Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Church carry fails in La. Senate

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510

    Post imported post

    http://www.ktbs.com/news/23833530/detail.html

    A bill by a lawmaker from Bossier Parish that would have allowed concealed weapons to be carried inside churches has been shot down in a Louisiana Senate committee.

    The bill, which had passed the House in a 74-18 vote, found no support in a Senate judiciary committee on Tuesday.

    The measure by Rep. Henry Burns, R-Haughton, would have required the religious leader of a church, mosque or synagogue to sign off on any plan to allow weapons inside churches.

    Burns told the committee that changing times mean churches are not the safe places they used to be. They should be able to take steps to protect their parishioners, Burns argued.

    The bill would have required churches choosing to allow concealed carry provisions to notify their congregations. Those authorized to carry weapons in the church would have had to take eight hours of tactical training each year, under Burns' bill.


  2. #2
    Regular Member sraacke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Saint Gabriel, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    1,222

    Post imported post

    Open Carry is already allowed in Churches, by the way.

    My problem with the bill was that they were basically trying to turn CHP holders into some sort of Security Guard force. That's not the purpose of the CHP. If you want armed security HIRE armed security officers or allow designated parishiners to openly carry weapons with the the intention of responding to assaults on the congrigation.

    This bill was a bad idea and I am glad it died.
    President/ Founding Member
    Louisiana Open Carry Awareness League
    www.laopencarry.org

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Anywhere but here.
    Posts
    523

    Post imported post

    yale wrote:
    Open Carry is already allowed in Churches, by the way.

    My problem with the bill was that they were basically trying to turn CHP holders into some sort of Security Guard force. That's not the purpose of the CHP. If you want armed security HIRE armed security officers or allow designated parishiners to openly carry weapons with the the intention of responding to assaults on the congrigation.

    This bill was a bad idea and I am glad it died.
    While I agree the nuances of this bill made it more trouble than it is worth, the masses will see this as a victory for gun control and one more crowing point for those who claim that we are extremists. I fear this will make the passage of an appropriate bill more difficult, particularly in the realm of public opinion, ignorance of intent and knowledge only of headlines could lead to backlash.
    This site has been hijacked by leftists who attack opposition to further their own ends. Those who have never served this country and attack those who do are no longer worthy of my time or attention.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    37

    Post imported post

    yale wrote:
    My problem with the bill was that they were basically trying to turn CHP holders into some sort of Security Guard force. That's not the purpose of the CHP. If you want armed security HIRE armed security officers or allow designated parishiners to openly carry weapons with the the intention of responding to assaults on the congrigation.

    This bill was a bad idea and I am glad it died.
    I agree.

    Churches should be treated like any private business open to the public. A CHP holder can carry unless it is posted.

    LSA will work on that in the future.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    DZelenka wrote:
    yale wrote:
    My problem with the bill was that they were basically trying to turn CHP holders into some sort of Security Guard force. That's not the purpose of the CHP. If you want armed security HIRE armed security officers or allow designated parishiners to openly carry weapons with the the intention of responding to assaults on the congrigation.

    This bill was a bad idea and I am glad it died.
    I agree.

    Churches should be treated like any private business open to the public. A CHP holder can carry unless it is posted.

    LSA will work on that in the future.
    I think churches should be treated like private property and not a business. The members of a church own it and welcome guests just like someone would at their house. The members control all aspects of the church and is in relity an extension of their home, basically the government should stay our of their business on whether they do or don't allow guns just like someones home. However the law treats guns in someones home it should apply to churches.

  6. #6
    Regular Member turbodog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Independence, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    566

    Post imported post

    mark edward marchiafava wrote:
    Unlike the great unwashed masses, we carry guns. That would make us (as opposed to them) extremists. Accept it, wear that badge with honor.
    For once, he's correct. Nice to see that the "we" acknowledges that your not the only one who OC's mark. Unless you meant it as a Royal "We".

    He's right in that to the anti's we are "extremists". My experiences to date have shown that most people don't seem to care or at the least, are not concered by it.
    But, there are certainly those who are alarmed at the idea of armed citizens.

    I don't consider my self to be an extremist and so don't feel any honor about it. The idea is to be seen as just another average citizen, nothin special.

    I leave "badge of Honor" to those who deserve it, our police, firefighters and military.
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLT View Post
    Him: "I carry my gun concealed"
    Me: "You're not very good at it"
    Him: "What do you mean?"
    Me: "I know you have a gun"
    End of conversation.

  7. #7
    Regular Member barf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Nawlins, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    259

    Post imported post

    turbodog wrote:
    mark edward marchiafava wrote:
    Unlike the great unwashed masses, we carry guns. That would make us (as opposed to them) extremists. Accept it, wear that badge with honor.
    For once, he's correct. Nice to see that the "we" acknowledges that your not the only one who OC's mark. Unless you meant it as a Royal "We".

    He's right in that to the anti's we are "extremists". My experiences to date have shown that most people don't seem to care or at the least, are not concered by it.
    But, there are certainly those who are alarmed at the idea of armed citizens.

    I don't consider my self to be an extremist and so don't feel any honor about it. The idea is to be seen as just another average citizen, nothin special.

