[robbeaudin]

Let me start by saying that although I am not a member of the LDS Church I am extremely fond of the majority of their ideas. In saying this I must respectfully disagree with the Church trying to squash the bill currently in the Legislature that allows unlicensed carry in automobiles. The church claims that it is because they don't want guns on their property, specifically in SLC. As I see it they already have the law on their side to keep guns off their property since they are listed on the BCI website as prohibiting firearms. If the intent is to keep people from being able to drive past church property on a public street with a firearm in their vehicle I disagree. If one agrees with biblical teachings, the right to self defense is a God given right. Why the church would want to stop that I don't know. I am certainly interested in hearing your opinions on this.

 

[Sambolijah]

I heard about this, but haven't been able to find a source. Could you post a link or anything? Thanks.

 

[Jeff Johnson]

I assume that you're talking about this bill:

S.B. 24 Weapons Amendments -- Madsen, M.

Where did you hear or read about the church opposing this bill? Got a link?

 

[HBELTHRWKS]

Well....I have to disrespectfully disagree with the thread in general. If someone wants to have a loaded gun on them, in a car or in a bar, get a CCW permit and do it the right way. I did it.....I'm assuming you all did it.
Why make it easy for those who wont pass a BG check......

There are those who are gonna do it with or without a permit, what the law says isnt gonna help one way or another. So...why the law?

Shoot well...

 

[Jeff Johnson]

HBELTHRWKS, here's the letter that I wrote to four committee members. Perhaps that will explain to you my position on this bill:

Dear Senator ________,

I am writing to ask you to please support Senate Bill 24 (Weapons Amendments).

The right to self-defense is a very precious right that must be jealously guarded in a free society. It is also a right that is recognized by many states, including the right to protect one's self in his or her own home. This is known as the Castle Doctrine (A man's home is his castle). In fact, many states consider a personal vehicle to be an extension of a person's home, and extend the castle doctrine to personal vehicles. Missouri passed a law about two years ago so that adults in Missouri who are legally allowed to own firearms are also allowed to have them available for self-defense in their own cars without requiring a permit. In doing this, Missouri has joined many states which recognize the right to self-defense in one's own car.

Please support this excellent bill.

Thank you,
Jeff Johnson

 

[robbeaudin]

I agree with you Jeff. I disagree with the need to get a permit to carry in your car. A car is an extension of your home and you should be able to protect yourself in it just as in your home providing you are permitted to own a firearm. I have a CFP so it doesn't affect me but my wife doesn't want a CFP right now so I think she should be able to carry in our vehicles so she can protect herself and our children when I am not around. Keep in mind, quite a few of the people who couldn't pass a background check are most likely already carrying illegally, wouldn't you want your family to be able to defend themselves against them?

 

[blackpuma]

Well....I have to disrespectfully disagree with the thread in general. If someone wants to have a loaded gun on them, in a car or in a bar, get a CCW permit

I'll have to disagree with you here.

Many of us recognize that this is a fundamental right derived from Natural Law. Being thus, for the state to demand of us its permission to excercize a right that transcends its scope of power is highly offensive.

Statists aggressively pursue programs of "baby steps" to their ends. I'll support each baby step towards restoring usurped power.

No State shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefore.

- Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105, US Supreme Court, 1943.

 

[robbeaudin]

Here's the link to the article. Guess its a moot point since it got out of commitee watered down so that it could be in the glovebox or a container without a round in the chamber.

http://www.abc4.com/local_news/local_he ... BCC917B3E1

 

[Guest]

That article only says that the church reminded the sponsor that they oppose guns on their property.

This really isn't opposing the bill. It would be the same if Banks or Post Offices didn't want guns on their property, wouldn't it?

 

[Sambolijah]

Possibly, but it doesn't seem to serve a purpose to simply remind them of the church's policy. This bill didn't do anything with the church's policy. It seems rather odd they would say anything about it.

 

[W. Clark Aposhian]

I was actually in the meetings with Senator Madsen and the Church.
I can only say this, it really lost something in the translation from the meetings to the News story.
Clark

 

[HBELTHRWKS]

Well...Ive pondered this a little and understand and respect your points.
Its a multi facited situation that isnt really that easy to make black or white.

The Castle" law Im pretty familiar with...but I believe is mainly directed at motel/hotel/motorhomes etc. It has to have accomidations for living as I understood it.

If Im wrong...**** it wont be the first time and very likely wont be the last.

