Couple Ordered to Stop Holding Bible Study at Home Without Permit

[TitsMcGee]

SAN DIEGO -- A local pastor and his wife claim they were interrogated by a San Diego County official, who then threatened them with escalating fines if they continued to hold Bible studies in their home, 10News reported.

Attorney Dean Broyles of The Western Center For Law & Policy was shocked with what happened to the pastor and his wife.

Broyles said, "The county asked, 'Do you have a regular meeting in your home?' She said, 'Yes.' 'Do you say amen?' 'Yes.' 'Do you pray?' 'Yes.' 'Do you say praise the Lord?' 'Yes.'"

The county employee notified the couple that the small Bible study, with an average of 15 people attending, was in violation of County regulations, according to Broyles.

Broyles said a few days later the couple received a written warning that listed "unlawful use of land" and told them to "stop religious assembly or apply for a major use permit" -- a process that could cost tens of thousands of dollars.

"For churches and religious assemblies there's big parking concerns, there's environmental impact concerns when you have hundreds or thousands of people gathering. But this is a different situation, and we believe that the application of the religious assembly principles to this Bible study is certainly misplaced," said Broyles.

News of the case has rapidly spread across Internet blogs and has spurred various reactions.

Broyles said his clients have asked to stay anonymous until they give the county a demand letter that states by enforcing this regulation the county is violating their First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion.

Broyles also said this case has broader implications.

"If the county thinks they can shut down groups of 10 or 15 Christians meeting in a home, what about people who meet regularly at home for poker night? What about people who meet for Tupperware parties? What about people who are meeting to watch baseball games on a regular basis and support the Chargers?" Broyles asked.

Broyles and his clients plan to give the County their demand letter this week.

If the County refuses to release the pastor and his wife from obtaining the permit, they will consider a lawsuit in federal court.

Who knew you needed a permit to have like-minded individuals over to your home for a gathering.

[Scary Guy]

Who knew you needed a permit to have like-minded individuals over to your home for a gathering.

Fuck that, I mean they are morons for what they believe, but they have a right of peaceful assembly guaranteed by the first amendment (on top of freedom of religion which was stated in the article).

[Rev.Reverence]

*scratches San Diego off of list of possible places to move*

I Church at home, WAY more often than not.

3rd post...& I'll go there...what a bunch of fascist ass hats!

I REALLY hope that these peoples get this sorted out...no government in our Churches.

[Homicidalheathen]

I had a pagan friend go through something similar...I think the parks dept found out he was making money (spot rental for us campers as he has to rent portapoties and pay teachers) and wanted a piece of the pie. Its all about money. They just want a piece.

if he keeps the numbers down they leave him alone but they do watch now which is funny considering we are all nakid.

[TygerLili]

I'm thinking that maybe one of their neighbors is a police office, judge, etc. who is in some way inconvenienced by this, (no street parking left, extra noise or some such thing) who dug up this regulation and turned them in. Otherwise, I can't imagine why anyone would care if 15 people get together one day a week to talk about religion in a private home.

I would like to see the wording on the county regulation that is supposedly being violated.

[Scary Guy]

http://www.sandiego.gov/city-clerk/officia...docs/muni.shtml

http://www.amlegal.com/sandiego_county_ca/

I couldn't find anything.

no government in our Churches.

And no churches in our Government

[Rev.Reverence]

And no churches in our Government

It dosen't say that! (The Constitution) It sais something about no basing Laws on Religious context.

If I, Reverend Reverence C. R., wish to run for office, I may. YES, I am listed as a Church all by myself.

Aside from the fact that that comment was off topic.

Edited May 29, 2009 by Rev.Reverence

[Scary Guy]

It dosen't say that! (The Constitution) It sais something about no basing Laws on Religious context.

If I, Reverend Reverence C. R., wish to run for office, I may. YES, I am listed as a Church all by myself.

Aside from the fact that that comment was off topic.

I never said it did, but since you bring it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of...e_United_States

http://www.au.org/

http://www.theocracywatch.org/separation_church_state2.htm

[asphyxian_doll]

....>_>.....sick Baphomet on them....that'll do the trick.

[Shade Everdark]

I don't get the problem.

It's like D&D for God.

[gothkytten (2)]

like my dads said. everyone has to bitch about something...

[n0Mad]

As Scary Guy said, both freedom of religion and freedom of assembly are both protected by the First Amendment. Furthermore, a Supreme Court decision (have no idea which one) ruled that it is unlawful to require a permit or charge any fees to exercise our Constitutionally protected rights (*cough, ccw, cough*). So there's a whole lot of screwy going on with this story.

