[Jeff Johnson]

I'd like to make sure that there is no misunderstanding of the Utah statute (U.C.A. 76-10-530) which allows churches to bar firearms from their property.

There are two basic ways for a church in Utah to legally bar firearms from their houses of worship:

1. The first category includes either of the following:
   • A personal communication (from someone with authority to act for said church) indicating that guns are not allowed.
     [/*]
   • Posting of no-gun signs at entrances.[/*]
   If using one of these two means of notification, there is no requirement for the church to notify BCI, meaning that if that church doesn't notify BCI, then it will not show up on the BCI list of Houses of Worship Prohibiting Firearms on Premises.
   
   [/*]
2. The second category includes any of the following three methods:
   • Announcement over the pulpit in a regular congregational meeting.
     [/*]
   • Publishing a notice in a church bulletin, newsletter or other such document.
     [/*]
   • Publishing a notice in a newspaper of general circulation.[/*]
   If using one of these means of notification, then there is a requirement to notify BCI within 30 days of that notification so that this can be reflected on the Utah BCI website. This just adds another method available to churches that might not want to post signs or depend on personal communication. It allows for greater flexibility by church owners. This also helps ensure that a person with a concealed weapons permit has a reasonable way to know whether or not a given church bans firearms, since it is easy to miss an announcement, bulletin or a newspaper article.[/*]

Here's an interesting point. If using method #2, it remains in effect until explicitly revoked by the church, or for a period of one year, whichever comes first. As we can see by this, the church must either use method #1, or must do method #2 every year.

 

[RugerShooter]

So the way I understand it, you can NOT carry a Concealed Weapon into an LDS Church because 1. it is posted BCI website and 2. it is still posted on the church's webiste SEE HERE (which is dated 2004, but is still posted if you search concealed weapons? Or do they have to re-issure it every year?

 

[Jeff Johnson]

Posting on a church website is not one of the statutorily listed means of communicating the ban.

I think that I have to agree with others who have concluded that the LDS church hasn't complied with the law as written, and therefore the ban isn't in force. Therefore, I believe that we indeed can legally carry into LDS churches, BUT please keep it well-concealed lest we provoke the church into complying with the letter of the law.

 

[doconix]

I wouldn't go so far as to say that the LDS ban is no longer in force. I could easily see the line reading "Publishing a notice in a church bulletin, newsletter or other such document" being interpreted where "other such document" is a web site. I'm not saying whether I do or do not abide by this rule, but I think the LDS Church has made it very clear what their standing is. Hiding behind a "letter of the law" approach may work, but it also may bite you in a Utah court. I think the advice to keep it concealed in this case is wise.

 

[UtahRSO]

I looked at Mitch Vilos's book to see if any guidance is there, as regards if and by what means the Church ban would be extended. No help there.

We should have thought to "pin him down" when he came to our get-together a few months ago (wow! was that last year??).

 

[Jeff Johnson]

...
I could easily see the line reading "Publishing a notice in a church bulletin, newsletter or other such document" being interpreted where "other such document" is a web site.
...

You may have a point, but that old news article at the church web site was published on 1 February 2004. An old archived web notice that is more than four years old does not qualify as renewing every year. I believe that they should have a new article published every year to meet the requirement.

 

[bane]

...
I could easily see the line reading "Publishing a notice in a church bulletin, newsletter or other such document" being interpreted where "other such document" is a web site.
...

You may have a point, but that old news article at the church web site was published on 1 February 2004. An old archived web notice that is more than four years old does not qualify as renewing every year. I believe that they should have a new article published every year to meet the requirement.

I agree with that logic -- arguing that an archived post on an internet site still counts as "current" is similar to arguing that an old edition of a newspaper still able to be located in the local library would also count as "current".

 

[divegeek]

...
I could easily see the line reading "Publishing a notice in a church bulletin, newsletter or other such document" being interpreted where "other such document" is a web site.
...

You may have a point, but that old news article at the church web site was published on 1 February 2004. An old archived web notice that is more than four years old does not qualify as renewing every year. I believe that they should have a new article published every year to meet the requirement.

Also, that news archive hardly qualifies as a bulletin, newsletter or similar that is "generally circulated or available to the members of the congregation". No one without Internet access can read it, and hardly anyone has any idea that its there, or that they should look at it.

They might as well put the notice on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'.

 

[Jesse]

Posting on a church website is not one of the statutorily listed means of communicating the ban.

I think that I have to agree with others who have concluded that the LDS church hasn't complied with the law as written, and therefore the ban isn't in force. Therefore, I believe that we indeed can legally carry into LDS churches, BUT please keep it well-concealed lest we provoke the church into complying with the letter of the law.

