Utah Guns Forum banner

A Reason to be Vigilant and Armed at Church?

10K views 39 replies 9 participants last post by  Karl 
#1 ·
#2 ·
It's WND. I put no credibility in anything from them. They are a right wing tabloid.
 
#4 ·
#6 ·
When I go to church I always wear my 45ACP in a shoulder holster under my shirt and under my jacket.

It is very concealed.

In Utah you need to understand however that there is one really big local church that does not permit firearms.

If they catch you they can prosecute you for trespass because they have made the necessary public notices and announcements.
 
#7 ·
While one may choose to or even inadvertently commit various infractions of the law in the course of one's life it is considered bad form in the eyes of many to announce same on a public forum where one's words can be used against one in efforts to prosecute.

Just saying :crown:
 
#8 ·
JoeSparky said:
While one may choose to or even inadvertently commit various infractions of the law in the course of one's life it is considered bad form in the eyes of many to announce same on a public forum where one's words can be used against one in efforts to prosecute.

Just saying :crown:
I don't go to that big well known local church.

The church I attend does not proscribe concealed weapons.

If it did then I would not go there.

Jesus said "render to Caesar". That would include obeying the law as well as paying your taxes.

I just wanted to point out what I recently learned in the CFP class. The rules change from time to time.
 
#9 ·
Karl said:
JoeSparky said:
While one may choose to or even inadvertently commit various infractions of the law in the course of one's life it is considered bad form in the eyes of many to announce same on a public forum where one's words can be used against one in efforts to prosecute.

Just saying :crown:
I don't go to that big well known local church.

The church I attend does not proscribe concealed weapons.

If it did then I would not go there.

Jesus said "render to Caesar". That would include obeying the law as well as paying your taxes.

I just wanted to point out what I recently learned in the CFP class. The rules change from time to time.
Just for clarification-- the "big" church does not JUST proscribe "concealed"....

Please don't be offended at my assumption! I encourage any one legal to carry where ever legal in ANY manner they choose!
 
#10 ·
Federal buildings do not allow you to carry concealed within them either.

If a Federal building has armed guards with metal detectors at the doors, then I will lock my pistol and mags in a metal box that is chained under the seat of my car and then go inside unarmed to take care of whatever business there that I need to.

If the Federal building does not have armed guards, then I simply won't go inside at all.

I don't like breaking laws. And I don't like stupid laws either.

Any law that disarms you but also does not provide armed guards for your protection is a stupid law.
 
#11 ·
BYU and Westminster College also do not permit weapons on their campuses.

That's what they taught us in the CFP class.

Orrin Porter Rockwell would not have liked that rule.

Plus Jesus would have had to shave his beard and cut his hair for BYU. And no wine making while on campus either.

(We had a fair amount of jokesters in our class!)
 
#12 ·
Karl said:
BYU and Westminster College also do not permit weapons on their campuses.
There are a modest number of locations that have private rules against firearms or other weapons carried by non-LEOs. BYU, Westminster, and most other private colleges are among these locations. Whatever the Jazz's basektball arena is called this week employs metal detectors and prohibits weapons from B-ball games and some other events. Most employers ban employees from being being armed. I'm told certain big club stores have a no guns clause buried somewhere in theiir membership contract.

In Utah, with the exception of private residences and houses of worship that give notice, private policies against guns do not carry any weight of law beyond possible tresspass violations. If you are an employee of or student at a facility that has a private policy banning guns then your employment or student status can be put at risk, just as it would be for any other violation of the policy. A membership store might revoke your membership for violating the terms of the contract. But in these cases, one has not violated any laws regarding guns, and may not have even violated any other laws as Utah's commercial trespass law requires a bit more than just being told to leave for any arbitrary reason. Whether one wishes to patronize or work for an establishment with an anti-RKBA policy is a personal question.

Charles
 
#14 ·
Karl said:
In Utah you need to understand however that there is one really big local church that does not permit firearms.
In Utah, there are several churches that do not permit firearms. The law only applies to churches with houses of worship inside Utah so that makes them all "local". And so far as I know, all of the churches in Utah have affiliation outside Utah. So none of them are uniquely "local". That said...

