Firearms at Church

[theoriginalavatar]

If this topic has been discussed previously, and I have missed it, my apologies to all.

What are your thoughts on firearms being brought to church?

Of course I refer to someone who is legally entitled to do so and not a criminal.

[LittleWyvern]

Let's at least get the topic started out right this time:

21.2.4

Firearms

Churches are dedicated for the worship of God and as havens from the cares and concerns of the world. The carrying of lethal weapons, concealed or otherwise, within their walls is inappropriate except as required by officers of the law.

My opinion? I agree, and not just because it's in the handbook. It just makes sense.

[Guest]

I hope that there are sane, trained people at church who are packing heat.

[Dravin]

It should be pointed out that some states have ways for property owners to opt out of allowing firearms onto their property. For example, Utah is one such state, anyone in Utah bringing a firearm (I suppose excepting a police officer) into (an LDS) Church is violating the law. Relevant information: Utah Department of Public Safety

But working with an assumption that everything is legal you run into the issue that the Church's policy is:

21.2.4 Firearms

Churches are dedicated for the worship of God and as havens from the cares and concerns of the world. The carrying of lethal weapons, concealed or otherwise, within their walls is inappropriate except as required by officers of the law.

So you have two questions, one general and one specific:

The general - Is it right (speaking morally not legally) to carry a firearm onto private property when the property owner has informed you they don't want you to do so even if you have a legal right to carry it there?

The specific - How much weight do you put on the Church's policy?

Edited February 22, 2012 by Dravin

[slamjet]

I know a couple of law enforcement officers who do not bring their firearm to church.

[LDSCubsFan]

Let's at least get the topic started out right this time:

My opinion? I agree, and not just because it's in the handbook. It just makes sense.

Yes, it makes sense, providing the kooks who want to bring their guns in to church and go nuts are going to follow the church's anti-gun rule.

[Guest]

I don't see this as a problem in areas where guns are common... But yes, I defer to the owner of the building.

[Bini]

So you have two questions, one general and one specific:

The general - Is it right (speaking morally not legally) to carry a firearm onto private property when the property owner has informed you they don't want you to do so even if you have a legal right to carry it there?

The specific - How much weight do you put on the Church's policy?

Good points!

[Bini]

Btw, yeh I think this horse has been hammered, I mean beaten to death already.. lol

[LDSCubsFan]

It should be pointed out that some states have ways for property owners to opt out of allowing firearms onto their property. For example, Utah is one such state, anyone in Utah bringing a firearm (I suppose excepting a police officer) into (an LDS) Church is violating the law. Relevant information: Utah Department of Public Safety

But working with an assumption that everything is legal you run into the issue that the Church's policy is:

So you have two questions, one general and one specific:

The general - Is it right (speaking morally not legally) to carry a firearm onto private property when the property owner has informed you they don't want you to do so even if you have a legal right to carry it there?

The specific - How much weight do you put on the Church's policy?

Good points. I wouldn't bring a gun into church either, whether I had a concealed weapons permit or not. If the church has a policy against it, it's a no-brainer: you don't bring your gun to church. Still, I hate it when government makes it so that they are the only ones allowed to be armed in certain places, especially if it is privately owned property.

[RMGuy]

Here's an interesting conundrum for you. We are supposed to follow our leaders council, and our leaders are supposed to use the Spirit in interpreting the handbook. My Stake President has expressly requested that I carry while at church.

-RM

[theoriginalavatar]

I thank you all for your comments. God bless.

[Tyler90AZ]

I think there should always be four designated Priesthood holders with pistols in the building. Although I obey the policy. Just last year I read that a Bishop got killed during Sunday services.

With that said, at this time the churches policy is clearly more logical then mine.

Edited February 22, 2012 by Tyler90AZ

[NeuroTypical]

This is always a hotly debated subject in LDS conceal-carry circles. Two sides - those who see the policy and don't carry, and those who see the policy and don't mind being "inappropriate". The one side uses phrases like "the priesthood is more powerful than a pistol". The other side mentions news items like Tyler90AZ mentioned.

And yes, I know several members who carry at church with the express consent of their bishops and stake presidents. Heck, I once had a bishop who had his permit.

I've been on both sides of the subject. Currently on the "don't bring it to church" side, but I may flip back in a few months here, after a felon I helped put behind bars is released.