[gothkytten (2)]

As Scary Guy said, both freedom of religion and freedom of assembly are both protected by the First Amendment. Furthermore, a Supreme Court decision (have no idea which one) ruled that it is unlawful to require a permit or charge any fees to exercise our Constitutionally protected rights (*cough, ccw, cough*). So there's a whole lot of screwy going on with this story.

ccw? isnt that the guns thing? or did they change that to ccL?

[Scary Guy]

ccw? isnt that the guns thing? or did they change that to ccL?

CCW is the offense (carrying a concealed weapon) and the actual permit is a CWP (concealed weapons permit). A lot of people screw that up and I don't even know if that is right though, that's just what I've heard.

[gothkytten (2)]

CCW is the offense (carrying a concealed weapon) and the actual permit is a CWP (concealed weapons permit). A lot of people screw that up and I don't even know if that is right though, that's just what I've heard.

i understand. ill let ya know when i go get mine. working on getting one. dads said he wants me to have one for when i go to his shop in detroit. guess i need to buy a smaller gun... cant carry a 44 mag. with a 61/2 barrel. lol

Edited May 29, 2009 by gothkytten

[Scary Guy]

i understand. ill let ya know when i go get mine. working on getting one. dads said he wants me to have one for when i go to his shop in detroit. guess i need to buy a smaller gun... cant carry a 44 mag. with a 61/2 barrel. lol

Bullshit you can't. Just more regulation on their part I guess but I don't know of any laws regarding the actual size of guns.

Could always move to Ohio or Wyoming where open carry is legal. I think open carry is legal anyway however they just have laws that protect it (or other laws that reference it implying its legality).

http://www.opencarry.org/

target="_blank seems to be perfectly legal here without a permit to carry openly. Be aware though that they will screw with you because cops are like scared animals and tend to frighten easily. Also "Open carry is legal in Michigan, but choosing to do so in populated areas may result in being charged with disturbing the peace or even brandishing."

"Anomalous Open Carry States - In these states, open carry is generally lawful, but the state may lack preemption or there may be other significant restrictions." According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carry we exist in this category.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_t...state)#Michigan is also a source of good information.

Also "The word “firearm”, except as otherwise specifically defined in the statutes, shall be construed to include any weapon from which a dangerous projectile may be propelled by using explosives, gas or air as a means of propulsion, except any smooth bore rifle or handgun designed and manufactured exclusively for propelling BB’s not exceeding .177 calibre by means of spring, gas or air."

So this means that if you use a gun that is say spring loaded or sonic weapons, lasers, etc... would in theory be fine (although lasers aren't practical because they take too long to charge up and then recharge).

Edited May 29, 2009 by Scary Guy

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Scary... you have never held a .44 mag I will bet. I have never seen GothKytten's body... but I highly doubt she has one large enough to hide a .44 mag on.

If the size doesn't kill the idea... the weight of the thing will.

[Scary Guy]

Scary... you have never held a .44 mag I will bet. I have never seen GothKytten's body... but I highly doubt she has one large enough to hide a .44 mag on.

If the size doesn't kill the idea... the weight of the thing will.

If she can hold it up, shoot it properly, and hit her target I don't see why she shouldn't be allowed to. If it's her choice fine, then she can get a snub nose .38 or something.

I'll put that on my list of things to do. I've shot a .12 gauge, .20 gauge, .22 (in many forms, but it's basically a pellet gun IMO), and my father's .38 (he has a CWP). I'm pretty good about hitting my target too despite my visual impairment.

Also wow did this get off topic lol.

Edited May 29, 2009 by Scary Guy

[gothkytten (2)]

Bullshit you can't. Just more regulation on their part I guess but I don't know of any laws regarding the actual size of guns.

Could always move to Ohio or Wyoming where open carry is legal. I think open carry is legal anyway however they just have laws that protect it (or other laws that reference it implying its legality).

http://www.opencarry.org/

target="_blank seems to be perfectly legal here without a permit to carry openly. Be aware though that they will screw with you because cops are like scared animals and tend to frighten easily. Also "Open carry is legal in Michigan, but choosing to do so in populated areas may result in being charged with disturbing the peace or even brandishing."

"Anomalous Open Carry States - In these states, open carry is generally lawful, but the state may lack preemption or there may be other significant restrictions." According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carry we exist in this category.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_t...state)#Michigan is also a source of good information.

Also "The word “firearm”, except as otherwise specifically defined in the statutes, shall be construed to include any weapon from which a dangerous projectile may be propelled by using explosives, gas or air as a means of propulsion, except any smooth bore rifle or handgun designed and manufactured exclusively for propelling BB’s not exceeding .177 calibre by means of spring, gas or air."