    I leave "badge of Honor" to those who deserve it, our police, firefighters and military.
    His fact may be correct, but this is also a fact: he uses this site to recruit others who are "extremists". His way of open carry is a convenient first step to advocating anarchy.



  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    37

    Post imported post

    PT111 wrote:
    DZelenka wrote:
    yale wrote:
    My problem with the bill was that they were basically trying to turn CHP holders into some sort of Security Guard force. That's not the purpose of the CHP. If you want armed security HIRE armed security officers or allow designated parishiners to openly carry weapons with the the intention of responding to assaults on the congrigation.

    This bill was a bad idea and I am glad it died.
    I agree.

    Churches should be treated like any private business open to the public. A CHP holder can carry unless it is posted.

    LSA will work on that in the future.
    I think churches should be treated like private property and not a business. The members of a church own it and welcome guests just like someone would at their house. The members control all aspects of the church and is in relity an extension of their home, basically the government should stay our of their business on whether they do or don't allow guns just like someones home. However the law treats guns in someones home it should apply to churches.
    You are obviously not Catholic. On a serious note, the congregation rarely owns the church. Of course the Archdiocese owns the Catholic churches, I am sure other religions have similar structures, and I would bet that 501(c)3 corporation own most other churches. The point being that it would not be like your home. It is really more like a business. This is good because it gives non-members the same ability to carry. Could you imagine if non-members had to get permission to carry every time like you are supposed to do for entering someone's private residence.?

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    I would say that your idea of most churches falling under 501(c)3 is correct, at least here in the US. I was a member of a church that the land and building was owned by the conference but we built a new church on land that was owned by the individual church. All other churches that I have been a part of or had anything to do with have been owned individually by the members and I know of several that in the recent past the church property has been returned from the "Organization" to the individual churches.

    A couple of years ago my wife signed a deed as a family member donating some property that had been given by one or her ancestors to one of the "Friends" churches as long as it was used as a church. Since the church building was no longer in use and they wanted to move the building to a historic park the family decided to give the land to the adjacent cemetary.

    But you are right that I am not Catholic but I think that you will find that even in the Catholic church they still have the right to throw you out if they don't want you in there with or without your gun. At least in most of the Protestant churches it would be the Deacons/Session etc. that would need to throw you out instead of the Priest.

  10. #10
    Regular Member turbodog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Independence, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    566

    Post imported post

    barf wrote:
    His fact may be correct, but this is also a fact: he uses this site to recruit others who are "extremists". His way of open carry is a convenient first step to advocating anarchy.
    Oh don't mistake me to be in his corner. Your right about his agenda. I was just so surprised at him being right about something, in all fairness I had to take note of it.
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLT View Post
    Him: "I carry my gun concealed"
    Me: "You're not very good at it"
    Him: "What do you mean?"
    Me: "I know you have a gun"
    End of conversation.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Anywhere but here.
    Posts
    523

    Post imported post

    turbodog wrote:
    mark edward marchiafava wrote:
    Unlike the great unwashed masses, we carry guns. That would make us (as opposed to them) extremists. Accept it, wear that badge with honor.
    For once, he's correct. Nice to see that the "we" acknowledges that your not the only one who OC's mark. Unless you meant it as a Royal "We".

    He's right in that to the anti's we are "extremists". My experiences to date have shown that most people don't seem to care or at the least, are not concered by it.
    But, there are certainly those who are alarmed at the idea of armed citizens.

    I don't consider my self to be an extremist and so don't feel any honor about it. The idea is to be seen as just another average citizen, nothin special.

    I leave "badge of Honor" to those who deserve it, our police, firefighters and military.
    If I may, in a sense you are both right. People who don't choose to exercise their rights do CONSIDER us extremists.
    However I do not accept their judgement. I do believe what you mean is that we should not compromise our rights to avoid that accusation. ( Moving to the middle) like some politicianssacrifice their principals in order to seem more moderate. If that is what you meant than I wholeheartedly agree.If you choose to wear that badge,( extremist)so be it, you have that right. Just remember that there are repercussions to that andour ultimate goal is to showthe "unwashed masses" the error of their ways and show them the light. How? That's easy, by setting the example, being the everyman. I also agree Mark that churches should be treated like everywhere else. You're absolutely correct on that fact. However rather than be seen as the extremist, I prefer to be the hand up Mona Lisa's skirt, the surprise noone sees coming,so to speak. As to who Turbo believes deserve the Badge of Honor, speaking as a Marine I offer only this. Those who deserve all the honor are those who never came home, those who look down on us and see how we treat their sacrifice.
    This site has been hijacked by leftists who attack opposition to further their own ends. Those who have never served this country and attack those who do are no longer worthy of my time or attention.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    37

    Post imported post

    It's Baaack!!!

  13. #13
    Regular Member sraacke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Saint Gabriel, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    1,222

    Post imported post

    DZelenka wrote:
    It's Baaack!!!
    And it still sucks. See my comments in the thread at Bayou Shooter.
    President/ Founding Member
    Louisiana Open Carry Awareness League
    www.laopencarry.org

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •