Conceal law & Churches

The LDS church's position on the concealed carrying of weapons is confusing to me. On the one hand, you have the church fulfilling all the legal requirements to restrict carry here in Utah, but doing nothing to restrict it in other states. While they may not legally be able to restrict it in some places, is it not feasible that if the church were truly concerned about this that they would have sent letters to be read at the pulpit requestign members do not, even though the church cannot legally restrict it?

Since they haven't had such a letter read nationwide regardless of legal parameters for carry in those states, I am left wondering why they did this in Utah. Were they perhaps catering to many members in alarm that while other churches were subscribing to this restriction, the LDS church was not? Was this a PR move and nothing more? Again, if they were really serious about restricting carry, why only in Utah?

I'm really left wondering.

Does the LDS Church ask people in other states not to carry in their houses of worship? In Utah there is a provision in the law about it, but are there any other states have a similar provision -- to make a blanket provision for individual denominations about non-carry, rather than by individual buildings -- where the LDS Church could do the same kind of thing?

Michigan, for example, says any church facility is off-limits (unless permission is granted). But I'm talking about the opposite situation where carry is legal except where a church specifically denies it.

My point is, maybe Utah is the only place where there is this kind of law. I'm wondering if the LDS Church would have done the same thing in other states, but couldn't because the process or law for doing it just wasn't available.

About 4 years ago I representing (US-DIN) the NRA Lobbyist and Go-Utah’s chairman met with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints’ leaders in the church office building downtown. It was then and there we hammered a bill that resulted in what we have in law under 76-10-530.
After the Gov signed it and for almost 2 years the church quietly kept that in reserve and showed no intention to Ever post or notify per the statue requirements thus invoking the ban in their meetinghouses.

In fact it was not until Dan Harrie, reporter for the Tribune called me and asked why hasn’t the Church notified or posted on BCI’s website?. He said after all, weren’t they instrumental in drafting the current law? I said I don’t know why they haven’t but I postulated that perhaps they realized that by doing so would only be a figurative ban since there were no detectors in place. That just wasn’t good enough for him. He kept pushing this for weeks until the member sheep flooded the church with phone calls saying “you must protect us” The church, in my opinion said “fine, you want it, you got it” for all the good it’ll do you.”

On a very relevant side note, and something very few people know about, at the current time, guns are NOT banned, by law, in LDS meeting houses at this time. Doubt that?, read the statute yourself. Lets see who on this list can be first to find out why I would say such a thing.
Sincerely,
W. Clark Aposhian

Thanks to everyone for chipping in. I was unaware of the 1 year portion of the statute. Thanks Clark! I am happy to see such a good following of this post. I will remember to look closer at the laws in the future. I guess I had just "assumed" that the LDS church would have had this posted ad infinitum.
As I've said before, many churches, especially in the south require at least one Deacon to carry at church all the time. I am glad to know that there are others out there who feel, as I do, that an advertised unarmed victim location is a prime target for the criminal element. I feel comforted to know that I, or any other lawful ccw person may carry in a church and feel safe. Safe not only for themselves, but for all those who would be victims otherwise.
Thanks for the input!! As a example, we should look to the recent posts on the packing.com site speaking of thwarted robberies & possible assaults at several churches back east & south.

Since I started this post, I felt I should check things out closer. Yes, there is a one year stipulation & each church must post every year in order to refuse us our God-Given rights to self defence.
I went to the source, BCI. I spoke with Nicole. She said that as of February 1st of this year (2005) the LDS Church sent them a letter & they had not updated it. So at this time it is "illegal" to carry in a LDS chapel.
While I was speaking with Nicole I asked that the site be changed to accomodate a date for the registration of each church that desires to do this.
Hopefully that will help us all. This way we don't have to guess, and one simple review of the sight can tell us if it is legal on any given day to carry in any given posted church.
I still say that if any church is going to do this, that they should provide lockers, or at least a secure storage place within its' facility to accommodate those of us who desire to protect self, family & others. Can something be done about this Clark? Afterall-by definition churches really don't fit the bill, according to statute, of a secure facility unless it is written into the law, or they provide lockers as legislated for secure facilities.
SORRY about the Bad News Guys!!!
I am even more apologetic to all those who rely upon public transportation, who must walk to church in bad neighborhoods because they have no car, or those who are epeleptic who cannot drive--all of whom have no way of protecting themselves to or from the church of their cchoice because of this stupid law. This of course means that all of us have the right to sue a church if in the lawful course of a days events, which may include church service, we are assaulted, mugged, or violated in any way. Why? Because by denying us our God-Given Right to self defense they have accepted responsibility for our safety. I have checked with my representatives on this and this is true by what thay have said. It is even true according to the 3rd District Court--They take FULL Reponsibility for our safety both to and from our homes in these instances!! I hope they realize this!