[kayne]

the second amendment inspired by God says i have a right to keep and bear arms. not a right to keep and bear arms except for....*insert list of exceptions* nor did our founders ever express a list of exceptions and were very much for an armed people gun limits didnt even start till the 60s or 70s as i recall with the federal gun control act. i suppose being locked in prison is one logical exception but then again that is ya know PRISON.

ill grant God one exception the temple. only cause that is the one place He claims He will come and visit or take a more direct role of protecting. So i will trust Him on that area. but the church buildings are as fallable as any other building and afford no extra protection.

the church handbook might say otherwise but i sincerely disagree and argue the people that wrote that handbook have not studied our constitution which is a document The Lord takes direct credit for establishing by wise men He raised up for that purpose. so I take the constitution as hand and hand with Holy Scripture it is the 5th standard work it is the only other work we know of with His printed words on it. i mean God flat out takes credit for it. its basically HIS DIRECT WORK.

an armed people are a safe people.

so yea im going to go with The Lord on this one and the founders of our country....a right to keep and bear arms with no exceptions is the proper answer.

[FunkyTown]

so yea im going to go with The Lord on this one and the founders of our country....a right to keep and bear arms with no exceptions is the proper answer.

Kayne? I'm unsure you actually understand the Constitution. Let me explain:

The right to keep arms is sacrosanct. This is true.

The church is privately owned. As private property, they can ask for any number of concessions on your part. Including leaving behind your weapons. They have asked this.

If you aren't willing to obey the leadership in this because you trust them, at least trust in their rights of private ownership.

[kayne]

Kayne? I'm unsure you actually understand the Constitution. Let me explain:

The right to keep arms is sacrosanct. This is true.

The church is privately owned. As private property, they can ask for any number of concessions on your part. Including leaving behind your weapons. They have asked this.

If you aren't willing to obey the leadership in this because you trust them, at least trust in their rights of private ownership.

true...however the church is supposed to be Gods church. God clearly spelled out in our supreme law of the land the issue concerning the right to keep and bear arms therefore the church appears to be contradicting this right which God established.

ill chalk it up to a case of so many not fully understand the constitution. poor thing is barely taught in school anymore.

the tricky thing here is the second amendment sort of stands alone. it has to be handled slightly different. you see if we allow places to just put up gun free zones everywhere the question is where does it end? the whole country under this logic can be a gun free zone and therefore nullify the second amendment.

furthermore why can the church or any other private property infringe on my rights? but i cant infringe on theirs? you see in this case the right of private property is overuling the second amendment. but the second amendment is ultimately a guard for private property along with being a guard to all other rights. so in such cases the second amendment trumps all other rights because it is in fact the very guard to the entire constitution. you see when it all hits the fan and america goes falling its last great defense is a well armed people who are preferably moral and have a good understanding of the country and constitution though i do admit without those kinds of people the last great defense is ultimately futile.

so sorry the church is completely wrong in this instance. nor do i have any desire to respect their request.

but there are ultimately three final guards to the constitution. the second amendment, the first amendment, and a well educated people on the subject of republics and our founding and constitution. they are all pretty equal but free speech is pointless if the king has all the guns. a revolution is pointless without wise and educated and moral God fearing people that can reestablish a proper order. and these people are useless without the freedom to speak and defend themselves. however like our three branches of government one has the most power congress and the second amendment respectively.

there is a clear and solid reason politicians who are normally out to screw us are normally very anti gun. think about it.

ill put it this way. we live in more fear of our government more than they do of us the people. until this reverses nothing changes it only gets worse. you know the best way to strike fear into a group of scumbag leaders(aka tyrants aka those opposed to liberty)? guns....freedom of speech and religion...and a well educated people. nerfing any of these three is destructive to all things known as liberty.

Edited February 23, 2012 by kayne
sorry various edits and typo fixes

[mirkwood]

There are five police officers in my ward. Four are active and two are always armed.

Private property ownership and the right to make rules on that property trumps your right to carry a firearm. If I tell you that your weapon is not welcome on my private property, you have no right to bear your weapon on my property.

I find it interesting that there have been bishops and stake presidents who havce allowed/encouraged certain members of thier ward/stake to continue to carry a firearm.

[MarginOfError]

the church handbook might say otherwise but i sincerely disagree and argue the people that wrote that handbook have not studied our constitution which is a document The Lord takes direct credit for establishing by wise men He raised up for that purpose. so I take the constitution as hand and hand with Holy Scripture it is the 5th standard work it is the only other work we know of with His printed words on it. i mean God flat out takes credit for it. its basically HIS DIRECT WORK.

