Guns at Church

@B00ger when you have a church, exactly whose property is it? Taking the question further, how open to the public at large is it?
 
B00ger said:
As an aside, but in my opinion a private business or a church that posts a no-gun sign is not infringing upon my rights as I still have the freedom of association. Or in this case, the freedom if disassociation. I am not forced to disarm, I have to choose to in order to receive their services which can be found other places.

If Chad invites me to his house for a BBQ, but I am vegan, he isn’t infringing on my rights to eat as I please or oppose meat as I have no duty or obligation to take part.

What would be an infringement is if I were to knowingly and willfully break the rules of a property owner by partaking in a behavior that they have forbidden on their property.

Does this mean I support anti-gun signs? Absolutely not. But I do differentiate between me having my rights infringed upon and me having to respect the rights of others on their own property.

I think it is very important that we are clear, or at least have a strong idea what an “infringement” is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You bring up some great points B00ger and I can agree on the private property, private homeowner, private church setting, etc. They should all be able to lay down guidelines on what they choose to allow on their property. I would defend that right but would also make my personal choices regarding my visit there.

My problem lies in government automatically infringing on the rights of citizens into a church.
 
noway2 said:
@B00ger when you have a church, exactly whose property is it? Taking the question further, how open to the public at large is it?
Click to expand...

Mostly depends on the church, but the physical building is often owned and operated under a board of directors on behalf of the members or through a grant of an owning party.

As far as it’s operating hours that is also a decision of the church management. Most decisions, such as one in regards to banning guns would be brought up by members of the church (actual members, not just visitors who come a lot) and then go before the church elders in smaller churches, or to the church management in larger churches like United Methodist, Catholic and the like.

If by being “open to the public” by how open they are to allowing people in then it’s a discussion of visitor/member. Anyone is allowed to visit most churches. Not sure of any that ban certain visitors. But membership in churches is handled a little differently. In my personal churches membership is something you request and then the church members at large vote to allow you in. Some churches it’s far more rigorous a process.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
scottr said:
I agree, I can choose to partake or not but the law telling me I have to is not in their rights or authority.
Click to expand...

Well, it is a property owners right to tell you how to behave on their property or you transfer from guest to trespasser. It’s no longer whether they have the right to ban you from carrying, but their right to ban you from their property. I could legally ban red heads from my house.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
concepthomes1 said:
So, I head up our Church security team. I *was* the only one who carried at the time so it wasn't a surprise when our Pastor talked to me about it.

The biggest hurdle I'm facing right now is: folks who may legally be allowed to CC a handgun but because of their odd personalities, I'd prefer they not. In the event of any sort of situation, those are not the kind of people I'd want to interfere with any sort of de-escalation attempts.

We held a half-day seminar at our facility with a Captain from the Matthews PD just to get their take and position on hostile church situations (this was before the TX shooting). This one fellow in our meeting asked the Captain, "I've always heard that dead men tell no tales so even if the bad guy is incapacitated, should we still shoot to kill?"

I about fainted after that. Quite literally, he's the ONE guy I'd NOT want to be carrying but we really don't have a recourse against him carrying unless we post the Church building.
Click to expand...
Well you shoot to stop the threat as fast as possible. You don’t technically shoot to kill. Stopping the threat can result in the criminals death, as typically the fastest and most reliable way to take down a threat is hitting the vital organs. Their possible death is just the result of you defending yourself and others the most effective way possible.
 
B00ger said:
Well, it is a property owners right to tell you how to behave on their property or you transfer from guest to trespasser. It’s no longer whether they have the right to ban you from carrying, but their right to ban you from their property. I could legally ban red heads from my house.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

There is a huge difference when the State says you have to ask. What if they say you have to get specific permission at grocery stores? Gas stations? Pretty much kills the ability to conceal carry, as well as forcing you to have a discussion with lots of people that either don’t care (best case) or don’t want to know or deal it (normal case). The rabid antis already have their signs up.

If a church wants to post a sign, fine, but what SC is doing is not a property rights issue. That is covered by signage.
 
JimP42 said:
There is a huge difference when the State says you have to ask. What if they say you have to get specific permission at grocery stores? Gas stations? Pretty much kills the ability to conceal carry, as well as forcing you to have a discussion with lots of people that either don’t care (best case) or don’t want to know or deal it (normal case). The rabid antis already have their signs up.

If a church wants to post a sign, fine, but what SC is doing is not a property rights issue. That is covered by signage.
Click to expand...

I was not answering the question from the point of view of someone in SC as I am a pastor in NC. As far as the State requiring it, I agree with you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I agree that the owner's private property rights trump a non-owner's 2A rights. As well as a host of others; I'm not hostile to religion, but if I wanted to prohibit the distribution of religious literature on my property, the law should allow me to do so.

