defendants.

Those for less as well as more restrictions on guns had said last month places of worship would be the next battle over where permitted gun owners can take their weapons. Georgia law was changed this year to remove the prohibitions of guns at “public gatherings” but it banned firearms in certain places – places of worship, government buildings, schools, nuclear power plants and bars without the owner’s permission.

“The handgun is the quintessential self-defense weapon in the United States,” the suit said.

The suit said Georgia law says people with permits to carry firearms “are not prohibited from carrying firearms throughout the state except for certain places.”

The suit cites the First Amendment freedom of religion and the Second Amendment right to bear arms as grounds for bringing the case.

According to the suit, Ed Stone, president of GeorgiaCarry.org, and others want to be able to arm themselves while worshiping “for the protection of their families and themselves” without fear of arrest and prosecution.

You can read the lawsuit, filed by Georgia Carry, here.

22 comments

  1. Pine Knot says:

    Georgia Carry continues to push for our Second Amendment freedom, and is becoming more of a major force on the national leval as well, as other states will follow. Georgia’s gun laws are some of the less lenient in the nation.

  2. hannah says:

    Fine. The Constitution addresses the behavior of agents of government and says Congress shall make no laws affecting establishments of religion. Of course, if individual persons kill or injure, that’s a crime and will be dealt with after the fact. The whole preemptive/protective/proactive agenda needs to be retired. And that includes all the electronic detectors and monitors. Offensive people want to be noticed.

  3. chefdavid says:

    Call it what you want to. I heard My Senator Say that Churches wanting to provide their own security was the reason he was for gun reform. I can see that. I will agree with individuals liberty on that and leave it at that.

  4. Lady Thinker says:

    I am a very strong police supporter and have some law enforcement students, but they can’t be everywhere. Citizens need to know how to take care of themselves when law enforcement can’t be everywhere. A case in point was New Orleans after Katrina. With looters running rampant, law abiding citizens with guns protected themselves because there just weren’t enough cops to protect everyone.

    • hannah says:

      There were no looters running rampant. That was a media myth spread in an effort to justify the militaristic response.

      “What’s the difference between a predator and a protector? The predator will eat you sooner, rather than later.”

      • Lady Thinker says:

        Hannah,

        IF you had watch the Katrina news coverage you would have seen the looters running rampant and wouldn’t have called my statement a media myth. I can understand the looting of food, because the electricity was out and the food was going to spoil anyway. That doesn’t justify stealing but I can understand hungry people doing that out of desperation. What wasn’t justified was the stealing of electronics, like TV’s, and golf clubs. The statement that no looters were running rampant shows you are losing or have lost, touch with reality.

        Law abiding citizens with their guns were interviewed by Robin Roberts of Good Morning America and other news anchors and told stories of looters trying to come into their homes. Those with guns successfully prevented the thefts, and those without guns weren’t so lucky.

        • hannah says:

          Actually, what it shows is that I don’t believe what is shown or not shown on TV.
          We know, for example, that the U.S. requisitioned land for dozens of mega bases in Iraq– as locations for electronic surveillance and monitoring of the whole region–which the embedded media were not permitted to report about and free-lance journalists who covered them were either shot or demoted and sent out of the country. Media organizations are rather quicker learners than individuals. It took only one media center being “taken out” by a missile for the rest to get the message.
          There’s a new legal theory to cover this deprivation of basic rights. It says that if individuals “voluntarily” agree to be restricted (e.g. in exchange for a benefit like special “access”) or take an oath of total obedience, the Army’s “stop loss” program of servitude is legal, as is the restriction of a soldier’s free speech. You could say it’s legalized extortion. If a mugger says, “your wallet or your life,” it’s a crime, but if Uncle Sam says “sign up or starve,” it’s just a version of Senator Landrieu’s “there is no free lunch.”
          Why exactly should man born of woman, without having had a say, have to do someone’s bidding just to stay alive? Is it to protect the principle of private property? What good is the right to life, if access to the resources one needs to live isn’t guaranteed? What good are human and civil rights, if there’s no concomitant obligation to respect them? Is it just so someone can say, “here, take your rights; now go away and leave me alone?”
          While most of our social data are stale, if you accept the 10,000 homicides by gun in 2006 as typical, then, if life were a concern, the 40,000+ annual death by car would get much more attention. Once-removed intent should not be considered an accident, if the quality of an act is to be determinative.
          Besides, the majority of deaths by guns are suicides. Which actually might explain why conservatives are keen to restrict gun ownership. If individuals are free to kill themselves, then the state doing it loses some of its sting. That’s why end-of-life directives have to be opposed, as well. If society is to be properly ordered, it has to be ordered from the top down.

          • Tinkerhell says:

            Sweet Lord! How many crossed circuits must exist in your cranium Hannah to jump around to all the above drivel?…

            For sake of the argument I have only one angle to put forward to anyone that wants to say this is a “bad thing”.

            The state has already agreed & put into law that legal firearm owners that have obtained a Georgia Weapons License may carry their weapon into basically any local other than a few government buildings with little restriction other than some consideration for private property rights.
            Except churches.
            What possible legitimate foundation can the state stand upon to justify that one exception. Why are churches being treated differently than any other private property?

  5. Dave Bearse says:

    Justice Thomas is not the brightest on the court, so it’s more likely to conclude he was the member of the majority that got it wrong.

  6. foray says:

    Georgia Carry is a joke- they endorsed John Albers in D-56 Senate Race

    Albers is a known pathological liar who claimed he ran a 5 billion dollar division of ATT, lied about his college degree, was sued for 12 counts of trade secret theft after hacking into his CEO’s email

    Anyone that would consider such a candidate worthy of an endorsement is whacked out

  7. mountainpass says:

    foray wrote “Georgia Carry is a joke- they endorsed John Albers in D-56 Senate Race”

    foray…. GeorgiaCarry.Org is not a joke. They are the best thing to happen to gun owners in this state in over 100 years. The Jim Crow law of prohibiting carry at a “public gathering” was removed by SB308, thanks to Mitch Seabaugh and Georgia Carry. GCO can’t control the candidates, but they do endorse the ones who will uphold the second amendment. This thread is about freedom of religion, not insults.

  8. chefdavid says:

    If we would just pass Sunday sales we wouldn’t have a bunch of crazies running around with guns trying to get a sip of wine at church.

  9. Terran1212 says:

    “A case in point was New Orleans after Katrina. With looters running rampant, law abiding citizens with guns protected themselves because there just weren’t enough cops to protect everyone.”

    Another person terrified by sensationalistic media and wants to retreat to Fortress America.

    • seenbetrdayz says:

      Another person terrified by ‘Fortress America’ and wants to retreat to sensationalistic media.

  10. Ludwig Von Beachbum says:

    They are going to blast the fear of god into you!

    To say there were no looters on the streets in New Orleans at Katrina is like saying there were no Tabasco ever there, no bourbon or no whores.

Comments are closed.