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

Washington State

Our church meets Sunday mornings at a local high school. I have wondered if it is legal to carry concealed to the church service on Sunday when school is not in session.

This question has been bothering me for quite sometime now. I have researched and researched but have found nothing online to definitively answer this question. The past Atty. Gen. has responded to a similar question about facilities being used exclusively for schools but it does not answer my question directly. You can find this letter here:

http://www.atg.wa.gov/AGOOpinions/opinion.aspx?section=archive&id=9238#.VKt8doo75R5

It seems to me the intent of this law is not to have firearms during school activities. One could interpret that if the church is using the school building then the school building at that time is not being used exclusively for schools.

This is a tricky question. I hope there are some lawyers out there that can help shed light on it. I feel this might take another letter to the attorney general to help clarify the language of the code.

Any insight or discussion is well appreciated.

A church within a public school.

Seems, regressive.

Dave_pro2a said:

A church within a public school.

Seems, regressive.

Click to expand...

It some areas it is common for schools to rent their facilities out for community groups/events when not being used for school functions. School facilities are funded by taxpayer dollars and are not in actual use for quite a lot of time each day/year. It makes very good fiscal sense to get additional use from them rather than taxpayers building additional facilities like convention or community centers.

So, whether it is the Boy Scouts, the CAP, the community theater, local choir, book club, or other local group, there is nothing at all amiss in renting out school buildings on a non-interfering basis. In my area, local political parties use schools for their caucus meetings, conventions, etc. Schools are also routinely used as polling places for local elections conducted by the city or county (which are distinct entities from the school districts in my State).

What would be offensive (and a violation of the 1st amendment) is if all these groups had access to rent the facilities but churches were denied the same access.

As for the original question, I can't help the OP with Washington State law. But my best understanding of the federal Gun Free School Zone law is that it is the building and grounds themselves that are off limits to guns (unless the person has a permit issued by the State in which the school is located and the State has made it legal to carry at schools with that permit. There is no distinction for whether school is in session or not.

Charles

Check your state statutes closely. The specific language is critical. A MO citizen may carry concealed if prior school district, or the respective authorized school house official gives permission. In writing would be desired.

RSMo 571.107.10 is the statute.

OC for ME said:

Check your state statutes closely. The specific language is critical. A MO citizen may carry concealed if prior school district, or the respective authorized school house official gives permission. In writing would be desired.

RSMo 571.107.10 is the statute.

Click to expand...

First let me start with IANAL!~

Lets look at the law

(1) It is unlawful for a person to carry onto, or to possess 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:

This lists the places you are not allowed to carry:

1. Public or private elementary or secondary school premises
2. School-provided transportation
3. Areas of facilities while being used exclusively by public or private schools. for example if the school rents an arena for graduation ceremonies or a private soccer field for soccer games.

Then later goes on to list some exceptions:

(3) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to:

(a) Any student or employee of a private military academy when on the property of the academy;

(b) Any person engaged in military, law enforcement, or school district security activities. However, a person who is not a commissioned law enforcement officer and who provides school security services under the direction of a school administrator may not possess a device listed in subsection (1)(f) of this section unless he or she has successfully completed training in the use of such devices that is equivalent to the training received by commissioned law enforcement officers;

(c) Any person who is involved in a convention, showing, demonstration, lecture, or firearms safety course authorized by school authorities in which the firearms of collectors or instructors are handled or displayed;

(d) Any person while the person is participating in a firearms or air gun competition approved by the school or school district;

(e) Any person in possession of a pistol who has been issued a license under RCW 9.41.070, or is exempt from the licensing requirement by RCW 9.41.060, while picking up or dropping off a student;

(f) Any nonstudent at least eighteen years of age legally in possession of a firearm or dangerous weapon that is secured within an attended vehicle or concealed from view within a locked unattended vehicle while conducting legitimate business at the school;

(g) Any nonstudent at least eighteen years of age who is in lawful possession of an unloaded firearm, secured in a vehicle while conducting legitimate business at the school; or

(h) Any law enforcement officer of the federal, state, or local government agency.

I don't see any exception that would apply because the school facility is rented. It appears only F and G would apply, which allows you to leave the firearm locked in your vehicle (assuming you are also not a student).

Note than they then add another section:

(6) Except as provided in subsection (3)(b), (c), (f), and (h) of this section, firearms are not permitted in a public or private school building.

Trust me, I have read the law and it seams clear but I would argue that a president is set by the wording in addition to the AG's opinion. And that is, that the laws intent follows where the school activities and children are. A school building is simply a location, as is a stadium, as is a ball field, as is a park. If the latter locations are being used exclusively for school activity then the guns are off limits. As soon as everyone goes home and the school function stops, then firearms are allowed again. This is precedent that the intent of the law is for prohibiting firearms specifically around the students while being "used."

I think a rather honest and fair interpretation would be the inverse in the actual school building itself.

Now before some of you get too excited and start a verbal throw-down, I am speaking out of a curious thought and possible court interpretation of brought to trial.