At the present time, 1/3/17, two churches have provided notice via the BCI webpage, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (aka LDS or Mormon church) and the Congregation Kol Ami. But remember, this is only one way to legally give notice. Last time I was looking around, there were a couple of churches in the SL area that gave notice via signs on their buildings ("All are welcome, but your guns are not," was how one read I recall). Churches can also give notice in their program that they hand out, over the pulpit, or via direct communication. Additionally, churches can give exceptions as they see fit. So a church can ban guns generally, and then make exceptions for anyone they want, without needing to give any reason, maintain any consistency, etc.

I believe that a man's home and his Holy Ground deserve the highest deference possible and that, one way or another, we ought to abide both the law and the express limitations on what items are permissible in another's home or house of worship.

Charles
 
#15 ·
I think of it this way -- anyplace I go there might be someone there who wants to kill me.

Dylann Roof has already proved this regarding churches. So enough said.

The only tricky thing about church carry is like in any other crowd actually taking a shot requires special training.

With all the peep's everywhere you would need to get down on one knee and shoot upwards so that your bullet travels through your assailant and then up to the sky. It will therefore land someplace else far away which is not your immediate problem. This needs to be practiced.

It is part of Shooting Rule #1 -- consider your target and everything around your target and behind your target before you put your finger on the trigger.

This is not to be confused with Gun Handling Rule #1 -- never point a gun at anything or anyone that you don't intend to kill.
 
#16 ·
Karl said:
I normally avoid anti RKBA establishments.
I suppose we all have to decide what we mean, personally, by anti-RKBA establishments.

Is disarming employees under threat of job loss "anti-RKBA"? I think so. But one is hard pressed to find employers, including retail businesses, who do not have such policies. If one refused to patronize any establishment that disarmed its own employees, one would probably find it impossible to live life in any urban or suburban area. Maybe in very small rural areas one could get by.

In addition to needing to do shopping and wanting some recreation, I do have to earn a living and it turns out that short of working for myself, I am very likely to work for an employer who bans guns. I abide the workplace policy because I need to earn a living. Parking Lot Preemption allows me to effectively manage my risk by being armed during my commute.

Is it anti-RKBA to have a policy against customers being armed, but then not enforcing that policy? I think so. But given Utah law, I'm just not too worried about it. If I'm asked to leave, I will and probably won't go back. But if a business does not have pro-active measures to prevent my lawful entry while armed, I'm not going to disarm, or go begging for permission, or asking what policies are, or even alter my routine over some obscure, un-enforced policy probably set by some HR lawyer in NYC. I just don't care.

Now, if a business uses metal detectors (ala the Jazz Basketball arena) I will avoid it. Ditto if a business is actively using profits to fund the Brady Bunch or other attacks on my RKBA.

As for a private residence or House of Worship, these get a much higher respect from me than a business open to the public. My familial relationships are more important to me than my politics or social views. Ditto my relationship with my God. So I disarm for various social or religious obligations where my gun is not welcome.

If others instead choose to alter their social circle or religious affiliation so as to always be able to be armed while still obeying State law regarding private residences and houses of worship, I respect that. It just isn't my chosen course of action.

Charles
 
#17 ·
Come to think of it, I'm genuinely curious about just hard how it is for an employer in Utah to insist on a solid in-house cohort of armed, trained employees. Do heavily armed businesses suffer insurance discrimination? Do premiums soar beyond reason? Do unavoidable legal or practical considerations demand forcibly disarming employees? Is the general public so averse to the idea of encountering quietly armed employees at a multitude of ordinary businesses? I'm not even certain what questions to ask. Such an obvious line of thought must already have been investigated, but if so, the answers seem hidden in the mist. Perhaps I'm not looking in the right places. :shock:

bagpiper said:
[...]

Is disarming employees under threat of job loss "anti-RKBA"? I think so. But one is hard pressed to find employers, including retail businesses, who do not have such policies. If one refused to patronize any establishment that disarmed its own employees, one would probably find it impossible to live life in any urban or suburban area. Maybe in very small rural areas one could get by.

In addition to needing to do shopping and wanting some recreation, I do have to earn a living and it turns out that short of working for myself, I am very likely to work for an employer who bans guns. I abide the workplace policy because I need to earn a living. Parking Lot Preemption allows me to effectively manage my risk by being armed during my commute.

