109 No guns allowed in church?


Tom Garrett 4 years ago

Georgia for some reason I have not yet been able to discover has passed a law banning firearms in churches and other places of worship.

That sounds like complete idiocy. Why should a person who enters a church shed his rights?

But here are the only facts being reported:

a. A lower federal court dismissed the lawsuit brought by GeorgiaCarry and the Rev. Jonathan Wilkins of the Baptist Tabernacle of Thomaston, Ga.

b. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court's dismissal.

c. The Supreme Court, without comment, refused to reconsider that ruling.

Either there is something very wrong here, or there's something The Associated Press isn't saying in its article.

If you can find out more before I do, please post it.


Tom Garrett 3 years, 12 months ago

Aha! Just as I suspected!

You are going to love this!

I searched the net high and low and all I saw was the same carefully worded sentence. Every time I saw it I grew more suspicious that someone was hiding something.

Here's the sentence, from the Associated Press:

"The Supreme Court won't overturn a Georgia law banning firearms in churches and other places of worship."

What does that mean? It sounds like it means that Georgia has placed a blanket ban on bringing guns into any place of worship. It sounds as though the law was intended to increase gun control, to limit the right of a citizen to carry a gun into yet another place. By saying that, the sentence implies that increased gun control is a good thing.

That sentence was carried, verbatim, by news sources around the nation. I know; I went to them, trying to scratch an itch that would not go away, one complicated by the fact that I could not get the actual text of the bill that was passed due to some glitch in the Georgia site where it should have been available.

At long last, I found the truth, and I found it in a place that will genuinely surprise you. First, the truth; what did the Georgia bill actually do? I am going to put the important part in all caps for you.

It bars the carrying of weapons or long guns in eight designated places, including a government building, a bar, on the premises of a nuclear power facility, within 150 feet of any polling place, and places of worship, WITHOUT THE PROPRIETOR'S PERMISSION.

In other words, as long as the place where you worship does not object to your bringing in a gun you may do it.

What does the law require you to do?

When you show up at one of these facilities, the law requires you to tell the security person that you're carrying a weapon, and if he requires you to do it you have to stow it or secure as instructed.

What will happen to you if you don't? Are you headed to prison for five years?

Failure to comply is a misdemeanor offense.

Hey! That's the same thing you have to do if you went in a bar with a weapon. What's the big deal?

The big deal is that the Associated Press worded its article in a way that made the law sound very different.

And what did the court say about it?

"[To win their case] Plaintiffs must [prove] that the Second Amendment protects a right to bring a firearm on the private property of another against the wishes of the owner."

The court said the Second Amendment didn't say that. I agree, and I don't think there is a person reading this who doesn't also agree. Why not? Well consider what else the court said.

"Plaintiffs cannot contend that the Second Amendment in any way abrogated the well established property law, tort law, and criminal law that embodies a private property owner’s exclusive right to be king of his own castle."

Amen to that!

In a second post, I'll bet I will surprise you by telling you where it finally occurred to me to go to find the truth.


Tom Garrett 3 years, 12 months ago

Now for a BIG surprise!

It finally occurred to go to a place on the net that I knew was careful about facts.

What was that place? The Daily Kos.

And what is the Daily Kos? This is what THEY say. (This'll kill you!)

"This is a Democratic blog, a partisan blog."

That's right. It's a website that admits right up front that it is a site whose purpose is, and I quote, "It's a Democratic blog with one goal in mind: electoral victory."

And yet, though that is true, the "news" on the site is handled very fairly even though the "commentaries" on that news make no secret of the fact that the goal of the site is to promote the Democratic Party.

That's amazing, isn't it? I find it refreshing. I don't go there often because I am always searching for news, not commentary, but when I go there I find that the news itself is presented as news. How about that for a breath of fresh air?

The site was founded in 2004 by Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, and American of Greek extraction. Other than that, if you want t know anything about the site you can go look for yourself.

I'll just add one more thing. Here's the site policy on using its material:

"Site content may be used for any purpose without explicit permission unless otherwise specified."


Now as to the Associated Press...!


Ronald Hamric 3 years, 12 months ago

"This is a Democratic blog, a partisan blog." Now that is an understatement if ever there was one. I used to visit that site during the last term of George Bush. That was one of the sites I often referred to as spreading visceral hate towards the POTUS and that those folks could expect that same response from the "partisan right" whenever a Democrat assumed the office of POTUS. Think I was right for a change. Daily Kos and Huffington Post are two that go out of their way to make sure the divisions created in this nation are ever more defined and entrenched. At least they make no bones about it and are very open about their progressive/socialist goals for this country. Wish their illustrious leader in the White House was so honest and frank about his true intentions. But since most of those folks use Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals as their "Bible", anyone that can and is willing to read, can see their true agenda. From my perspective, these folks are the one's being referred to in the description of the Federal Government's Constitutional role to "Protect the country from all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC". They are not my neighbors and friends, they are simply "my enemies".


Tom Garrett 3 years, 12 months ago

Right Ron, the Daily Kos is admittedly a progressive website. And I see that you feel the same way I do about sites that make it plain who they are and what they stand for. We protect free speech, and we believe that people have a right to believe whatever they believe. That doesn't mean we have to agree with them. It just means that the very least we expect from someone is to be honest about it.

What is refreshing is the fact that they were very open and honest about what the Georgia bill meant. They didn't udge the facts like the Associated Press did by using the sentence, "The Supreme Court won't overturn a Georgia law banning firearms in churches and other places of worship." Millions of people read that sentence and came away with the wrong idea, and I do not have any doubt that is why it did not include the words "WITHOUT THE PROPRIETOR'S PERMISSION."

Honesty. What a simple thing. We need to teach it more than we do. And we need to climb all over anyone who teaches things like, "Winning isn't the most important thing; it's the only thing."

I remember one time at Texas Stadium, where our high school football team, after having won every game that season, played the final game of the year and lost. I was getting into my car wearing a maroon jacket with TJ on its back (Thomas Jefferson High School, Port Arthur, Texas) when a car rolled by with the colors of the other team on a pennant. The driver honked and I waved and said, "Your kids played a great game!" Brakes screeched. The driver came running out and shook my hand. "Damn!" he said. "I wish I could teach more people to think like that!" He was the head of athletics in the other school district.


Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.