Would I do this? No way. Not worth risking loosing your CWP for 3 years.

But judges often do rule according to intent and not actual verbatim.

I would advise not to do it but it should be addressed with clear and better suited legislation.

Templedh54 said:

The past Atty. Gen. has responded to a similar question about facilities being used exclusively for schools but it does not answer my question directly.

Click to expand...

I read the AG letter and it seems to me that it does directly address your question. It addresses the term "used exclusively [by]" as being the school and the "duration of exclusive use [by the school]" as not being limited by time.

In other words, just because the school lets another entity use it's grounds or buildings, the AG letter indicates that the school doesn't vacate its original "exclusive use" status and the letter defers to the common dictionary for the word "exclusively."

If I let someone use my yard to put up a "VOTE FOR" sign, I still have "exclusive use rights" (i.e., I can still exclude them), which I think is what the letter and the RCW is, in part, referring to.

IANAL either (obviously)

utbagpiper said:

It some areas it is common for schools to rent their facilities out for community groups/events when not being used for school functions. School facilities are funded by taxpayer dollars and are not in actual use for quite a lot of time each day/year. It makes very good fiscal sense to get additional use from them rather than taxpayers building additional facilities like convention or community centers.

So, whether it is the Boy Scouts, the CAP, the community theater, local choir, book club, or other local group, there is nothing at all amiss in renting out school buildings on a non-interfering basis. In my area, local political parties use schools for their caucus meetings, conventions, etc. Schools are also routinely used as polling places for local elections conducted by the city or county (which are distinct entities from the school districts in my State).

What would be offensive (and a violation of the 1st amendment) is if all these groups had access to rent the facilities but churches were denied the same access.

As for the original question, I can't help the OP with Washington State law. But my best understanding of the federal Gun Free School Zone law is that it is the building and grounds themselves that are off limits to guns (unless the person has a permit issued by the State in which the school is located and the State has made it legal to carry at schools with that permit. There is no distinction for whether school is in session or not.

Charles

Click to expand...

Until someone goes to a unsecured church service and plants a bomb with a timer set to go off later in the week when school is in session.

Weak security.

utbagpiper said:

What would be offensive (and a violation of the 1st amendment) is if all these groups had access to rent the facilities but churches were denied the same access.

Click to expand...

BS. When Churches pay taxes, then they can be treated like everyone else.

Dave_pro2a said:

BS. When Churches pay taxes, then they can be treated like everyone else.

Click to expand...

So if I do not pay taxes for a year do I get treated differently that year or the next year?

Jeff Hayes said:

So if I do not pay taxes for a year do I get treated differently that year or the next year?

Click to expand...

Usually yes. Ask Wesley Snipes.

Dave_pro2a said:

BS. When Churches pay taxes, then they can be treated like everyone else.

Click to expand...

The people have already paid taxes to build the school facility, plus an additional rental fee (tax) to use the unoccupied building.

Dave_pro2a said:

BS. When Churches pay taxes, then they can be treated like everyone else.

Click to expand...

Ah, the anti-religious bigots are out today.

Most of the organizations I listed don't pay taxes. The Boy Scouts operate as a non-profit organization. Ditto for most community theaters, symphonies, and other community arts organizations. Most books clubs are not even organized as formal legal entities but are simply informal groups of individuals. Political parties don't generally pay taxes (even though donations to them are not tax deductible for the donors).

Just as our much beloved 2nd amendment requires that the government provide some special respect for our ownership and possession of firearms and other defensive weapons, so too the 1st amendment requires that government provide some special consideration of our religiously motivated conduct and for religious organizations. Churches are allowed to operate as non-profit organizations (and most choose to do so) for the same reasons that secular non-profits get such status: because of the benefits they bring to society and because they don't actually turn a profit. There are a host of legal restrictions imposed on how non-profits operate and what they can do. Access to taxpayer funded facilities is not one of those restrictions.

"Churches" (like community theaters, book clubs, and political parties) are nothing but collections of individuals. Those individuals tend to pay taxes, including the taxes that build schools, maintain public parks, etc. To refuse access to religious groups of individuals, while allowing access to individuals who are members of a book club, or individuals making up the community theater, etc is rank discrimination.

And trying to hide behind tax status is no better veil over ugly bigotries than were "literacy tests" for voting.

Congrats, here is your white sheet.

Charles

Dave_pro2a said:

Usually yes. Ask Wesley Snipes.

Click to expand...

Complete non-sequitor. Snipes was guilty of not paying taxes he legally owed.

Are you suggesting that if your income drops below taxable levels this year, such that you don't legally owe any income taxes, you should be treated differently in terms of accessing government facilities than the guy down the street who paid income taxes?


Charles

Templedh54 said:

Trust me, I have read the law and it seams clear but I would argue that a president is set by the wording in addition to the AG's opinion. And that is, that the laws intent follows where the school activities and children are. A school building is simply a location, as is a stadium, as is a ball field, as is a park. If the latter locations are being used exclusively for school activity then the guns are off limits. As soon as everyone goes home and the school function stops, then firearms are allowed again. This is precedent that the intent of the law is for prohibiting firearms specifically around the students while being "used."

