Exactly why the LDS church should think harder on policy

[J_dazzle23]

http://m.ksl.com/index/story/sid/34782442

Shooter opened fire at an LDS stake center.

This is why sometime *law abiding* gun owners may feel more justified In protecting their (pregnant wives) rather than obey the letter of the law on this one. .

[Uinta Firearms]

I do consider myself LDS, but have troubles with some things. This is one of them. I have a hard time accepting an indoctrination that preaches preparation and self-sufficiency, but restricts one of the main tools necessary for self-protection/preservation.

[SirGentleman]

This is the exact reason that I may or may not have been carrying at church today. I'd rather get an infraction and be able to defend myself and my family than to stay unprotected. But that's just me.

[D-FIN]

I'm sure you just misspoke and would not openly admit even vaguely to such a thing. Such choices are best kept private.

[SirGentleman]

I'm sure you just misspoke and would not openly admit even vaguely to such a thing. Such choices are best kept private.

Yes. What I meant to say was, "I think that the LDS church should reconsider its policy."

[Jiggerman]

I agree, the church should re-evaluate it's policy.

[aaron]

The church should rethink the policy. I had also heard that if you get permission from the presiding bishop then you can. I remember when I lived in Vegas and they asked some of us local guys to do security for Elder Anderson. I'm also pretty sure that the people who protect the prophet and apostles are always carrying. You can see them printing.
The reason the church gives for prohibiting firearms is in Handbook 2 section 21.2.4

21.2.4
Firearms

Churches are dedicated for the worship of God and as havens from the cares and concerns of the world. The carrying of lethal weapons, concealed or otherwise, within their walls is inappropriate except as required by officers of the law.

[RustyShackleford]

The church should rethink the policy. I had also heard that if you get permission from the presiding bishop then you can. I remember when I lived in Vegas and they asked some of us local guys to do security for Elder Anderson. I'm also pretty sure that the people who protect the prophet and apostles are always carrying. You can see them printing.
The reason the church gives for prohibiting firearms is in Handbook 2 section 21.2.4

21.2.4
Firearms

Churches are dedicated for the worship of God and as havens from the cares and concerns of the world. The carrying of lethal weapons, concealed or otherwise, within their walls is inappropriate except as required by officers of the law.

Yes, and those body guards are not officers of the law and or are not acting within that capacity when protecting general authorities.
My Wife and My Family...and those I am around, all gods children are equally important to the Lord. I guess there may be some nutjobs out there that would harm one of them, just as we do know there are those that will and have gone after defensless, unarmed members at church, on church property. Religion can bring out the worst in some people. It is too bad that our legislature gave a special exemption and also pass "special laws" for churches on this as well as other laws that discriminate against other private organizations or businesses.

[althor]

It is too bad that our legislature gave a special exemption and also pass "special laws" for churches on this as well as other laws that discriminate against other private organizations or businesses.

People seem to have a short memory. Had it not been for the 'special laws', we would have most likely been stuck with 'Safe to Learn, Safe to Worship' and guns would be banned from all churches and schools. Just something to consider.

[bagpiper]

It is too bad that our legislature gave a special exemption and also pass "special laws" for churches on this as well as other laws that discriminate against other private organizations or businesses.

As noted, the most likely alternative to the most recent (some 10 years ago) change in laws regarding churches and guns in Utah was to get a complete ban of all privately carried guns in both churches and in all public schools. This special law would have been passed by the citizens, rather than the legislature. It would have infringed on church's rights to decide for themselves whether to allow guns or not.

But bear in mind that with the exception of how notice can be given, churches get exactly the same legal support for their gun bans that is available to any resident of a private home.

Second only to a man's home, churches are long recognized as private property that must be able to set policies as they see fit.

The 1st amendment is a pretty darn "special law" for churches. Churches and religion enjoy a high and exalted position in American Jurisprudence based on that constitutional amendment. That amendment is about far more than just believing as you see fit. Even the Soviets permitted their gulag prisoners to believe as they saw fit. It was just their words, writings, and conduct that got them in trouble.

Churches are not businesses and businesses are not being discriminated against. Churches and businesses are very different things (and claims that they are equal are likely to be taken as very offensive). Treating different things differently isn't "discrimination" in any legal sense.

Charles

[UCChris]

I would consider myself LDS, but if/when I leave the church, you better believe their firearms policy will be the most prominent of reasons...

[UtahJarhead]

I would consider myself LDS, but if/when I leave the church, you better believe their firearms policy will be the most prominent of reasons...

Ah, so you're just looking for your reason?

[UCChris]

I would consider myself LDS, but if/when I leave the church, you better believe their firearms policy will be the most prominent of reasons...

Ah, so you're just looking for your reason?

Haha, I'm not self aware enough to know what the heck I'm looking for at this point...

[Uinta Firearms]

I want everybody to remember this face. It is the face of churches being gun free zones. This is the face of a woman who would have been able to defend herself if she wasn't in a gun free zone at the time of her attack. She was left for dead by her attacker after being brutally assaulted. This is her police evidence photo after the attack. Her name is Mary Shepard. She is the reason why Illinois now has concealed carry. It is her court case that the 7th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals heard and ruled on stating, "The right to defend one's self extends beyond ones door of their home."



Now, tell me churches should be gun free zones.



The case I'm referring to is Shepard/Moore v Madigan, Dec 2012.

[bagpiper]

Now, tell me churches should be gun free zones.

Nobody here likes the LDS policy on guns in their houses of worship.

But I will actively and ardently defend the right of churches to set pretty much whatever entrance requirements they like. Nobody is legally required to enter a church. And whether it is the gun ban on all LDS (and some other denominations') houses of worship, or a ban on extra-marital sex and a requirement to tithe and abide the LDS dietary code in order to enter beyond the recommend desk at LDS temples, or the requirement to cover one's head to enter a Jewish house of worship, removing shoes, or any other requirement, if a person finds anything about the policies set by churches to be offensive, that person has every right to avoid entrance into, affiliation with, or any support of that church.

The 1st amendment protects the very widest berth possible when it comes to churches setting policies and requirements for membership, entrance into their houses of worship, reception of sacraments, and other matters regarding how the church is run.

This topic comes up periodically and I don't intend to go on too long this time. I will point out that the LDS Church is not likely to respond to political pressure or social pressure the same way most secular organizations will. The media is certainly not going to be helpful on this except perhaps anti-religious media that might attack the church generally on some "hypocrisy charge" for not supporting similar bans in schools, hospitals, public parks, and anywhere within 10,000 miles of a child.

If anyone is close personal friends with a high ranking LDS Church official, have a chat. Or invite me over to chat with him/her.

Short of that, I predict very little else is likely to be at all effective.

And it is pretty easy to drift from civilly expressing disagreement with the no-gun policies adopted by a few churches in Utah into the type of thing starts to look like attacking one church or another or even blaming them for the conduct of criminals. Obviously, no decent man would want to cross that line, now would he.

There is a world of difference between a church adopting a gun free policy and government imposing an unwanted restriction on guns at churches.

Charles