The difference in NC is that if you show up barefoot at a restaurant that says "no shoes, no service", then they can tell you to leave, and if you do, no law has been broken. If you don't leave, it's just a "trespass after warning" charge. But if they post a no-guns sign, then you've committed a gun violation as soon as you step inside. "No guns" should be treated the same as "no dogs" or "remove hat before entering the bank". About 2-3 years ago, you would lose your permit for it, but now it's "just" a $500 ticket.
 
JimP42 said:
There is a huge difference when the State says you have to ask. What if they say you have to get specific permission at grocery stores? Gas stations? Pretty much kills the ability to conceal carry, as well as forcing you to have a discussion with lots of people that either don’t care (best case) or don’t want to know or deal it (normal case). The rabid antis already have their signs up.

If a church wants to post a sign, fine, but what SC is doing is not a property rights issue. That is covered by signage.
Click to expand...

Agreed. IMO, they should either post a sign or allow it. Me having to ask permission defeats the purpose of concealed carry, since I have to "out" myself to be able to do it.
 
MostWanted said:
I agree that the owner's private property rights trump a non-owner's 2A rights. As well as a host of others; I'm not hostile to religion, but if I wanted to prohibit the distribution of religious literature on my property, the law should allow me to do so.

The difference in NC is that if you show up barefoot at a restaurant that says "no shoes, no service", then they can tell you to leave, and if you do, no law has been broken. If you don't leave, it's just a "trespass after warning" charge. But if they post a no-guns sign, then you've committed a gun violation as soon as you step inside. "No guns" should be treated the same as "no dogs" or "remove hat before entering the bank". About 2-3 years ago, you would lose your permit for it, but now it's "just" a $500 ticket.
Click to expand...

Technically, the law does allow you to prohibit the distribution of religious literature on your property. If you post a sign that states so, and a Jehovahs Witness knocks, you can inform them that they are trespassing and they have had notice, failure to leave immediately will result in the police being called. Same as anything.
 
B00ger said:
Technically, the law does allow you to prohibit the distribution of religious literature on your property. If you post a sign that states so, and a Jehovahs Witness knocks, you can inform them that they are trespassing and they have had notice, failure to leave immediately will result in the police being called. Same as anything.
Click to expand...
Busting on the Jehovah Witness I see. Hmmmm.
 
Last edited:
MostWanted said:
The difference in NC is that if you show up barefoot at a restaurant that says "no shoes, no service", then they can tell you to leave, and if you do, no law has been broken. If you don't leave, it's just a "trespass after warning" charge. But if they post a no-guns sign, then you've committed a gun violation as soon as you step inside. "No guns" should be treated the same as "no dogs" or "remove hat before entering the bank". About 2-3 years ago, you would lose your permit for it, but now it's "just" a $500 ticket.
Click to expand...
Remember that in NC the posting needs to be "conspicuous" which as far as I know has never been defined in terms of legal requirements. Of course there is the dictionary definition, but if you didn't see the sign it obviously wasn't conspicuous.

I don't agree with the illogic that says guns are any different than any other object you may have on or about ones self. Of course I've also argued this fact with libtards and they just resort to, "if you can't see why guns are different then I can't help you."
 
BlackGun said:
Not what I said. Change it just slightly to meet your own needs. Oh well, gotta do why you gotta do. Bye Felicia.
Click to expand...
Ok, in all seriousness. In effect you said that the idea of being around a large number of armed individuals makes you uncomfortable, claiming that it is their lack of some kind of training or other knowledge guarantee that makes you uncomfortable.

What would you propose as a solution?
 
Last edited:
This how it was implemented locally at a large church after allowing the congregation to address it.

1. Over a dozen ushers/greeters went thru or had their concealed carry. All had to prove their skills as well.
2. Plan was implemented with the help of local LEA.
3. All ushers on duty carry under a closed jacket. No removal of jackets on site with gun visible.
4. Six people are carrying each Sunday. All knowing where each is to be stationed in event of a attack.
5. All carrying parties complete yearly training and demonstrate skills.
6. This may not be fact but I heard only level 2 or above retention.
I’m sure there is more but this is all I was told over lunch by one usher.
 
By the way. Many of the women in the church were ready to bolt if it was open to everyone. Not my congregation. It’s a private venue. It’s their right to make this decision. I like it.

Mines in the car, truck, and van everyday. Never in the wife’s car. She fears for her grandchildren’s lives from negligent discharge more than terror/carjacking. It’s her car, I respect that. I have guns all over the house out of reach and strategically located with enough ammo for a long, long time. I will not have to load a mag for a couple days of spray and pray.
 
Yes, I too love it when people infringe upon themselves in the sake of safety. Makes life easier if you are willing to let others be responsible for your own wellbeing as opposed to taking a personal responsibility.

I wonder if those women, or even this BlackGun FUDD himself understands that concealed means concealed, and people carry around them daily whether it tickles their fancy or not.
 
