The 2nd amendment is not restricted to the Federal Government. To believe that is ignorance. It applies to The Feds, the states and any local govt. Georgia carry is simply asking the Supreme Court to enforce the 2nd amendment just like it tried to do against Washington DC and Chicago. I suggest that your read the Federalist papers so that you understand the Constitution as it was written and not how the meaning has been perverted in these "modern" times.

They didn't make any mess...the bill of rights is incorporated against the state thru the 14th amendment....title 42 section 1983 states

"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance,
regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the
District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any
citizen of the United States or other person within the
jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges,
or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable
to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other
proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought
against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such
officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted
unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was
unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress
applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be
considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia."

Actually, GA Carry's lawsuit is based on a violation of the First Amendment, Freedom or Religion. They are suing GA saying that the law is a violation of the First Amendment because it tells a religious institution how to manage their congregation. A First Amendment violation is certainly Supreme Court territory.

Hasn't GCO been trying to change this at state level for a long time and getting NOWHERE? Is the the author possibly ignorant?

Actually, Georgia Carry has already tried to petition the legislature to remove the unconstitutional restriction on churches. The Georgia State legislature failed to act. This is option two. Why are churches denied the right to decide for themselves whether to allow firearms to be carried on property, when every other private property in the state has the right. Why are churches singled out?

I agree with Danny. This is not just about firearms, this is about churches having freedom to prescribe what is and isn't allowed within their sanctuaries. Where is the line drawn?

The NRA has tried unsuccesfully to add wording to several previous gun bills in the past that wpuld force employers to allow employees to keep guns in their cars while at work and parked on company property, thus trampling and violating the private property rights of the employer. So far, the Legislature has repeatedly shot this wording down because the legislature holds private property rights as sacred.......unless its a place of worship. then the state steps in and tells the private property owner (the church) what it can and cannot allow on its own property. See the hypocrisy and double standard? A private business has the right to deny or allow firearms (as they should), but a church (which is also private property, does not? This is clearly a 1st amendment issue. the state cannot have it both ways.

I wonder if the same people who are ho-hum about this law or opposed to the lawsuit (such as yourself) would react similarly if the state suddenly required that the church obtain a pouring license in order to serve wine at communion services? The torches and pitchforks would certainly come out then, wouldn't they? There's no difference. Either all private property owners have the same rights or none of us have any.

Bill, the substance of GeorgiaCarry's petition is rooted in the First Amendment and not the Second Amendment and the question is less about guns than it is about religious freedom. Would you be of the same opinion if an organization called Architectural Advocates were litigating to challenge the constitutionality of a state law that prevented churches from having signage on the sides of their buildings but allowed any other type of private institution to do so? I appreciate that your understanding of the substance of the suit has led to concern, but your understanding is incorrect. As a citizen journalist, now presented with factual information contrary to what you have written, you have an obligation to post a correction for your readers. Nonetheless, thank you for your support of the Second Amendment.

Bill Evelyn is correct. The Bill of Rights as originally ratified by the States only applied to the Federal government. Those who believe and promote otherwise are trying change original intent. Mr. Evelyn is standing up for original intent and the founders.

I believe I will stay with the original intent of the amendment not those who interpreted in the 20th century.
Professor Kevin Gutzman explains
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/11/24/kevin-gutzman-freedom-vs-the-courts/
http://www.mikechurch.com/founders-television/kevin-gutzman-on-the-14th-amendment-and-due-process/
http://www.constitutingamerica.org/blog/blog/tag/kevin-gutzman/

You just refuse to acknowledge the real arguement, don't you Bill? GCO is not asking the feds to regulate our arms. They are asking the feds to make the state un-regulate our churches. Can you tell me why the state has a ban on firearms in places of worship? Do you know why that was put on the books? The answer may suprise you.

And people like you, Bill, who can't see the forest for the trees is what kills me. You keep trying to turn this into something where you will come out on the right side- not gonna happen (unless you think its ok for the state to respect one property owners rights and violate those of another)

Of course it made sense, you just chose not to accept it. You never answered my question as to why the state of Georgia has a ban on firearms in places of worship to begin with. Care to take a stab?

