Court Dismisses Church Carry Case

A federal judge in Macon dismissed GCO’s legal challenge against the state’s ban on carrying firearms in “places of worship.” The court ruled that the law does not burden religion because it does not interfere with anyone’s sincerely-held religious beliefs, despite the fact that one plaintiff testified that “I believe [Jesus’ teachings] require me to obtain, keep, and carry a firearm wherever I happen to be [including] when I am attending regular worship services.” The court ruled the law does not infringe on the Second Amendment because the government has an important interest in protecting worshipers and banning them from carrying firearms is a significant means of doing so. The order may be viewed here.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

5 Responses to “Court Dismisses Church Carry Case”

  1. mark5019 Says:

    im so glad that the law will keep us safe just like all the laws that make honest people law breakers

  2. youneek28 Says:

    “because the government has an important interest in protecting worshipers”

    How is the government protecting worshipers? By banning law abiding citizens from carrying? If that’s their argument, they shouldn’t allow people to carry anywhere. They could just say ” because the government has an important interest in protecting everyone in any location”

  3. Montezuma Says:

    So, a judge uses a “straw man argument” to get to justify his or her stance? I am just so shocked. I am wondering how one could not argue this is also a separation of church and state issue, seeing how I am sure that this portion of the law would not be enforced at larger churches, of more “established” religions(i.e. Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc) and not more fringe religions(i.e. Satanist, Wica(if they have a “church”), and others).

    I am a Christian, but I also support people’s right to carry a firearm into a church. I mean, how could anyone argue that the government has “an important governmental interest” in controlling anything that occurs in a religious environment? The fact is that they do not. Actually, this is one of the reasons I do not attend church. If I did attend church, then I will be carrying, legal or not. I will not allow myself, and/or those around me to become potential victims of crime because some fat cat idiot(i.e. George Ervin “Sonny’ Purdue…just saying or typing his name makes me sick) thinks he or she can put unreasonable restricts on our inherent right(s).

    This is why I detest malum prohibitum laws. People believe they have some “God-given”, unadulterated right to interfere in my life. I am sorry, but no one has that right, nor will they ever have that right.

    I say that GCO resubmit this case and see if Governor Deal is more open to supporting our rights, as he has claimed he is. That way, if Governor Deal attempts to railroad us, we can get him out faster than that fat idiot, Purdue.

  4. SmokinLawyer Says:

    It appears from the article that this was approached as an individual rights case. It occurs to me that this might have a greater chance of success if approached on an equal protection property rights theory with a church as plaintiff. Church property is privately owned property and other property owners have the right to decide whether persons who carry are welcome or not. It would seem that denying the right to decide to church property owners is a denial of equal protection of the laws with no rational basis. Just a thought.

  5. augustarichard Says:

    The judge used to be my brother-in-law. He has always carried a gun. He is special and we “the unwashed masses” should not be able to carry. It is disgusting the arrogance and condescension on display. His former father-in-law, now deceased, molested his sons and he did nothing. I even had DFACS sent to his house and he would not talk with them. I am willing to back these last statements up by sworn testimony. He is scum and not fit to hold this position.