Just an FYI...http://publicsafety.utah.gov/bci/CFchurch.html

BCI will update the website to reflect the date that notification was received.

 

[Jeff Johnson]

Just an FYI...http://publicsafety.utah.gov/bci/CFchurch.html

BCI will update the website to reflect the date that notification was received.

Well, that's a piece of data that we didn't know about.
I'm glad to see the date posted on BCI now so that there's no question.
Anybody got a link to the 9 February 2008 Trib or Desnews announcements ?

 

[divegeek]

Just an FYI...http://publicsafety.utah.gov/bci/CFchurch.html

BCI will update the website to reflect the date that notification was received.

Well, that's a piece of data that we didn't know about.
I'm glad to see the date posted on BCI now so that there's no question.
Anybody got a link to the 9 February 2008 Trib or Desnews announcements ?

It doesn't seem to be in the on-line archives of either paper. I think we're going to need someone with access to a university library to go pull a copy of the papers on that day and check.

I suspect that the announcement was made, though. I can't imagine either the church or the BCI would make it up.

 

[Car Knocker]

It may not be an article in the paper but a notice in the Public Notices/Announcements/Legal Notices section of the Classifieds. A search of the D-News archives didn't turn up an article with that date, or one close to that date, so I suspect a Legal Notice.

 

[Paul]

"Publishing a notice in a newspaper of general circulation."

If there even such a thing anymore? Newspapers used to be a good way to notify people of issues, but not anymore..... funny how quick things can change.

 

[apollosmith]

"Publishing a notice in a newspaper of general circulation."

If there even such a thing anymore? Newspapers used to be a good way to notify people of issues, but not anymore..... funny how quick things can change.

Yeah, apparently they published it and the entire community of people that it was specifically targeting missed it. A lot of good that does.

The exact language is, "... publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the county in which the house of worship is located or the church or organization operating the house of worship has its principal office in this state." So publishing in a Salt Lake Newspaper does provide the necessary notice for the entire state, I guess.

 

[divegeek]

It may not be an article in the paper but a notice in the Public Notices/Announcements/Legal Notices section of the Classifieds. A search of the D-News archives didn't turn up an article with that date, or one close to that date, so I suspect a Legal Notice.

Yeah. That's why I suggested that one of the UCC members who regularly finds himself near a university library pop in and take a look at the papers on that day.

Any volunteers?

 

[race]

I have a hard time with this one my wifes family is way LDS I am not.some of the party's/meeting's are at churches and seminary building's that we can't carry well why not! the bad guy coming in doesn't care what church it is while he does his/her thing! and while all the party's are going on the door's are open. if a bad guy does his research this is a golden opertunity **** I'll go in rape,kill,rob those guy's they can't do a thing about it as they probably think. well legal or not I have and will continue to carry at all these event's to protect my family I'll take my chance's after the fact's!! Maybe if this wasn't in efec't maybe the young lady killed in the parking lot of an Lds church taking her kid's and mother to church could have done something about it lethal or not! and why should I/you sit there and wait for it to happen?

 

[apollosmith]

race-

The beauty of the Utah law is that it is only an 'infraction' if you are caught carrying at a church AND they call the cops AND you are charged AND a judge gives you the maximum penalty. You cannot lose your permit for one infraction violation. In my opinion, the law is structured in a way that allows citizens to learn the principles and govern themselves - they simply must weigh the desire (or requirement or commandment) to protect themselves and their families vs. the desire (or requirement or commandment) to comply with the exact letter of the law.

 

[GeneticsDave]

Posting on a church website is not one of the statutorily listed means of communicating the ban.

I think that I have to agree with others who have concluded that the LDS church hasn't complied with the law as written, and therefore the ban isn't in force. Therefore, I believe that we indeed can legally carry into LDS churches, BUT please keep it well-concealed lest we provoke the church into complying with the letter of the law.

Just an FYI...http://publicsafety.utah.gov/bci/CFchurch.html

BCI will update the website to reflect the date that notification was received.

Anyone want to check to see if this is updated for 2009, if not, it appears that the notification is not being continued. Please check the Deseret News and Tribune tomorrow and let us know!

 

[Car Knocker]

FWIW, an online search of both newspapers, including the legal notices, for the month didn't turn up a notification. There were, however, a depressing number of Notices of Trustee Sales for homes in default.

 

[divegeek]

FWIW, an online search of both newspapers, including the legal notices, for the month didn't turn up a notification.

Today is the one-year anniversary so by tomorrow, unless the LDS church re-publicizes the restriction, it is no longer an infraction to carry in an LDS churchhouse. Those who take a paper should watch this week to see if a notice shows up.