I had occasion to hear Mr. Lillehaug on the Rosenbaum and O'Connell show (KSTP AM 1500) last week regarding the new lawsuit he has filed against the MCPPA on behalf of his church clients.

This lawsuit alleges that the MCPPA infringes on "freedom of worship" by not excluding churches from the "firearms in parking lots" provision.

O'Connell and Rosenbaum did a great disservice to the cause by continually refering to private property rights as if publicly-accessible parking lots share the same protections as one's private home or yard.

Church parking lots, while technically private property, fall under the "available to the public" concept as would any commercial parking lot.

The problem with allowing parking lot owners, including churches, to ban firearms is that it severely restricts our right to self-defense when traveling to or from that parking lot. In other words, you have to leave your gun at home if you will be going to that facility at any time and expect to park in the same lot as "the annointed" (read: non-gun carriers).

Arguably, street parking might be available, but it will be less secure and might be further away. This could place us at greater risk of attack traveling between our cars and their premises. Equally, it exposes vehicle-stored firearms to greater risk of theft. Or, give up your rights and leave the gun at home if you're going there. Excuse me, but this is ALMOST as stupid as making Black people ride in the back of the bus.

I recall one particularly disgusting US Supreme Court decision (Plessy v. Ferguson) that held "separate but equal" was allowed under the equal rights amendment. Fortunately, Brown v. Board of Ed. reversed that stupid ruling and everyone may now use the same facilities as "white folk".

The premise of this lawsuit is equally disgusting and denies access to PUBLICLY-ACCESSIBLE parking lots if someone is excercising their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to self-defense. This is no different from denying access to a publicly-accessible facility on the basis of race.

Permit holders are not as readily identifiable as people of some ethnicities, but the principle is identical, equally arbitrary and motivated by politics, comfort and convenience rather than "freedom of worship" or any other stated premise.

I fail to understand how my possession of a fiream in a publicly-accessible parking lot infringes on that property owner's rights. If I brandish, discharge or otherwise misuse that weapon, the law steps in. If I am there with the INTENT to cause problems, would the signs stop me?

It is certainly not a problem of safety as some maintain. As a permit holder, I will be among the LEAST LIKELY people to cause a problem.

If these people want to assert their freedom of worship under the Constitution, equally, they must accept that the same document does not exempt churches from laws that apply to everyone else.

If they had an irrational fear of wheelchairs and maintained that mandated handicap parking was an intolerable burden on their freedom of worship, would that fly in court? I think not.

A decision favoring the plaintiffs in this case will be the camel's nose under the tent. Soon, we can expect other equally poorly-founded lawsuits to further restrict the rights we fought to hard so have codified in the law.

[edit: This is Matt Payne -- I had forgotten to sign in!]

Fortunately for us, the churches have already shown their hands. While they base the lawsuit on Constitutional principles, we know their real motives.

And it's all on the record.

As I write in my blog, the Most Reverend Richard E. Pates, Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of St. Paul & Minneapolis, testified before the Minnesota State Senate Crime Prevention & Public Safety Committee on May 2, 2005.

He said, in part:



Not because of religious freedom, not because of property right, but, as John Caile told the press when word of the news lawsuit surfaced, because they don't like guns.

I withdrew my church membership when I found that they supported gun control. I can worship at home.

Well...guess I can't plow snow now @ 3:00Am in any church lots(we have several)....hmmm....infringing on my right to earn an income and protect myself at the same time........smells like a lawsuit to me.

Each to his own. My own take is that the church has a moral right to forbid you the means of self-protection while working for them -- as a condition of that employment/contract -- particularly if they're willing to assume responsibility for your safety during that time.

While it is very unlikely that I would be caught on church property, parking lot or otherwise, this does sound like a proper time to use the "concealed" part of concealed carry. Don't ask, don't tell; I guess that works here, too.

Frankly, the only time that I can imagine I would be there is for a wedding - in which case I would not carry because I might take a drink.

Now, I am not saying that the lawsuit is not reprehensible, I am just saying that whether we win or lose this one would not change my behavior.

It just looks like one more sideways attack on second amendment rights.

Is darth Lillehaug doing this for a fee or out of the goodness of his lump of coal?

I believe that he's doing it without pay, except for earning some political points with the DFL metrocrats.

Whether or not there's a foundation here, you're right -- the reason that this needs to be fought is that it is a camelsnose/nibble/whatever.

But if you read the complaint, you'll see that the argument is very cleverly made, and deconstructing it is going to take some work. (Lillehaug/Tanick argue -- wrongly -- that their clients are forbidden from including religious content in their postings. They're not, of course; the law requires given wording/font/placement/etc, but the churches can add to it, or post additional signs with whatever language they choose.)

Basically, what Lillehaug/Tanick are arguing is that their clients should be able to put permit holders on Double Secret Probation -- banning them from carrying in their facilities without having to inform them, in any useful way, of that ban.

In brief:
(1) Does the lawsuit mean to permanently prohibit in/on every church and religious organization or just in "lawsuit churches"?
(2) Do their parking lot aspirations apply beyond church property; ie. the parking lot at the roller rink if a church youth activity is there or the local park if a church picnic is there?
(3) Akin to question #1 - If they mean to ban firearms on the property of any / every church or religious group ... then what particular religious freedom allows them to use the state as a mechanism to exclude people whom some churches want to include?

As I understand the suit, I would not be able to stop off at a church activity on my way back from a shooting match, or visit a (non lawsuit) church while I am up north hunting, or for that matter worship at all since I carry daily. One source whom I respect greatly didn't think the suit would affect me ... anyone know how far they want to take this?

Thanks.

It would seem to me that since the law makes it clear that carrying is an individual constitutional right that they would have a hard time arguing that people's constitutional rights should be abolished in their public parking lots.

Whatever route is taken, having the courts ban guns in church parking lots is equally problematic because it takes away the right of religious congregations like ours that WANT to allow carry in the parking lot (and indoors as well). They can't construct a rule so as to take away our right of religious freedom to observe the G-d given right to self defense!

I bet some folk don't consider it our constitutional right to carry in the first place.

Since this is being taken up in the state courts:

There is no provision related to the right to keep and bear arms in the Minnesota Constitution.

EDIT: I had not read Subd 22, but, that's more like "giving a shout out to the Constitution".

Another lite rail victim http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S9899.html?cat=1 12 year old child.

It was actually, well, heavy rail. There's no commuter train in Coon Rapids.