Banned concealed carry in church: is it a First Amendment violation?

Obviously not all churches have the same beliefs about the legitimacy of self-defense and defense of others as does the New Life Church. This brings use to the second violation of the First Amendment. The morality of using deadly force when necessary to protect innocent lives is a strongly debated topic among various denominations. The early Christians disagreed on the topic. Historically, the standard Jewish and Catholic view was that self-defense was a right and defense of others was often a duty. Some Christians, particularly since the 20th century, take an opposite view. Likewise, many adherents of the major religions of Asia also support self-defense, while some (especially some Therevada Buddhists) do not. These doctrinal differences about self-defense represent very important, sincerely-held differences in religious beliefs. A religion is, after all, not just about the forms of ritual; religion is especially concerned about providing guidance for moral conduct at moments when a person may face decisions involving the end of life.

The state, of course, must be neutral between the various religious beliefs. The state should not compel a Quaker to shoot someone who is trying to kill her, nor should the state forbid a Baptist from saving her own life.   The CHL prohibition in churches violates the Free Exercise clause because it prevents self-defense by members of a religious community, when they are gathered as a community, even if key tenet of the religion is the communal duty of the adherents to protect their fellow adherents.

Moreover, the CHL ban also violates the Establishment clause because it favors some denominations over others. In effect, the statute privileges pacifist denominations over non-pacifist ones, by forcing the non-pacifist religions to obey pacifist standards of conduct in their own houses of worship. This is not only a Free Exercise violation, it is an Establishment clause violation, because it plainly creates the message that the pacifist way of being is the only way of being which the state will allow in any church, anywhere in the boundaries of the state.

via volokh.com

Very interesting points made at Volokh - I suggest the whole article and the comments are well worth the read (kittipurrs to the Blog Father, by the way).

Frankly, concealed carry by law-abiding citizens anywhere does not bother me. First, hello!, LAW-ABIDING citizens, and second, if they're doing it right, concealed carry means I wouldn't know about it anyway. And with crazy-person violence frequently in the news these days - how many times has it been in a church? - you can be that if some violent person intent on doing murder comes into my church, I'm going to be thanking the person who takes out the bad guy!

At any rate, as I said, Volokh's comments are very interesting, and certainly provide a base for a good discussion.

Comments

[Man of the West]

1.

I've always felt strongly that an armed society is a polite society. Or at least more polite than it would otherwise be.

I like guns, Kat, I really do. I offer up only this one caveat: don't ever rely on them, or on any other weapon, for all your defensive needs.

Ever wonder why there are so many wrist releases in martial arts? It's because the natural thing to do, when your opponent is obviously about to pull a weapon, is to grab his arm or wrist. To successfully use a weapon--any weapon--you first have to be able to successfully get it out.

All I'm sayin' is that while firearms are a great thing, one shouldn't overlook the fundamentals of unarmed defense.

[Kat]

2.

Oh, no, MotW, I don't want to rely on a gun in the sense you mean, I don't think. Actually, for me, concealed carry is a responsibility that I would hope makes someone MORE alert to what's going on around them so they are more likely to see a situation brewing and get out before it goes bad.
To be honest, if I were in the situation where the "bad guy" has a hold on me, then I have already failed the concealed carry test, so to speak. Don't forget, although I have a bit of *ahem* bulk, I am a) a woman, b) on the small side (5' 2"), and c) not exactly a spring chicken. All, technically, strikes against me. Therefore the LAST thing I want is getting up close and personal with the bad guy.
Now, I do know about wrist twists (I probably ought to practice more - and have the Munchkin practice as well), and that I need to go for vulnerabilities like eyes and the privates is I'm being held and have to physically defend myself. In this day and age, the "don't fight and he'll let you live" theory is crumbling; violent crooks, it seems, would rather not leave witnesses alive.
God forbid I should ever be in that situation, but if I am, and IF I can't save my life, I'm going to do the best I can that that thug bears the scars of our encounter for the rest of his life.