LDS Church attempting to interfere with Gun Rights

apollosmith said:

ebrinton said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

The posting of that letter and the reading of it in church meets two of the criteria of the law. Given that personal notification is on the list they are pretty much covered. Also the law only requires that they re-up with BCI annually not the public notice. Concealed carry within an LDS owned facility is not legal in the state of Utah. It is not likely that one would get charged, but until this is reversed I do not step foot in LDS builings or properties.

God disarming me falls under the "cold dead hands" statute, last I checked he could disarm me anytime he wants. So until he does it himself, no one, not even his messengers, will do it through any act of political subterfuge. Many of the people who worked on the UofU ban are LDS. There are people in that church abusing power. And if you are a follower of that church and are well read on the "revelations" about it you will discover that at some point it will need purging.

Not by me of course, I'm a hethan.

ebrinton said:

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

Click to expand...

Well, they haven't broken any laws or done anything wrong, though I don't think that's what you meant anyways.

It simply appears that they may not have met all of the legal requirements for banning firearms. They did meet these requirements in January 2004 by making public notice and by informing BCI of their intent. However, the law clearly states that public notice (NOT the informing of BCI) "shall remain in effect until revoked or for a period of one year from the date the notice was originally given, whichever occurs first." If public notice has not been made in the last year in one of the methods listed above, then guns cannot be legally banned in LDS churches, right (unless there is a sign or you have been personally notified)?

If this is all true, the only thing this changes is that you are not automatically trespassing for taking a concealed weapon into an LDS church. The same rules as all other private establishments would apply to you (e.g., leaving if they ask you to, etc.).

I'm not a lawyer, but this seems pretty straight forward to me.

In 2007 notice was finally posted in March. I had been checking since January and it took that long before it was finally "Posted" on BCI. BCI informed me at the time that they posted the letter immediately after receiving it.
As for a building supervisor, in any situation where there are more than one Ward meeting in a building there is a supervisor in charge of activities & functions performed at the building. Finding out whom this is and getting a formal letter stating it is ok for you to carry could be as simple as a question to the Bishop. I would tend to think though, that these supervisors are either not up on the law, fearful of causing a stir, or would be unsure about their ability to have a letterhead letter written authorizing an individual the free exercise of their right to carry upon the grounds of the church.
Personally I still feel this law defies the 13 Articles of Faith as well as doctrine of the church since the beginning. I obey it simply because I am a lawful person. But when I do I am only able to hope that no one of evil intent will do anything untoward while I am attending my religious meetings or funtions.

As far as I understand, one of the responsibilities of being a CFP holder is to know the laws regarding concealed carry. This includes knowing how, when and where we are able to legally carry, i.e. checking with BCI. I was instructed to get on their website and read up on the laws, and anyone, by doing so, would have seen that the LDS Church is listed as no carry allowed. If one were to be criminally charged, I don't see the judge giving any leniency.

This makes the discussion somewhat moot. We are supposed to seek out what the CFP allows us to do, not just sit around and wait for people to tell us and then make them show it to us in writing.

Now don't get me wrong, I think the Church is doing a disservice to their members and the general public by restricting concealed carry. And I must admit that I value my life and the lives of my family over any laws of this country. I agree with the state of Vermont; the government does not have any right to take away or limit your ability or method of self preservation - hence why I believe the CFP to be superfluous and a technicality that I comply with simply to avoid legal hassle.

Anyways, this is just my two cents, but as far as I know, we are required to learn about the law and then comply - ignorance doesn't seem to afford much legal protection anymore.

ebrinton said:

However, one of the laws

Click to expand...

Better to use the term conditions than laws.

ebrinton said:

the Church must make a public announcement every year before posting on the BCI site

Click to expand...

They have to notify BCI within 30 days of the announcement.

ebrinton said:

The Church has not fulfilled all of the requirements and therefore they have no legal ground to stand on.

Click to expand...

I agree that they most likely have not fulfilled the requirement of yearly notification. There could have been a notification on the Church web site, a Church publication or some other source, but I have not heard anything announced in my meetings. Even though I agree with ebrinton, I still doubt that the failure to continually notify would hold up in court - even though it probably should.

I guess what I am saying is that we should probably obey the Spirit of the law (since we know what it is) rather than getting nitpicky with the Letter of the law.

