STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT

COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

________________________________________________________________________

EDINA COMMUNITY

LUTHERAN CHURCH,

PASTOR ERIK STRAND,

PASTOR PAMELA FICKENSCHER,

and R. DANIEL RASMUS,

COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs,

Court File No. ___________

v. Case Type: Other Civil

STATE OF MINNESOTA,

Defendant.

________________________________________________________________________

This is a declaratory judgment action under Minn. Stat. § 555 challenging the constitutionality of a statute of the State of Minnesota (“the State”) known as the “conceal-carry” law. For their Complaint, plaintiffs allege as follows:

1. Plaintiff Edina Community Lutheran Church (“the Church”) is a religious corporation incorporated under Minnesota law and is a congregation of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. The Church’s Statement of Mission and Purpose, found in its Constitution, includes a commitment to peacemaking and nonviolence in all relationships.

2. The Church acts through congregational meetings, through its pastors, and through a Council of Ministers. Plaintiffs Pastor Erik Strand and Pastor Pamela Fickenscher are the Church’s pastors, duly called by the Church and designated by its Constitution as the Church’s spiritual leaders. Plaintiff R. Daniel Rasmus is a member of the Church and is the president of the Council of Ministers.

3. On April 28, 2003, the Minnesota Legislature passed, and the Governor signed into law, the so-called Minnesota Citizens’ Personal Protection Act of 2003 (“the Act”), commonly referred to as the “conceal-carry law.” The Act takes effect on May 28, 2003. A copy of the Act is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

4. The Act purports to regulate the carrying of firearms in “private establishments,” defined as “a building, structure, or portion thereof that is owned, leased, controlled, or operated by a nongovernmental entity for a nongovernmental purpose.” The Act prevents owners and operators of private establishments from prohibiting firearms in parking areas. The Act further provides that persons with permits may carry firearms in private establishments unless the owner or operator “prominently” posts specified “conspicuous” signs at all entrances and “personally informs” persons of the ban on firearms and “demands compliance.”

5. By the Act’s definition, the Church owns and operates a private establishment. The Church owns, controls, and operates real property on 54^th Street in the City of Edina. The property includes a church building, a contiguous parking area, a parsonage, and a playground for children. The Church sometimes uses the parking area for worship. Within the church building are a sanctuary, a narthex, a fellowship hall, administrative offices, a youth recreational room, a room for quiet prayer, Sunday School and child care rooms, and a columbarium (a final resting place for cremated remains).

6. The Act further purports to prohibit landlords from restricting the lawful carry or possession of firearms by tenants or their guests. The Church is a landlord. As part of its religious mission, the Church leases Sunday School classrooms to a licensed child care center. The Act restricts the knowing possession of firearms at licensed child care centers, but the restrictions apply only during the time children are present and do not in any event apply if the director of the child care center permits firearms to be possessed therein.

7. The Act further purports to prevent employers from prohibiting the lawful carry or possession of firearms in a parking area. The Church is an employer. As part of its religious mission, the Church employs pastors, a mission coordinator, an administrator, and part-time personnel. The Church’s employees use the Church’s parking area.

8. On May 15, 2003, the Church, acting with the spiritual counsel of the Pastors and through the Council of Ministers, prohibited firearms from all of the Church’s real property, including the parking area.

9. On May 18, 2003, the Church, acting after an open forum of the congregation’s members and through the Council of Ministers, chose to notify those entering the Church’s property of the prohibition of firearms by a sign at the entrance of the parking lot. The sign will read as follows: “Blessed are the peacemakers. Firearms are prohibited in this place of sanctuary.” The Church further declined to comply with the specific requirements of the Act, finding that the Act’s allowance of firearms in parking areas and its requirements of signage and personal notification conflict with the Church’s mission and worship practices. The Church further authorized the filing and service of this Complaint.

10. Plaintiffs sincerely believe, based on their religion, that the presence of firearms on Church property, including in the Church parking lot, is inconsistent with their commitment to peacemaking and non-violence. Plaintiffs further sincerely believe, based on their religion, that the method they have chosen to notify persons of the Church’s prohibition of firearms furthers the Church’s mission and worship practices.

11. The Act controls and interferes with plaintiffs’ rights of conscience and burdens the exercise of plaintiffs’ religious beliefs by: (a) preventing the Church from prohibiting firearms in the Church parking area; (b) preventing the Church as employer from prohibiting its employees from carrying or possessing firearms in the Church’s parking area; (c) preventing the Church as landlord from prohibiting firearms in leased space; (d) requiring the Church to communicate its prohibition of firearms by specific words on a specific form of sign at specific locations, all dictated by the State rather than chosen by the Church; and (e) requiring the Church to modify its customary welcome of worshipers and other persons entering the Church building to include personal notification of the Church’s prohibition of firearms and a demand for compliance.

12. The State’s interest in controlling and interfering with plaintiffs’ rights of conscience and burdening the exercise of plaintiffs’ religious beliefs is not overriding or compelling.

13. The Act is not the least restrictive means for effectuating the State’s interest.

14. Accordingly, the Act violates Article I, Section 16 of the Minnesota Constitution.

Wherefore, plaintiffs request that the Court issue an order:

1. Declaring that the Act as applied to plaintiffs violates the Minnesota Constitution;

2. Declaring that the Church may prohibit the possession of firearms in its parking lot;

3. Declaring that the Church may communicate the Church’s prohibition on the possession of firearms on Church property by such words, and by such methods, as the Church sees fit; and

4. Granting such other and further relief as is just and proper.

Dated: May 20, 2003 ______________________________ David L. Lillehaug (#63186)

Fredrikson & Byron, P.A.

4000 Pillsbury Center

200 South Sixth Street

Minneapolis, MN 55402

Phone: 612-492-7000

Fax: 612-492-7077

E-mail: dlillehaug@fredlaw.com

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

Acknowledgment

The undersigned hereby acknowledges that costs, disbursements, and reasonable attorney fees may be awarded pursuant to Minn. Stat. Section 549.211, subd. 2.

______________________________

David L. Lillehaug (#63186)

#2803396\1