Andy,
It's because things like this
http://www.ibtimes.com/texas-pastor-killed-his-church-855984
won't ever happen in Georgia.
Um, nevermind. http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/24/one-shot-at-creflo-dollars-georgia-megachurch/comment-page-3/

The law banning guns in churches is a hold-over from the Jim Crow laws that dominated the south during the civil rights era. It was a direct response to the fear that blacks would meet and plan their strategy in the civil rights movement. Given the circumstances they faced, these groups usually met at churches while armed-thus the law came to be created. The same goes for the old "public gathering language" which GCO finally helped to get rid of in 2010. This law needs to go to but when the Legislature won't play ball (and I've spoken to Speaker Ralston personally about this on several occasions) then you must pursue other courses of action. The Supremes were the last option.

One question. How would you feel if the state came in and said that part of the tithe, say 5%, had to be used exclusively for a community food bank program? And that failure to comply would result in fines and possible shutdown of the church?

I will screw my head on properly when you place yours other than where it seems to be. Let's water this down to something your mind can chew on. Let's say there are 2 kids of equal age and ability playing with a pile of blocks. One kid has 7 green blocks nad the other kid has 2 green blocks. The kid with 2 reaches into the pile and wants 5 more green blocks but the teacher tells him that those blocks are for the other kid. As the parent you talk to the teacher but the teacher won't budge and insists that your child can't have the same number of green blocks as the other kid. What do you do? You tell the principal or the school superintendent. You don't stop with the teacher's version of right and wrong. That's what GeorgiaCarry has been forced to do. Is that sinking in yet or are you still lagging behind?

Bill Evelyn asked: "Why would you ask the feds to regulate you guns within the borders of Georgia?"
Bill, GCO and myself are not asking the Feds to regulate our guns and how we carry them. We are asking them to tell the State of Georgia not to regulate a private property owner with whether they can allow GWCL holders on their property.

So you are saying its not ok for the state to do that because its illegal. But its ok for the state to dictate what personal property the church allows to be brought onto its ground?

They are asking churches to be allowed same rights every other property owner in Georgia enjoys. Also, it's not asking to "regulate" guns, it's asking to deregulate, if anything.

Where do you keep getting this asinine notion that GeorgiaCarry is somehow asking the feds to regulate guns in Georgia? Several people have tried to correct you, but you won't have it. Just because its your blog and you keep repeating the same notion over and over is not going to make it factual. Show me exactly where you get this mis-guided view?

Blockhead? Name calling? I know your running out of road now. I'll take concrete over what your brain is comprised of, pal. at least I grasp the argument. You just showed your ignorance yet again. "...places of worship MUST allow carry.." Nope, wrong again Bill. You have a wonderful talent for trivializing the momentous and complicating the obvious. Actually, GeorgiaCarry is fighting for the right of the church to DENY weapons as well as allow them. Right now, that right to allow or deny is being violated by the state. What don't you understand about that? Every time this has been brought to your attention, you absolutely twist it into something its not. It's tough being wrong on your own blog, isn't it?

Bill, Now you are just making things up. Churches, or any other property in the state will never be "FORCED" to ALLOW weapons. Let me shed some light here. GCO is asking that churches be removed from 16-11-127 (b), thus defaulting them to fall under the 16-11-127(c)= everywhere else.

If SCOTUS rules in favor of GCO, then churches will have the same rights as Walmart, Applebee's, Chick-Fil-A, Chuck-E-Cheese, Town Center Mall, Turner Field etc. They can either allow members to carry, or they can state Weapons are not allowed, and ask people who carry to leave. If you don't leave with your weapon, you can be arrested. (criminal trespass).

Please state where you get the idea the SCOTUS is "If the Feds rule that places of worship must allow carry, then the fed are regulating guns in 'Georgian."

I think your entire article hinges on a misunderstood notion of what the GCO lawsuit intends. It's simply asking that churches not be singled out from every other private property in 16-11-127.

Care to back your statement up with facts (sans childish names)?

Mr. Evelyn is correct. Please read the ratification debates. John Marshall clearly states that the Constitution does not give the federal courts jurisdiction in such manners. To put it another way when the States constituted the federal government they never granted the federal government power over policing powers. to espouse otherwise is to change the original intent of the Constitution as ratified.

John Marshall, ratification debate.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a3_2_1s26.html