New right to carry / A bad idea is now a bad law

The hullabaloo that the new Minnesota Personal Protection Act has caused is just the beginning. The law is riddled with contradictions and infringements on rights that may take years to sort out. Indeed, wags have begun to call the law the "Full Employment for Lawyers Act of 2003."

There's some shocking misinformation in here. I'm not surprised that this paper is nicknamed the "Star and Sickle" by local residents.

The law declares that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution confers the right of individuals to bear arms -- something to which the U.S. Supreme Court has never agreed. And, curiously, in pursuit of a radical assertion of that "right," the folks behind this new Minnesota law trample on other rights.

Perhaps the editorial board failed to read Us v Miller, which stated just that -- an individual right.

Take private property rights, for example. That's something most supporters of gun rights typically feel passionate about. But this gun law prohibits the owners of a rental property, for example, from denying tenants and guests the right to carry pistols. The tenant's statutory gun right trumps the owner's constitutional property rights.

Believe it or not, this is perfectly proper. A tenant receives many legal protections against abuse by his landlord, and even if that were not the case, the tenant's right to his own private property and his Constitutional right to keep and bear arms both weight against the landlord's limited property rights.

Then there are churches, which have a passel of problems with this new law. Churches are sanctuaries, places of worship, employers and, often, landlords. Many church leaders and members believe as a matter of faith that guns have no place in a church, and they also don't want signs plastered on their doors banning guns. As Bishop James Jelinek of the Episcopal Church observed, "The front door of an Episcopal Church has special meaning. Many front doors are painted red, a color which invokes the blood of Christ and signals a 'sanctuary.'

It's simple. If you want to prohibit guns on your property, you must inform people that guns are prohibited on your property. You can do that individually, on a case-by-case basis, or just post a sign. In order to reduce misunderstandings, the sign requires certain wording and so forth. It's not that great a burden. If you don't want to post the sign, then don't -- I predict you won't have problems with permit holders either way.