If God could so blatantly mess up with the following, I'm not going to rule out that he might have messed up a few other things, too.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

[Dravin]

the whole country under this logic can be a gun free zone and therefore nullify the second amendment.

Only if the whole country is private property.

furthermore why can the church or any other private property infringe on my rights?

What right? The right to be on my private property? You have a right to bear arms not a right to trespass and that is essentially what you are claiming. Nobody who refuses you entry onto their private property while you are in a possession of a firearm is infringing on your right to bear arms. It does not deny you your possession of your firearm, it denies you entry onto my property.

What you claim is on par with someone claiming that I can't kick you off my property if you enter it and start screaming at my wife because that would be infringing on your right to free speech. Which is nonsensical.

[MarginOfError]

This is always a hotly debated subject in LDS conceal-carry circles. Two sides - those who see the policy and don't carry, and those who see the policy and don't mind being "inappropriate". The one side uses phrases like "the priesthood is more powerful than a pistol". The other side mentions news items like Tyler90AZ mentioned.

And yes, I know several members who carry at church with the express consent of their bishops and stake presidents. Heck, I once had a bishop who had his permit.

I've been on both sides of the subject. Currently on the "don't bring it to church" side, but I may flip back in a few months here, after a felon I helped put behind bars is released.

And this is where I think reasonable exception to policy (ie, adaptations based on local need) come into play.

[FunkyTown]

You really need to take a stand on this, Kayne. Clearly, you understand that this is vital.

So what you need to do is go to the White House. With your gun. When they tell you you aren't allowed to bring it inside, make a big fuss. Refuse to hand it over. Quote the constitution.

Come back and tell us how that goes.

true...however the church is supposed to be Gods church. God clearly spelled out in our supreme law of the land the issue concerning the right to keep and bear arms therefore the church appears to be contradicting this right which God established.

ill chalk it up to a case of so many not fully understand the constitution. poor thing is barely taught in school anymore.

the tricky thing here is the second amendment sort of stands alone. it has to be handled slightly different. you see if we allow places to just put up gun free zones everywhere the question is where does it end? the whole country under this logic can be a gun free zone and therefore nullify the second amendment.

furthermore why can the church or any other private property infringe on my rights? but i cant infringe on theirs? you see in this case the right of private property is overuling the second amendment. but the second amendment is ultimately a guard for private property along with being a guard to all other rights. so in such cases the second amendment trumps all other rights because it is in fact the very guard to the entire constitution. you see when it all hits the fan and america goes falling its last great defense is a well armed people who are preferably moral and have a good understanding of the country and constitution though i do admit without those kinds of people the last great defense is ultimately futile.

so sorry the church is completely wrong in this instance. nor do i have any desire to respect their request.

but there are ultimately three final guards to the constitution. the second amendment, the first amendment, and a well educated people on the subject of republics and our founding and constitution. they are all pretty equal but free speech is pointless if the king has all the guns. a revolution is pointless without wise and educated and moral God fearing people that can reestablish a proper order. and these people are useless without the freedom to speak and defend themselves. however like our three branches of government one has the most power congress and the second amendment respectively.

there is a clear and solid reason politicians who are normally out to screw us are normally very anti gun. think about it.

ill put it this way. we live in more fear of our government more than they do of us the people. until this reverses nothing changes it only gets worse. you know the best way to strike fear into a group of scumbag leaders(aka tyrants aka those opposed to liberty)? guns....freedom of speech and religion...and a well educated people. nerfing any of these three is destructive to all things known as liberty.

[theoriginalavatar]

Let it be known to all...I am a HUGE advocate of gun rights. Perhaps the biggest here. You can call me Mr. 2nd Amendment.

[Blackmarch]

If this topic has been discussed previously, and I have missed it, my apologies to all.

What are your thoughts on firearms being brought to church?

Of course I refer to someone who is legally entitled to do so and not a criminal.

If the leadership has asked them not to, then they shouldn't.

If they are required to have them due to their vocation then i have no problem at all.

If they are registered to legally carry firearms (and there hasn't been any request not to bring them in), they probably shouldn't... but as long as it's concealed i'm not going to fuss over it.

If it's an area where folks need to have firearms, then the leadership can improvise for whatever's appropriate.

[HoosierGuy]

The idea of guns in churches, any church, dose not compute in my head. When I even see this discuses I think of insane asylums. It's a crazy and bad idea. No, guns should not be allowed in any church. This is 2012, not the mythical Old West.