So, we start with the basic question: Is this true? Are they trying to ban church security? We admit when we saw it, we wondered if they would be so brazen in their hostility to two constitutional amendments.
Well, the short answer is they are not doing this directly, but the bill they are pushing would make many forms of private security illegal, including what is commonly used by churches. We liken it to a boss saying no one is allowed to wear headwear at work. Maybe it isn't designed to screw over orthodox Jews and other people who believe as a matter of faith they have to wear headwear, but it certainly has that effect.
[clip]
Anyone notice what is not included? Um, the
police, and other law enforcement agencies. So, we have a question: is this a sneaky way to disband (or disarm) the FBI, the DEA, the BATF and all local police? Or did they forget that these things existed? Since leftists tend to like things like the BATF these days—after all, the confiscation of illegal firearms is a huge part of their mission—we will assume they just forgot about law enforcement. But it’s still funny.
Of course, the more basic part of all of this is that it infringes on the right to create or join a militia and we do believe that right is in the Constitution. One might point at the Second Amendment and there is nothing wrong with citing it, but we think the better argument for the right to a militia—besides the history of our revolution—is actually found in the First Amendment’s right of assembly. You have a right to peaceable assembly under the First Amendment and your decision to exercise your rights under the Second Amendment doesn’t negate that.
Which is not to say that everything in that statute would be covered by this nexus of the First and Second Amendments. You don’t have a right to ‘interfere with, interrupt, or attempt to interfere with or interrupt government operations or a government proceeding’—if ‘interfere’ is interpreted as it is elsewhere in the U.S. Code, so that genuine First Amendment activity is protected.
We also think that there is a right to defend yourself in the Constitution that this infringes. Some say it is in the Second Amendment—and that can certainly be cited in support—but we would locate it in the Fifth. For instance, if a man is shooting at you, and the law purports to tell you that you are not allowed to shoot back, we believe that is depriving you of your right to life without due process of law. And if you have a right to defend yourself, then we think you equally have a right to hire people to defend you.
So, does it deprive churches of private security? Not by name—because that would violate the First Amendment’s religion clauses. But many churches don’t hire official security companies but rather just let a few volunteers protect their grounds, and that is likely to run afoul of this bill, should it become law. The effect of doing so is also to make protecting churches much more expensive—which inevitably means many churches won’t be able to afford this. This is being done less than a few days after an attempted mass shooting at Joel Osteen’s church in Houston, because of course. We don’t know whether the off-duty cop—who apparently stopped an attempted mass shooting by a transgender pro-Hamass activist—was even officially sanctioned by the Osteen’s church, but that case certainly highlights the need for churches to have security, as does the perennial problem of church burnings. Considering how often black churches are attacked, you would think Democrats wouldn’t want to burden their security.
So, it is definitely an assault on the right to form a militia. It also definitely seems to have the disproportionate effect of outlawing many common methods of securing churches. In other words, our analysis doesn’t make the claim this would disarm churches
wrong, just that they are glossing over the nuances. And frankly, we think the original piece sounding the alarm on this didn’t gloss over this. We believe this controversy started with a piece from something called ‘Protestia’—which promotes itself as a ‘polemical news site that is dedicated to providing Christian news and discernment in an age of widespread censorship’ and they dug into the law with enough detail to show you how they were making their argument:
twitchy.com