I think a rather honest and fair interpretation would be the inverse in the actual school building itself.

Now before some of you get too excited and start a verbal throw-down, I am speaking out of a curious thought and possible court interpretation of brought to trial.

Would I do this? No way. Not worth risking loosing your CWP for 3 years.

But judges often do rule according to intent and not actual verbatim.

I would advise not to do it but it should be addressed with clear and better suited legislation.

Click to expand...

Getting Back on Topic:

Thats why I listed the THREE locations you are not allowed to carry according to the statute.

1. Public or private elementary or secondary school premises
2. School-provided transportation
3. Areas of facilities while being used exclusively by public or private schools. for example if the school rents an arena for graduation ceremonies or a private soccer field for soccer games.

Facilities used exclusively by schools is a separate item from school premises. I don't think a judge could see any ambiguity.
Unfortunately in today's climate, not only would you end up losing your CWP, you are liable to end up dead. Not something I look forward to.

Dave_pro2a said:

Until someone goes to a unsecured church service and plants a bomb with a timer set to go off later in the week when school is in session.

Weak security.

Click to expand...

Really? As opposed to an "unsecured" book club meeting, political rally, to vote, or even to watch a play (whether put on by the school drama club, or by a community theater renting the school's auditorium)?

If you were forced to clear a metal detector in order to vote you'd rightly scream to high heaven about your RKBA being violated. And we all know that all "security" at schools (and airports and most other locations) is so weak as to be laughable. We call it "security theater" for a reason.

But you're going to use "security" (and taxes) as a reason to deny access to church groups?

You'd look less foolish if you'd just own your bigotries and come right out and say you hate churches.

Charles

Right Wing Wacko said:

Getting Back on Topic:

Thats why I listed the THREE locations you are not allowed to carry according to the statute.

1. Public or private elementary or secondary school premises
2. School-provided transportation
3. Areas of facilities while being used exclusively by public or private schools. for example if the school rents an arena for graduation ceremonies or a private soccer field for soccer games.

Facilities used exclusively by schools is a separate item from school premises. I don't think a judge could see any ambiguity.

Click to expand...

Again, I'm no expert on Washington law. But having read the statute as posted, I have to agree completely with "Right Wing's" reading/interpretation of that law. Each line item in the law is a different and distinct location and as written, school premises are off-limits period, even when classes are out or school is not in session.

I'm not saying some judge would never be "highly creative" in how he applies the law. But it would be a "bad" ruling (from the perspective of having judges applying laws as written, rather than re-writing the laws as they would like them to read) for any judge to apply this statute differently.

Charles

I went to a church that used a school auditorium for a few weeks. My reading of the law was that there is no exception for us; I did not carry even into the parking lot.

This was when I first moved to Milton - since then we've been blessed to find a solid church, and it's in a normal church building (though that's not why we changed churches - the doctrine was kinda weak at the one in the school).

NavyLCDR said:

Guilty as charged. In 2013 I ended up with a negative net taxable income due to subtracting combat exclusion pay and alimony from my gross wages. In addition, I rent - so I pay "property taxes" to the landlord instead of to the state. I guess my daughter should not have been allowed to attend public school that year...

Click to expand...

Exactly. One would be hard pressed to find anyone who voluntarily pays more taxes than he is legally required to pay. Those with means will often spend a fair bit on accountants and lawyers (or even lobbyists) so as to legally minimize their tax liabilities. The "poor" are often exempted from various taxes: Income taxes have minimum levels of income before any tax payments are required, those on food stamps are not paying taxes on food purchases, in some States, items (including clothing) purchased from 2nd hand or thrift stores are not subject to sales tax, and it is sometimes possible for homeowners to get exemptions from property tax based on income levels, military service, disability, or similar conditions. Non-profits including charitable organizations are legally exempted from income taxes and may be exempt from other taxes depending on the jurisdiction.

Almost nobody who gives it any real thought would actually suggest that someone be denied access to government facilities based on their tax liability. My experience is that with the rarest of exceptions, those who claim that churches should be denied access based on non-payment of taxes they are not legally required to pay (or who otherwise objects much to churches having tax exempt status while remaining silent on secular charities), is simply trying to put a veneer of reason on top of his personal bigotries.

I respect everone's right to feel whatever way the want about churches and religion. Ditto for whether they want to harbor unkind feelings toward believers, or those of various races, etc. I do my best to avoid bringing up religion or other potentially divisive topics on RKBA boards. But if someone is so impolite as to express anti-religious (or racial) bigotries on these boards, I will call them on it lest their comments create a hostile environment for more polite gun owners or give the gun grabbers ammunition to paint gun owners as small minded bigots.

Having done that, I hope Dave_pro2a will just let this side topic drop and the thread get back on topic.

Charles

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 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".