Not bare - that is going to the naked church!
What is this "naked church" to which you refer, Dr. Meyer? I am intrigued
I was critical of this case from the beginning. The matter should have been resolved through the legislature and not the courts.
Yes, I think the ban is wrong and unconstitutional. However, it's hard to make that argument in a court case. In this one, the plaintiff's claim was that his right to free expression was violated because he couldn't carry a gun to church.
The easy (even if it's cheap) rebuttal is "well, where in your religious creed does it say you have to be armed to worship? Nowhere? OK then." Plaintiff's attorneys seemed to lack a response to that.
What we were left with was a case capable of only setting bad precedent, which it did when quoted by the dissent in Moore v. Madigan.