And since we are doing "by the ways" as opposed to just editing posts like civilized people...I fully support churches, clubs, whatever in organizing for their defense...but if that organization includes a line of exclusivity then its a no go. They can have whatever plan they want for training and posting security and I think that's great...but the moment you say "since we do this you can no longer defend yourself and you have to rely on someone else" then the game is over. You are just a sheep at that point and painting it any other way is just cowardly.
 
Good points. Much more intelligent response than some of these changes in wording to fit the narrative. Some of the people on here’s remarks are quite disturbing and alienate the gun community. Many of my friends are democrats who vote and carry. Calling them dumbicrats and libatards is plain reckless. Because they vote to help others or not let 1% have 82% of the countries wealth does not make them dumb. I’m not a party guy. I vote on issues, not what daddy did. My father led the fight for gun rights and rights of divorced men and I thank him for that. But he also gave his hard earned money in big chunks to keep good ole boys in charge.
 
BlackGun said:
Good points. Much more intelligent response than some of these changes in wording to fit the narrative. Some of the people on here’s remarks are quite disturbing and alienate the gun community. Many of my friends are democrats who vote and carry. Calling them dumbicrats and libatards is plain reckless. Because they vote to help others or not let 1% have 82% of the countries wealth does not make them dumb. I’m not a party guy. I vote on issues, not what daddy did. My father led the fight for gun rights and rights of divorced men and I thank him for that. But he also gave his hard earned money in big chunks to keep good ole boys in charge.
Click to expand...

Good for you, and completely irrelevant to this thread. If you wish to start a "democrats like guns too" thread please do so, I am sure it would be quite enlightening/entertaining. As would any discussion on how letting people keep more of their own money is a bad thing.

Also, understand that this is a private gun forum. You will find zero desire here from most people to appease or alienate the gun community.
 
Last edited:
BlackGun said:
By the way. Many of the women in the church were ready to bolt if it was open to everyone. Not my congregation. It’s a private venue. It’s their right to make this decision. I like it.
Click to expand...

So is it posted that you are not to bring a weapon in if not the 6? What is the response if someone does (just CC inside.)?
 
So, people carrying concealed around you are nutjobs, but you've got multiple unsecured firearms around your house and cars, and have grandchildren running around...

And you think democrats want to help people...

Anything else the DU trolls want you to share?


Back on topic, if I'm at a church, I'm carrying. I give no poops about how you it makes you feel.
 
Last edited:
BlackGun said:
Many of my friends are democrats who vote and carry. Calling them dumbicrats and libatards is plain reckless.
Click to expand...
I will say this as I used the term libtard: there is virtually NOTHING that I support of the R policy platform. I have said that the word republican is amongst the most foul words I know. I’ve said it gives me a rash. Still as long as the Dumb-o-crats make GUN RESTRICTIONS part of THEIR platform, I will vote against them.
 
captcave said:
So, people carrying concealed around you are nutjobs, but you've got multiple unsecured firearms around your house and cars, and have grandchildren running around...

And you think democrats want to help people...

Anything else the DU trolls want you to share?


Back on topic, if I'm at a church, I'm carrying. I give no poops about how you it makes you feel.
Click to expand...
See how they make this stuff up as they go. Unbelievable.
 
Maybe if you keep repeating that, maybe, just maybe someone will believe you.
 
JimP42 said:
I am sure there are others carrying in his church and nobody will likely ever know. The ladies can be blissfully ignorant but safer.
Click to expand...
Misquoted again. Post says it’s not my church. Please read carefully before posting. SMH
 
BlackGun said:
Misquoted again. Post says it’s not my church. Please read carefully before posting. SMH
Click to expand...

His point is valid, despite your objection.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
B00ger said:
If Chad invites me to his house for a BBQ, but I am vegan
Click to expand...
:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

Did you see this @Chdamn ? What the? All those times at Dickies, Country BBQ, Clark's, and BBQ Joe's. Did you pay attention to what he ordered? I can't remember. Could he have been bringing tofu to all of those lunches and pretending to order something after he had called in ahead of our meetup and told the restaurant what his plan was? Did he smother his tofu in BBQ sauce to throw us off? Hmmmm.

:D:D
 
noway2 said:
I will say this as I used the term libtard: there is virtually NOTHING that I support of the R policy platform. I have said that the word republican is amongst the most foul words I know. I’ve said it gives me a rash. Still as long as the Dumb-o-crats make GUN RESTRICTIONS part of THEIR platform, I will vote against them.
Click to expand...
Agreed, yet too verbose for me. I'll stick with the terms DemoRats and Repubicans.
and believe we should be a Constitutional Libertarian republic with minimal federal gubmnt shackles. Let me choose who needs help.
If you think I'm a selfish jerk, I can be. We've also moved folk into our home for shelter, food and training, adopted a couple kids, moved a family of six in for months when mom had a medical crisis.
Let ME choose: where MY money goes, how my sons are raised, what bums I refuse to give money to, etc, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom