Church carry fails in La. Senate

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.:uhoh:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

Unlike the great unwashed masses, we carry guns. That would make us (as opposed to them) extremists. Accept it, wear that badge with honor.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.?

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

It's Baaack!!!

imported post

DZelenka wrote:

It's Baaack!!!

Click to expand...

And it still sucks. See my comments in the thread at Bayou Shooter.