For more info, read the Utah Code Section 76-10-530

SHOUT OUT TO MY BOY EBRINTON

What constitutes public notice?

Is it announcement over the pulpit? Yes. Maybe it hasn't been done yearly, and there is a question whether that is necessary according to the law. (Our opinions don't count, unless we are the judge making a ruling.)

Is it notice in a newspaper? Yes. Maybe that hasn't been done yearly either, and the question about the law still remains.

Does having the requirement posted on the BCI website constitute public notice? I submit it very likely does, and fulfills the law.

Next, is it like trespassing, where everything is OK until they personally ASK you to leave? NO. (Read the statute.) According to the statute, you've broken the law just by entering the "house of worship" with a firearm without permission. They don't have to ask you anything.

But finally, what is the penalty for breaking this law? Have you committed a felony? No. A misdemeanor? No. (Read the statute.) You have committed an "infraction."

Just remember, there was no public notice from Jan. 1st 2007 until March 13th (if my memory is correct) on the BCI Website. No notice was given under any other venue during this time, which means that the law was in violation for at least 3 months, as notification must occur the first meeting of January or through BCI at the same time. A call to BCI from the Church does not constitute obedience to the law, a letter must be received by them & posted immediately to keep everyone informed (if they are aware of this statute- and also know where to reach BCI or their website--new citizens & visitors may be unaware of this).
The unfortunate issue is that no date of notification is listed on BCI--statute is not in obedience by any entity until the notice is received & posted, yet BCI still refuses to update their website to incorporate this very pertinent information so that the public may know without a doubt as to whether they would, or would not be in compliance themselves.
There is still much to be smoothed out concerning this law and proper obedience to it--so far we, who are concealed weapons holders seem to be the only ones who try to be in compliance. Suffice it to say, the first 3 months of 2007 we could have legally carried in LDS churches had we been so disposed as compliance had not been met.
My information is directly from the contact I had at BCI during this time frame. His name was listed on an earlier post & escapes me now.--Sorry.

I think people are getting a little bit confused. Utah Code Section 76-10-530 is written very plainly. There are roughly two ways a church can go about prohibiting firearms.

First way: A church can prohibit firearms permanently if they post conspicuous signs at the meetinghouse, or if an authorized person (defined in (2)(a)i and (iii)) personally communicates it to you.

or

Second way: A church can notify the public by the means described in (2)(c), (d), or (e). Then they must notify the BCI within 30 days of the public announcement. The BCI will put the churches name on the BCI website. This way of prohibiting firearms is valid for only one year (see (4)(b)).

This is what I think has happened with the Church/BCI listing: Although the law says that the church must notify the public by the means described in (2)(c), (d), or (e) and then notify the BCI, the church has been simply notifying the BCI every year without the public notification (it only did a public notification once in 2004). I think that they have gotten away with it because the BCI's instructions for notification don't mention the public notification requirement. So basically what all this boils down to is that the BCI's church notification page allows a church to post its name on the web site without having made a proper public announcement. The BCI needs to fix its web site to conform with Utah Code Section 76-10-530.

While I'm at it, I just wanted to illucidate two falsehoods that have been mentioned on this thread previously.

1. Just having a church's name on the website does not constitute a public announcement--having the name there is meant to reflect the fact that the church has make a public announcement within the last year.

2. The church does have to renew their public announcement every year (see (4)(b)).

I know a guy who lives in Davis County and works for the Mormon Church.

According to him, he attends church every Sunday and heard people talk about the church planning on banning guns, but a letter concerning that was never read in his congregation, and he looked for it.

He carries a gun to church. He has heard a lot of talk about guns in church, but he has never personally been informed in a letter or in person, or over the pulpet that it is true.

He understands that IF it is true and they find out that he carries a gun that it is an infraction.

He is of the opinion that IF it is true and IF he is FOUND OUT, then he will be asked to stop carrying, and he feels that it is un-likley that anyone would press the issue.

A lot of things have been said on this topic, but anything you read on the internet is opinion and nothing more.

Don't bet your life on it.

I have read everyone's oppinion and I know what my friend thinks, and I know church people in general and as long as someone doesn't get in a spitting match, or make a specticle out of themselves, I wouldn't worry to much about it, but then again that is me.

It sounds like the law is the kind that makes the sheep feel good.