LDS Church attempting to interfere with Gun Rights

10944 Views 47 Replies 16 Participants Last post by UTOC-45-44, Sep 12, 2007

robbeaudin

Discussion Starter · Feb 17, 2006

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.

21 - 40 of 48 Posts

mcosman

· #21 · Sep 3, 2007

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.

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.

apollosmith

· #22 · Sep 3, 2007

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

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.

See less See more

apollosmith

· #23 · Sep 3, 2007

mcosman said:
Also the law only requires that they re-up with BCI annually not the public notice.

No, that's not how I understand it. It states that they notify BCI that they have made or revoked the public notice so BCI can post the church name on the web site. The public notice itself expires after one year.

mcosman

· #24 · Sep 3, 2007

apollosmith said:
mcosman said:

Also the law only requires that they re-up with BCI annually not the public notice.

Click to expand...

No, that's not how I understand it. It states that they notify BCI that they have made or revoked the public notice so BCI can post the church name on the web site. The public notice itself expires after one year.

By putting the words "Notice given in person" they are covered in any conceivable legal altercation. If you are standing in front of a judge and he asks if you knew the churches policy. You will have no legal ground to stand on. I have spoken with my local leaders. They have ensured me that the churches policy stand and that they stand by it. Therefore they have met condition one. It's a loophole and that's exactly why it is written that way.

mcosman

· #25 · Sep 3, 2007

Also the Des news is owned by the church. The precence of that letter on their website could also be construed and continued public notice in a "church owned publication" In short the law is written in such a fashion that unless they change their policy carry is not allowed on their property.

apollosmith

· #26 · Sep 3, 2007

Thanks mcosman. That makes sense. It was never my intention to try and subvert the law or their policy, but just to make sure that myself and others understood it more clearly. To be honest, I sometimes feel that my church meetings are probably the most dangerous location I am in most weeks - no legal guns and a large audience make a great target, as evidenced at Trolley Square.

I guess it comes down to the fact that if you know the policy, you'd be in trouble. I very much doubt that anyone not aware of the gun policy could be charged with a crime here. In fact, the law is written in a way that almost allows ignorance here - "may not knowingly and intentionally."

Great discussion and thanks for the insight!

mcosman

· #27 · Sep 3, 2007

True, all they can really do in ask you to leave anyways. I can only see someone actually getting in trouble if they persistently defy the LDS wishes. Mostly this gives the Church law auit avoidance for makin the policy. What it also does is rolles out the UN-Welcome mat for me and my ilke.

Cinhil

· #28 · Sep 3, 2007

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.

See less See more

GeneticsDave

· #29 · Sep 3, 2007

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.

See less See more

ebrinton

· #30 · Sep 3, 2007

GeneticsDave said:
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.

However, one of the laws of regarding concealed carry is that the Church must make a public announcement every year before posting on the BCI site. The Church has not fulfilled all of the requirements and therefore they have no legal ground to stand on. Please, someone tell me if the Church has made any announcements this year regarding the banning of weapons.

GeneticsDave

· #31 · Sep 3, 2007

ebrinton said:
However, one of the laws

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

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.

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

See less See more

ebrinton

· #32 · Sep 3, 2007

Dave, are you a medical student? You were picking apart my reply like an attenting does to a student's SOAP note.

UtahRSO

· #33 · Sep 3, 2007

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."

Cinhil

· #34 · Sep 4, 2007

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.

See less See more

UtahRSO

· #35 · Sep 4, 2007

It seems apparent that a church could let the notification lapse, and then at a later date notify the BCI to list the prohibition. At that point, the notification has been made, and the prohibition is again in force.

One may argue about what could have been done, as regards the timing when it was listed on the BCI site months ago. That doesn't matter at this point. It's on the BCI site now, and that's what is important.

As for the timing earlier this year, is there any evidence one way or the other that the church let it lapse? Or did the BCI not post it when it should have been posted? Sounds like it could be a case of he-said, she-said, with no way we could really know. But again, it doesn't really matter now.

tapehoser

· #36 · Sep 4, 2007

I think there is some confusion among some folks on the forum about exactly WHAT the LDS Church is required to do to prohibit firearms from their 'houses of worship'.

If you read the law very carefully, they do not have to comply with ALL of the requirements listed in the law. They only have to comply with ONE single requirement.

ebrinton

· #37 · Sep 4, 2007

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)).

See less See more

blackpuma

· #38 · Sep 4, 2007

That bit of law just needs to be repealed.

It's confusing, convoluted, plus very few churches opted for the "no guns" signs... this way is just a soft-shoe way for them to ban guns without having the gumption to come right out and say it on the front door.

Heck, repeal the whole idea.

Tarzan1888

· #39 · Sep 4, 2007

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.

See less See more

tapehoser

· #40 · Sep 4, 2007

An infraction is less than a misdemeanor, correct?

What, exactly, is the punishment for an infraction of the law? Could your CFP be revoked?

21 - 40 of 48 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.