[....]
 
#18 ·
It is fairly common for employers to have H/R policies that forbid guns or knives on the premises.

In those cases if you want to work there then you need to have a metal box in your vehicle that is chained (not cabled) to the interior where you can keep your firearm and mags while you are at work.

If you are caught with a firearm or knife then you would be terminated so if you want to work there then you don't have much choice in the matter. They have disarmed you.

They probably do not provide armed guards inside or metal detectors at the doors either. Most businesses are only half baked (read: you know what) in their gun free zone disarmament. But if you get killed there by an active shooter then you can only blame yourself.
 
#19 ·
Karl said:
It is fairly common for employers to have H/R policies that forbid guns or knives on the premises.

In those cases if you want to work there then you need to have a metal box in your vehicle that is chained (not cabled) to the interior where you can keep your firearm and mags while you are at work.
To be clear, you are not legally required to have a gun safe in your car. It is a good idea, obviously, to have something besides a bunch of auto-glass between your firearm and any thief with a rock or slim jim. But the Parking Lot Preemption statute, URS 34-45 only requires that the gun be out of sight and the car locked. Under the seat or under a blanket sitting on a seat complies with the statutory requirement so far as I can tell. Ditto for putting the gun into an unlocked / non-locking glove box or center console, so long as the car is locked.

If you want to leave your car unlocked, or if you car is a convertible with the top down or a motorcycle, then some kind of locking container is needed. A locking glove box would suffice.

In a publicly readable forum, it is good etiquette to distinguish between personal preferences and what statute actually requires. Links to statutes are helpful so anyone reading the post can quickly access the code for themselves.

Charles
 
#20 ·
bagpiper said:
Karl said:
It is fairly common for employers to have H/R policies that forbid guns or knives on the premises.

In those cases if you want to work there then you need to have a metal box in your vehicle that is chained (not cabled) to the interior where you can keep your firearm and mags while you are at work.
To be clear, you are not legally required to have a gun safe in your car. It is a good idea, obviously, to have something besides a bunch of auto-glass between your firearm and any thief with a rock or slim jim. But the Parking Lot Preemption statute, URS 34-45 only requires that the gun be out of sight and the car locked. Under the seat or under a blanket sitting on a seat complies with the statutory requirement so far as I can tell. Ditto for putting the gun into an unlocked / non-locking glove box or center console, so long as the car is locked.

If you want to leave your car unlocked, or if you car is a convertible with the top down or a motorcycle, then some kind of locking container is needed. A locking glove box would suffice.

In a publicly readable forum, it is good etiquette to distinguish between personal preferences and what statute actually requires. Links to statutes are helpful so anyone reading the post can quickly access the code for themselves.

Charles
You better have the metal gun box in your car and chained not cabled to the interior if you plan to carry in public and there are places that you need to go like the post office or to work that do not allow guns.

You can think of this as an option if you with but it would be a very irresponsible choice not to have the metal gun box.
 
#21 ·
Karl said:
You better have the metal gun box in your car and chained not cabled to the interior if you plan to carry in public and there are places that you need to go like the post office or to work that do not allow guns.

You can think of this as an option if you with but it would be a very irresponsible choice not to have the metal gun box.
On what do you base this emphatic assertion, Karl?

I do add that the post office bans guns from the parking lot just like they do the interior of the building. So you're parking on the street to be legal there.

I made clear in my response that a lock box was a good idea. I also made clear that law does not require it. What more do you want?

Charles
 
#22 ·
With absolutely no offense meant to either you or Karl, bagpiper, I suspect Karl is employing a style of posting that I've tentatively decided to call "declaratory." He isn't actually contradicting you so much as agreeing at least in part and perhaps disagreeing over one or more points by implication. Instead of responding directly to your points, he's typically compiling a response that must be parsed point by point for its relevancy to your own response. I recognize the style because I used to post like that myself back in the old days of Fidonet and subsequently to a limited extent in the then-newfangled Internet Usenet groups. It's just a stylistic habit that regrettably seems fairly often to lead to misunderstandings over intent and arguments over essentially nothing. I like to think my own writing has evolved slowly over many years into a clearer style that leaves less room for inadvertent misapprehensions. Diplomatic communications in the absence of facial expressions, tones of voice and other ordinary clues as to intent is a tricky art. :lol3:

bagpiper said:
[....]