So this means that if you use a gun that is say spring loaded or sonic weapons, lasers, etc... would in theory be fine (although lasers aren't practical because they take too long to charge up and then recharge).

no! i mean it would look silly to carry that big thing. i dont want to look like a cowgirl lol

[gothkytten (2)]

Scary... you have never held a .44 mag I will bet. I have never seen GothKytten's body... but I highly doubt she has one large enough to hide a .44 mag on.

If the size doesn't kill the idea... the weight of the thing will.

ha! i im a srtong girl. and im a great shot. i ws going to go with a 38 s, but the power of the 44 won my heart

[IsleofRhodesEnt]

*sigh*

Actually...the First amendment doesn't say anything ABOUT seperation of Church and State. Thats the largest mis-conception of American freedoms.

The First Amendment states the following

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

That line is collectively known as the Establishment Clause and the Free Exorcise Clause. What they ACTUALLY do is prohibit the establishment of a national religion by the Government and the support of one religion over another by the Government.

What it DOESN'T do is say that the Government has no right to have anything to do with Religious Establishments.

The Government has all right, by the First, to levy all legalized taxation, permits, fines, etc, against any Religious Institution or Establishment. The Government also has the right to pursue action against a Religious Institution or Establishment should such a organization actively and aggressively prohibit the free choices of any member, as long as it's on Government soil.

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."/quote]-Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black .

Also...the "Separation of Church and State" was only mentioned as such in a LETTER from Thomas Jefferson to a group of Baptists in Danbury Connecticut, and as such is not found in any official government documentation or bill. It's NOT IN THE AMENDMENT!!!! STOP MIS-QUOTING OUR RIGHTS!!!!

now..that say...I don't believe that a gathering of 15 people for bible study should be considered a Religious Institution or Establishment. I think that you should have at least 30-50 people for it to be considered to be an institution of anything.

Edited June 2, 2009 by IsleofRhodesEnt

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

The Government has all right, by the First, to levy all legalized taxation, permits, fines, etc, against any Religious Institution or Establishment. The Government also has the right to pursue action against a Religious Institution or Establishment should such a organization actively and aggressively prohibit the free choices of any member, as long as it's on Government soil.

Wrong. Religious institutions and establishments are tax exempt unless they actively and openly get involved in politics. The Government is expressly forbidden from penalizing Religious groups for any action that is expressly part of that religion, no matter where it takes place unless said action is done to or forced upon a minor.

I can qoute case after case from the Supreme Court to back up what I have said.

[Simon Bar Sinister]

I'm thinking that maybe one of their neighbors is a police office, judge, etc. who is in some way inconvenienced by this, (no street parking left, extra noise or some such thing) who dug up this regulation and turned them in. Otherwise, I can't imagine why anyone would care if 15 people get together one day a week to talk about religion in a private home.

I would like to see the wording on the county regulation that is supposedly being violated.

I would be willing to bet a few $$$ that the "problem", such as it is, lies somewhere along these lines.

[IsleofRhodesEnt]

Wrong. Religious institutions and establishments are tax exempt unless they actively and openly get involved in politics. The Government is expressly forbidden from penalizing Religious groups for any action that is expressly part of that religion, no matter where it takes place unless said action is done to or forced upon a minor.

I can qoute case after case from the Supreme Court to back up what I have said.

Go read your Supreme Court cases again....very explicitly please...and then come back to this topic. Religious institution and establishments are NOT exempt from taxation, levies, and fines. They may get BREAKS and multiple write-offs when it comes to Taxation, but they are NOT Exempt from it.

Taxation is NOT penalization..and levies and fines that are not based on their religious activities, but rather on property and other such means, are not penalization on their religious rights either. They happen to be penalizations on either misuse of property or not having permits, etc, to hold such meetings, establishments, etc. If your going to take that stance, then I take it you sided with David Koresh and his Branch Davidian sect in Waco all those years back???

and before you start ranting, Gaf, I've done tax work for several parishes in the Chicago Arch-Diocese. There are ALOT of write-offs, but there is NO full exemption from taxation.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

You should have read IRS Publication 557. Most religious groups are categorized as 501 ©(3) and are tax exempt. There is a form that needs to be filled out, (Form 1023) and they must file a 990,990EZ or 990-PF form every year.

Here is a nice guide to starting your own Church and it talks about being Tax exempt.

and my favorite qoute that I found...

"Although a church, its integrated auxillaries, or a convention or association of churches is not required to file Form 1023 to be exempt from Federal Income tax or to receive tax-deductible contributions, such an organization may find it advantageous to obtain recognition of exemption" -IRS Form 1023 (Rev. 9-98) Instructions, Schedule A, Churches, Instructions, Page 13.