Armed and ready for a confrontation... with my pastor

AFCop said:

Once again a bar is set and OCDO delivers... great advise and examples. Much appreciated, please don't stop... I will start to compile my presentation. Of course, a report on the back end will be provided.

Click to expand...

[h=1]Colorado Shooting Highlights Churches' New Emphasis on Security[/h]The woman, an armed volunteer, shot and killed the gunman. New Life's pastor credited her with saving 100 lives.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/1...highlights-churches-new-emphasis-on-security/

A congregation at prayer, hearing God’s Word preached and responding by singing God’s Word should be the safest place in the world. According to a story in Christianity Today, however, in 2012 it was not. Security experts describe them as “soft targets,” places where criminals (whether the insane, thieves, or those seeking to settle a score) can expect to find little or no resistance.
http://heidelblog.net/2013/07/deaths-from-church-shootings-rose-36-in-2012/

Reading through today's replies, a thought came to mind, which saddens me, but there it was nonetheless.

Is this an issue of income for the church? Are the nay-sayers big givers? I hate for it to be the case, but all too often, this does influence policy in churches. You may or may not have any information on that possible pressure for the pastor, but it may not be bad to very softly slip in - perhaps with the examples of how being completely unarmed has resulted in tragedy in the past - that plain and simple, it's the RIGHT thing to do, even if there is a cost to do so.

Many years ago in my church, we were clearly led to change some of the ways we did things. It was not a close call, the entire church leadership was behind the changes. We had a meeting during which a small number of self-proclaimed representatives delivered an ultimatum, if we implemented the changes, they would leave. It was one of those "is this a trick question?" kind of moments... with such clear direction, what were we supposed to do, stop all progress and deny our divine leading to accommodate a handful of folks who enjoyed the status quo? Of course not. Our response was, thanks for sharing, we hope you can find a church home where you are more comfortable...

Just some thoughts, hope not directly applicable to your situation.

TFred

The perception is that they can control who carries through various administrative policies. That may control who open carries, but who knows who will be concealing in violation of policy? Are they going frisk everyone on the way in as the prelude music is playing? My point is that the policy will only limit the good guys and will do nothing to restrict the bad guys or even the stupid guys. The stupid guys who supposedly have no training would still be able to conceal and there is nothing anyone could do about it, short of metal detectors in the foyer.

Sent from an app instead of a browser simply because browsers on mobile devices are incapable of basic usability by design so that people can sell apps.

independence said:

The perception is that they can control who carries through various administrative policies. That may control who open carries, but who knows who will be concealing in violation of policy? Are they going frisk everyone on the way in as the prelude music is playing? My point is that the policy will only limit the good guys and will do nothing to restrict the bad guys or even the stupid guys. The stupid guys who supposedly have no training would still be able to conceal and there is nothing anyone could do about it, short of metal detectors in the foyer.

Sent from an app instead of a browser simply because browsers on mobile devices are incapable of basic usability by design so that people can sell apps.

Click to expand...

To the point.

That which is not seen, is unseen until it is not.

Nothing changes, until it changes - by then a do-over is not possible.

Get it right the first time.....it is much cheaper that way.

As an elder in my church, I'd love to see OC freely adopted and accepted. If we were to implement such a change spontaneously, it would cause no small amount of discussion and consternation, including from the leadership.

We currently have one elder who CC at all times, for security of the weekly collection and of the congregants. I will be joining him soon. This practice is currently private, but we'll eventually start making it known. The road to OC will be long and slow, I'm sure.

A journy of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

Your approach and plan is well thought out.

Private Property -> Constitutional Carry

As the state allows any private property owner or authorized rep to prohibit firearms on their property, it seems fair turnabout that the state should butt out and allow any private property owner or their authorized rep to allow any form of carrying/possession they want.

The pastor could allow conceal carry in service, no questions, to keep all the flock calm and respectful.

No CHP? then resume OC when you get to the car (assuming car is parked on church property).

ChristCrusader said:

As the state allows any private property owner or authorized rep to prohibit firearms on their property, it seems fair turnabout that the state should butt out and allow any private property owner or their authorized rep to allow any form of carrying/possession they want.

The pastor could allow conceal carry in service, no questions, to keep all the flock calm and respectful.

No CHP? then resume OC when you get to the car (assuming car is parked on church property).

Click to expand...

Practically speaking that is the case, but not as a threat to "keep all the flock calm and respectful."

The reference to places of worship is no guns w/o "good and sufficient reason." Self-defense has become a "good and sufficient reason."

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-283

http://cursesfoiledagain2.wordpress.com/2011/04/11/va-attorney-general-rules-on-guns-in-church/

ChristCrusader said:

<snip>
The pastor could allow conceal carry in service, no questions, to keep all the flock calm and respectful.<snip>

Click to expand...

I took the above comment, not as a threat, but as sort of a "don't ask, don't tell" policy, to avoid conflict over the topic. Not a bad approach.

Liberty-or-Death said:

I took the above comment, not as a threat, but as sort of a "don't ask, don't tell" policy, to avoid conflict over the topic. Not a bad approach.

Click to expand...

yes, that's it ^^.

@ grapeshot: While the law allows carrying in church (for good and sufficient cause - like self defense), it doesn't allow a person who's otherwise prohibited from concealed carrying to become state-law exempt and be allowed to concealed carry on the property merely because the property owner/manager wishes to allow it.