Shoot well and god bless

 

[UTOC-45-44]

I was actually in the meetings with Senator Madsen and the Church.
I can only say this, it really lost something in the translation from the meetings to the News story.
Clark

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What got "lost" Clark ???

 

[mattsmith0622]

Do you all think, as I do, that the church not allowing concealed carry in their meeting houses is a bigger issue in one area of the state as opposed to another? My wife is from Roosevelt, and I'll be joining her out there soon. I cannot imagine any church leader out there caring one bit if I am carrying, nor can I imagine any member making an issue of it. Not that I make it known that I'm armed, but even if I did I think it's a non-issue out there. I suspect it's a bigger deal in Salt Lake. Maybe it's a cultural thing. I've never seen anything posted regarding the church's position against concealed carry either.

I'm totally against such a prohibition, but I don't see it ever having an impact on me personally living out there in the basin.

 

[apollosmith]

Do you all think, as I do, that the church not allowing concealed carry in their meeting houses is a bigger issue in one area of the state as opposed to another?

Perhaps, but that does not make it any less illegal anywhere in the state. Unlike businesses that cannot do anything but ask you to leave if you disregard their no-guns policies, it is codified in law that LDS houses of worship are no-gun areas.

I'm not happy with it either, especially considering the churches history in supporting gun rights and even forming its own armies and militias several times in the past. Still, they seem to be pretty set on keeping things this way. On a positive note, in Utah, we're pretty much free to carry ANYWHERE we want except LDS churches and secure areas and that's more than almost any other state.

 

[Cinhil]

As a reminder, you can carry in an LDS House of Worship if you get written permission from the building supervisor. Unfortunately this has become a requirement thanks to the church assisting in creating this insane law. I despise it myself, I too, am LDS and it is an outrage that we are required to be potential victims by this disconcerting affront to moral turpitude.
On another note, only LDS churches in Utah have this requirement, my brother in Texas has no trouble carrying in church.
I would be very pleased to see the unoffending, law abiding citizen able to carry in churches, schools, work places etc, just so that there would be someone available with a weapon, should someone choose to violate other citizens rights by assaulting them with illegal weapons, or with intent to kill indiscriminately as we have seen occur too much of late. At least the law abiding would have a chance then.

 

[apollosmith]

As a reminder, you can carry in an LDS House of Worship if you get written permission from the building supervisor.

Really? I wonder who the 'building supervisor' would be. Bishop? Not that I'd probably ask permission. I actually just found out that my former bishop carries all the time. And I know there's at least 2 others in my ward that would definitely carry there if we legally could.

I know part of the requirement for the LDS church was annual public notice. I haven't ever seen anything public except the BCI web site (and even then, it's several levels deep). Has annual public notice been made by the church as required by law? And if so, how can we find this notice?

 

[ebrinton]

Yeah, I've never heard any announcement from the church regarding concealed carry. It looks like that is a requirement before they can post the church on the BCI website. Does someone know where or when the church has announced their gun ban? Was it in the Ensign? Church News? Read by each bishop at the pulpit?

Next issue: who is it in the church bureaucracy who is renewing this ban every year (I believe the church's ban expires every January)? Can we somehow raise a stink and get the church to not renew this ban? Has anyone every tried to get the church to reverse its position (written letters, talked to authorities, etc.)? Boyd K. Packer was in our ward the other day and I was thinking of talking to him about reversing the ban

Oh, and who is a building supervisor?

 

[apollosmith]

Does someone know where or when the church has announced their gun ban? Was it in the Ensign? Church News? Read by each bishop at the pulpit?

The letter at http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,590038317,00.html was read in Utah LDS congregations in January 2004. Of note, the letter says that they will give public notice. I'm just curious what that notice would be (if not the letter itself) and if that notice has been renewed each year as required by law.

The BCI web site states the procedures for being listed on the site itself, but this does not alone meet the requirements of the law, which state one of the following must occur:
1. notice given in person.
2. posting of signs
3. announcement in congregation
4. publication in a bulletin, newsletter, worship program, etc.
5. 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.

I'm pretty sure that 1-4 have not occurred with the exception of #3 in 2004. I'm not aware of #5 occurring and can't find anything in either the Deseret News, Salt Lake Trib, or Church News.

I certainly respect the legal process and the Church's legal rights to restrict weapons, but would like to ensure that the legal requirements they are asking us to comply with are equally met on their end.

 

[ebrinton]

It looks as if the LDS Church hasn't complied with the law.