Can you legally carry concealed to Church if your Church meets at a school on Sunday?

Superlite27 said:

I would argue the exact OPPOSITE.

I believe there are an inordinate amount of idiots who are completely ignorant of their witholding status, and are unknowingly (therefore, willingly) letting the government use their money to make money rather than using it to do so, themselves. Hence: Using indirect reasoning, by voluntarily witholding more than they have to, they are "willingly paying more taxes than they have to".

Click to expand...

There are many who seem to like getting a big refund every April or May, no doubt. And to not only give the feds an interest free loan, but to also rely on their good graces and ability (think government shutdown) to return your money, or to give them an easy way to impose Obamacare fines they may not be able to otherwise collect, is foolish. But that is slightly different than voluntarily paying more taxes than legally required. Most everyone wants to get the biggest refund (ie, minimize the taxes they actually end up paying to--as opposed to merely lending--the government) they can once it is time to file.

But I do see your point. It is, however, somewhat orthogonal to the already off topic discussion about whether churches should pay taxes.

Charles

Many people misunderstand RCW 9.41.280, which states, in part:

(1) It is unlawful for a person to carry (a firearm) onto, or to possess (a firearm) on, public or private elementary or secondary school premises, school-provided transportation, or areas of facilities while being used exclusively by public or private schools...

Click to expand...

So, let's parse it and see how a court is likely to interpret it. Broken down, the statute basically says:

It is unlawful for a person to carry a firearm onto, or possess a firearm on
a) public or private elementary or secondary school premises,
b) school-provided transportation,
or
c) areas of facilities while being used exclusively by public or private schools

The crucial part of the statute is the use of the word, "or" just before "areas of facilities." A disjunctive phrase is generally expressed by mutually exclusive alternatives joined by the word "or." This means that, in a list, several alternatives are offered for consideration, separated by commas. When the final item of consideration is preceded by "or," the previous use of commas in the list implies the word "or." As such, the list is more properly interpreted as the following:

It is unlawful for a person to carry a firearm onto, or possess a firearm on
a) public or private elementary or secondary school premises,
or
b) school-provided transportation,
or
c) areas of facilities while being used exclusively by public or private schools

Therefore since each alternative item is presumed to be in the disjunctive, the phrase "while being used exclusively by public or private schools" applies only to the alternative "areas of facilities" and not to the prior two alternatives. The common misconception is that in scenarios such as this, people interpret "or" to mean the same as "and." It does not, unless the terms "or" and "and" are defined in a statute to mean the same thing. This is not the case in RCW 9.41.

An argument that the phrase "while being used exclusively by public or private schools" applies to school premises or school-provided transportation might enjoy some strength (although, it is not likely) would be only if the phrase were separated from the "areas of facilities" alternative by a comma, thereby setting the "while" clause out as a disjunctive prepositional phrase. However, no such punctuation exists in the statute.

The statute unambiguously states that firearms are not permitted on school premises except as otherwise expressly provided in RCW 9.41.280(3). Of particular note, while RCW 9.41.280(3)(e) expressly states that CPL holders are exempted from the possession prohibition on school property while picking up or dropping off a student, it doesn't require is that the pistol be concealed.

utbagpiper said:

Exactly. One would be hard pressed to find anyone who voluntarily pays more taxes than he is legally required to pay.

Click to expand...

I estimate my taxes and make deposits based upon my estimation. For 2013, I overestimated and deposited too much! The IRS, of course, assessed a fine against me before refunding because I gave them too much money in anticipation of my tax debt. Don't pay enough? Get fined! Pay too much! Get fined. You can't win this game, folks. All you can do is play!

rapgood said:

I estimate my taxes and make deposits based upon my estimation. For 2013, I overestimated and deposited too much! The IRS, of course, assessed a fine against me before refunding because I gave them too much money in anticipation of my tax debt. Don't pay enough? Get fined! Pay too much! Get fined. You can't win this game, folks. All you can do is play!

Click to expand...

+1 I made a killing one year and very little the next......they assumed I made the same.....bastards!

rapgood said:

I estimate my taxes and make deposits based upon my estimation. For 2013, I overestimated and deposited too much! The IRS, of course, assessed a fine against me before refunding because I gave them too much money in anticipation of my tax debt. Don't pay enough? Get fined! Pay too much! Get fined. You can't win this game, folks. All you can do is play!

Click to expand...

Very strange. My wife and I always "overpay" due to some of our income producing activities. Get rather large refunds every year as a result.

In 10 years we have yet to be fined for "over paying". You just have to make the estimated payments on a regular basis as they will fine you if you just pay them all at once at the end of the year.

On the original topic-----

I lived in Colorado just North of he huge church that had a shooting incident a dozen years or so ago. A gunman started shooting and a "volunteer security person" took care of he problem.


Since then I never go into any area that has an assembly of people without carrying. Exception of course is those areas that have metal detectors or hand pat-downs.

I subscribe to a simple philosophy of "If you can't see it, is it really there?" Until our Government or the organization sponsoring the "event" can guarantee my absolute safety from a mentally deficient shooter then that's the way I'll roll. They can ban me if they want after I defend myself but until them ----

amlevin said:

Very strange. My wife and I always "overpay" due to some of our income producing activities. Get rather large refunds every year as a result.

In 10 years we have yet to be fined for "over paying". You just have to make the estimated payments on a regular basis as they will fine you if you just pay them all at once at the end of the year.

Click to expand...

I made deposits quarterly. But, the tax laws have changed. I have over-withheld every years for years on end, and received nice refunds each time. Now, the fine is for "improper estimation of tax liability" and it carries a fine. This is new law.

A couple of years ago, I was merely late in filing a "zero-tax" return for an idle company I owned. Zero income. Zero tax liability. The IRS fined me over $2000 simply because the filing was late.

Be careful. The tax laws keep changing to find new ways to gouge us every day that the country goes deeper in debt.

rapgood said:

I made deposits quarterly. But, the tax laws have changed. I have over-withheld every years for years on end, and received nice refunds each time. Now, the fine is for "improper estimation of tax liability" and it carries a fine. This is new law.

A couple of years ago, I was merely late in filing a "zero-tax" return for an idle company I owned. Zero income. Zero tax liability. The IRS fined me over $2000 simply because the filing was late.

Be careful. The tax laws keep changing to find new ways to gouge us every day that the country goes deeper in debt.

Click to expand...

Still strange. Just visited the IRS website and their current publications make no mention of Overpaying. You will get a fine if you don't have enough paid in each quarter and could get a fine for that but otherwise they seem to have hidden any reference to a fine for merely making too large a deposit.

As for being "current" on tax law I just let my tax preparing software do so. I use Tax Act and it's been dead on for all the years I've used it. Apparently the IRS thinks it's OK too as they keep sending the refunds. I did however have to pay a $27 penalty one year because I fell short a couple bucks on a "Quarterly". Probably made more on the interest the bank paid me while I held onto my own money. That was a while ago when banks actually paid interest.

Not sure who has screwed the public more, Bernie Madoff or Ben Bernanke. There once was a time when we could still get 6% on CD's. Now the banks get their money "for free" and the public has to pay from 5% to 29% when they borrow it. (mortgages-bankcards)