This is a one-way (wrong-way) freedom of choice on private property glitch in my opinion, and such a broader correction would presumably also take care of private schools' ability to set their own firearms policy, which I supported, but it got bogged down this session.


If no CHP, then conceal carry prohibited... law allows exemption for property owner on their property/curtilage.
Open carry allowed... unless property owner/manager prohibits it.
should be a small next step for
property owner/manager should be able to allow any carry by others on his property that he wishes.

Why are the restrictions so readily available to be applied by owners upon others, but the liberties are not? It is their property after all (goes the justification that they can apply restrictions)

ChristCrusader said:

yes, that's it ^^.

@ grapeshot: While the law allows carrying in church (for good and sufficient cause - like self defense), it doesn't allow a person who's otherwise prohibited from concealed carrying to become state-law exempt and be allowed to concealed carry on the property merely because the property owner/manager wishes to allow it.

This is a one-way (wrong-way) freedom of choice on private property glitch in my opinion, and such a broader correction would presumably also take care of private schools' ability to set their own firearms policy, which I supported, but it got bogged down this session.

If no CHP, then conceal carry prohibited... law allows exemption for property owner on their property/curtilage.
Open carry allowed... unless property owner/manager prohibits it.
should be a small next step for
property owner/manager should be able to allow any carry by others on his property that he wishes.

Why are the restrictions so readily available to be applied by owners upon others, but the liberties are not? It is their property after all (goes the justification that they can apply restrictions)

Click to expand...

While the ability to have a choice of whether to carry or not is yours, the property owner's wishes trump yours....within the context of the law. Private property ownership or control does not convey with it the right to ignore laws. CHP holders are not a protected class.

The K-12 restriction for private schools is a different animal, but has application where a church and school share common buildings/land. I too champion that cause.

An interesting dynamic could come into play here. Denominational congregations may be pro-2A but they do not own the properties in which they operate and worship. They are subject to the governance of their denominational hierarchy and cannot make their own rules regarding most issues, including carry.
Alternatively and in general, independent non-denominational church bodies do not lack this freedom as they enjoy self-ownership and are self-governing.

"It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery." - Galatians 5:1 http://bit.ly/OE6fDM

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Grapeshot said:

CHP holders are not a protected class.

Click to expand...

2nd Amendment protects our keeping and bearing, but they write laws infringing or allowing others to infringe.

I note that much about the Constitution, like the 1st Amendment, limits the federal govt. from making laws against..., but the 2nd Amendment does not qualify who is prohibited from infringing against our keeping and bearing, only the statement that we are not to be infringed... I suggest by anyone, not just the federal govt. (and by extension via amendment/supreme ct decision, local govt's).

If a state signs onto the Constitution as their supreme law, then they agree to our protections.

1st:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

2nd:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I've heard anecdotally and cannot cite examples in which a denominational congregation decided to go in X or Y direction in either a spiritual or secular matter, but their denom leadership dictated Z only. Also, I've heard of such congregations wanting to separate from their denom affiliation to become independent, and the governing denom would allow them to do so, but they would have to do so elsewhere as the conference/synod/presbytery/diocese is the property owner. In other words, get aligned or get out.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Liberty-or-Death said:

I've heard anecdotally and cannot cite examples in which a denominational congregation decided to go in X or Y direction in either a spiritual or secular matter, but their denom leadership dictated Z only. Also, I've heard of such congregations wanting to separate from their denom affiliation to become independent, and the governing denom would allow them to do so, but they would have to do so elsewhere as the conference/synod/presbytery/diocese is the property owner. In other words, get aligned or get out.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Many of our forfathers sought relgious refuge/freedom in this new world - some fled Europe for their very lives, they were too independant.

I have seen no cases of open carriers committing crimes or unsafe acts in public. OTH there are stats that show some conceal carry individuals commit crimes or do stupid stuff. One of the interesting thing about the Brady site is they list those concealed carry holder instances, but I was unable to find one case of a open carrier listed.

The church is private property, and there are bound to be behavior rules, but nothing indicates that proof of training would make any safer than just telling folks to keep it holstered.

WalkingWolf said:

I have seen no cases of open carriers committing crimes or unsafe acts in public. OTH there are stats that show some conceal carry individuals commit crimes or do stupid stuff. One of the interesting thing about the Brady site is they list those concealed carry holder instances, but I was unable to find one case of a open carrier listed.

The church is private property, and there are bound to be behavior rules, but nothing indicates that proof of training would make any safer than just telling folks to keep it holstered.

Click to expand...

Yep, there it is........ unless circumstances require otherwise, then judicious aim is requested.

Practice sending their lead downrange on the straight and narrow path.

But there is an occasion of an "open carrier".
John 18:10-11. King James Version (KJV)
10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus.

11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?

Keep it holstered (sheathed) until the appropriate time... and be able to recognize as such.

Edited to add: Jesus was not afraid of being in company with open carriers. HE also saw no threat to the true followers by an open carrier in their midst.

chiggerbyt said:

But there is an occasion of an "open carrier".
John 18:10-11. King James Version (KJV)
10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus.

11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?

Keep it holstered (sheathed) until the appropriate time... and be able to recognize as such.

Edited to add: Jesus was not afraid of being in company with open carriers. HE also saw no threat to the true followers by an open carrier in their midst.

Click to expand...

Interesting point of view... But correct I think too many people think that criminals will respect a place of worship by unfortunately that's not the case