I made clear in my response that a lock box was a good idea. I also made clear that law does not require it. What more do you want?
 
#23 ·
bagpiper said:
Karl said:
You better have the metal gun box in your car and chained not cabled to the interior if you plan to carry in public and there are places that you need to go like the post office or to work that do not allow guns.

You can think of this as an option if you with but it would be a very irresponsible choice not to have the metal gun box.
On what do you base this emphatic assertion, Karl?

I do add that the post office bans guns from the parking lot just like they do the interior of the building. So you're parking on the street to be legal there.

I made clear in my response that a lock box was a good idea. I also made clear that law does not require it. What more do you want?

Charles
Leaving a gun where someone can steal it is really irresponsible. The point of having a metal lock box chained to your car interior pretty much circumvents that risk. I don't see how this is optional.

It's the same issue with having or not having a gun safe in your home.

If you have only one firearm and you carry it on your person and sleep with it 24/7/365 and you never go anywhere that you cannot take the firearm then it would seem you do NOT then need a lock box for your car or a gun safe at home.

Otherwise you need at least one if not both -- the lock box or the gun safe.

This issue falls in the purview of self-evident analysis.

A lot of people are too lazy to get and use a gun safe or a lock box however.

The safe can be had for around $500 and the box around $50. The firearm itself surely cost more than this.

But people will still argue the issue and say "it's not required". But that depends on "what" is requiring it? The local law or prudence? Prudence requires it.

I think we have now probably kicked this horse to death, and then some.
 
#24 ·
No, no, let's keep beating this dead horse until the bones are shattered beyond recognition and the meat is crawling with maggots. I'll be happy myself to stand back a hundred yards with a huge bag of buttered popcorn and let everyone else here carry on until the men in white coats come to cart away the remaining unfortunates to an extended vacation at the funny farm. :lol3:
 
#25 ·
bumpylight said:
With absolutely no offense meant to either you or Karl, bagpiper, I suspect Karl is employing a style of posting that I've tentatively decided to call "declaratory." He isn't actually contradicting you so much as agreeing at least in part and perhaps disagreeing over one or more points by implication. Instead of responding directly to your points, he's typically compiling a response that must be parsed point by point for its relevancy to your own response. I recognize the style because I used to post like that myself back in the old days of Fidonet and subsequently to a limited extent in the then-newfangled Internet Usenet groups. It's just a stylistic habit that regrettably seems fairly often to lead to misunderstandings over intent and arguments over essentially nothing. I like to think my own writing has evolved slowly over many years into a clearer style that leaves less room for inadvertent misapprehensions. Diplomatic communications in the absence of facial expressions, tones of voice and other ordinary clues as to intent is a tricky art. :lol3:
No offense taken. You've offered a good insight.

I hope you are correct. We need all the allies we can get in our fight to retain, restore, and protect our RKBA. Allies must be able to work together, respectfully.

I've tried to be a bit gentle in my first couple of responses to Karl. I can respect honest personal differences of opinion. I'm a little past the point in life of being too keen on anyone presuming to dictate too much to another.

Charles
 
#26 ·
Helping others to understand what responsible gun ownership entails is what will win converts to the RKBA.

But ultimately you would also need to take them to an indoor shooting range and let them try it out themselves.

I think most people will grow to like shooting at a target and hitting it.

The indoor ranges let you set the targets at 5 yards away -- hard to miss that -- but still requiring proper grip, stance, aim, and trigger pull.

Responsible gun ownership starts with not having guns lying around the house. Locked up in a gun safe is the most noble.

If they can see your gun safe and see that your guns are locked up, then they will warm up to gun ownership.

This worked for my sister. She used to be anti-gun, now she is changing her mind.

I tell people about the 5 gun handling rules and the 5 gun shooting rules. There are also 5 range usage rules.

This breaks 15 procedural rules into 3 handy groups of 5. We play a memorization game with these first. Everyone loves games.

We go over these before I let them touch a gun. Then they understand it is an academic process as well as a tangible process to handle firearms.

I don't think we will ever convert the whole Nation to RKBA. But all we need is about 51% at least to keep it safe.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top