I just wanted to add that we have to keep focus on the "church" carry thing. It's another deceptive discretion created by an anti gun media. There are no laws against carrying in a "church", other than the standard property owner language that enables private owners the ability to ban weapons at their locations.
What Sen Goolsby's bill does is create an exception to existing law banning firearms from educational facilities (schools). What he's saying is that law bans firearms from schools, but some churches technically can be included if they have an educational program. The problem is that some churches also run a school, therefore weapons are banned from the property. His bill would allow for weapons on site if no "school" activities (classes, etc) are going on at the time. Another scenario would be for churches who conduct their services at an education facility during non-scheduled class times, like at night.
His bill would allow people to carry guns to those services in areas where they would normally be banned from bringing them due to the "school" laws. It's not about "church" carry, per se, but about being able to carry on educational facilities if the facility is being used solely for a church service at the time. Also, he's trying to protect people from prosecution if they carry at a church that happens to run a school on their grounds by allowing for carry there if no school activities are scheduled at the time.
As it stands right now, any of us could technically be prosecuted simply by attending a Wed night service while armed if the church happened to also run a school, even if the school isn't being used that night.
