Guns at church policy changed

[JAHS]

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints changes gun policy

Lethal weapons are now “prohibited” on properties of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, instead of being labeled as “inappropriate.” A church spokesman confirmed the change for 2News on Sunday night.

The new policy was noted in a handbook sent electronically to local church leaders. It’s unknown how the message is being conveyed to members throughout wards and stakes.

A little more than a year ago, a man fired a gun inside a Latter-day Saints chapel in Northern Nevada, in the community of Fallon. One person was killed, another wounded.

A 2News report, soon after the shooting, said the church had no plans to change its stance on guns inside buildings.

“Our chapels 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,” a church spokesperson said in late July 2018.

Now, as reported in thisweekinmormons.com, the handbook reads:

"With the exception of current law enforcement officers, the carrying of lethal weapons on church property, concealed or otherwise, is prohibited."

The change may touch off more public discussion.

There have been other gun incidents on Latter-day Saints property:

In January 2008, a woman was shot and killed on a Lehi church parking lot by her estranged husband,
August 2010, a Latter-day Saints bishop was shot and killed at a chapel in Visalia, California.
September 2018, a man accidentally fired a gun inside a church building in Provo."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are a few police officers in my ward who usually have one on them at church. I would guess that most wards have members who are police officers that might carry, so it's probably not necessary for other members to do that.  The question is are off duty police officers required to carry?

Edited August 26, 2019 by JAHS

[ksfisher]

8 minutes ago, JAHS said:

The question is are off duty police officers required to carry?

I had a friend who was a police officer years ago.  The department he worked for at the time required him to carry a firearm when off duty.  Not sure about other departments.

[Scott Lloyd]

Not much of a change here that I can see. 

I understand the reason for the policy, but I hate the thought of members being sitting ducks at church for a deranged shooter who is not about to follow church policy. 

[mfbukowski]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Not much of a change here that I can see. 

I understand the reason for the policy, but I hate the thought of members being sitting ducks at church for a deranged shooter who is not about to follow church policy. 

So you shoot a shooter and save lives, what will the church do to you for doing something "prohibited"?

[Bernard Gui]

As we have learned from sad experiences, someone with murderous intentions will not be deterred by “no-weapons” laws or policies.

I spent several hours in a real lockdown situation believing there was a student shooter on our campus, frantically searching the room for some means of defense while 65 high school students hid in instrument lockers, closets, and practice rooms. Fortunately, the student was eventually apprehended without violence, but the feelings of fright, vulnerability, and helplessness were real and awful. I wished I had been armed.  Subsequently, a number of us teachers brought wooden staves, bats, and golf clubs into our rooms, but we were told we couldn’t even do that. We had some interesting faculty meetings after the event.

The woman shot in Lehi was a friend of our family and had dated one of our sons. A criminal (ex-Mormon) made murderous threats against one of our ward members who then had to carry a weapon for personal defense.

It’s a hard subject.

Edited August 26, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Not much of a change here that I can see. 

I understand the reason for the policy, but I hate the thought of members being sitting ducks at church for a deranged shooter who is not about to follow church policy. 

I agree.  I'm really not a fan of this.  If I were someone with a concealed carry license, I think I'd be likely to ignore the church policy.

[CA Steve]

I agree with this policy. I am totally fine with LEO carrying weapons in a church environment, but the reality is that I would not be comfortable knowing that any adult in my ward, should he or she so choose, could also bring a weapon to church. I don't know about everyone else, but there are a few members I know who I absolutely would not  trust to carry a weapon. It would not surprise me if others thought the same of me. In my opinion, the answer to gun violence does not lie in arming more people.

[bluebell]

This is being discussed on the lds mommy groups in facebook and a lot of people are not happy about it.  I can see where the church is coming from, and I can see where other people are coming from too.  It's a hard situation.

[Scott Lloyd]

20 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So you shoot a shooter and save lives, what will the church do to you for doing something "prohibited"?

Heh. Have the bishop give you a talking-to, I suppose. 

[HappyJackWagon]

20 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I agree.  I'm really not a fan of this.  If I were someone with a concealed carry license, I think I'd be likely to ignore the church policy.

I totally get that sentiment and I have really mixed emotions about this. A highly trained individual might make me feel safer but I happen to know a few of the members who conceal/carry at our building every week and it doesn't make me feel any safer. Not every situation is equal, nor is every person with a weapon.

For example, if a wacko comes in and just starts shooting up the place, I would hope someone is carrying to take him down, even recognizing a possible risk for collateral damage because I would suppose any possible collateral damage would still be less than a free-firing gunman.

But what would happen if someone isn't shooting, yet still being threatening in some way?  How could a conceal/carry gunman exacerbate the tension and actually lead towards greater violence? Or what if the risk of collateral damage would be greater than the person making the threats. I definitely don't know the answer but I do know there are people with weapons at church I would not want taking matters into their own hands. I wouldn't trust their skill or their decision making.

ETA- I suspect that this new policy is a result of a cost/benefit analysis of conceal/carry at church. I'm guessing the leaders have decided there is less threat to the random gunman coming into a building, than the threat of average members carrying weapons at church on a regular basis.

Edited August 26, 2019 by HappyJackWagon

[Bernard Gui]

5 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I agree with this policy. I am totally fine with LEO carrying weapons in a church environment, but the reality is that I would not be comfortable knowing that any adult in my ward, should he or she so choose, could also bring a weapon to church. I don't know about everyone else, but there are a few members I know who I absolutely would not  trust to carry a weapon. It would not surprise me if others thought the same of me. In my opinion, the answer to gun violence does not lie in arming more people.

No policy will disarm someone who intends to hurt people.

[Bernard Gui]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Heh. Have the bishop give you a talking-to, I suppose. 

Someone should give these guys a talking-to....

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media-library/images/alma-baptizing-people-39653?lang=eng

Edited August 26, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I agree with this policy. I am totally fine with LEO carrying weapons in a church environment, but the reality is that I would not be comfortable knowing that any adult in my ward, should he or she so choose, could also bring a weapon to church. I don't know about everyone else, but there are a few members I know who I absolutely would not  trust to carry a weapon. It would not surprise me if others thought the same of me. In my opinion, the answer to gun violence does not lie in arming more people.

Not just any adult is allowed by law to do it. That’s the reason for concealed-carry permits and the associated certification. 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I totally get that sentiment and I have really mixed emotions about this. A highly trained individual might make me feel safer but I happen to know a few of the members who conceal/carry at our building every week and it doesn't make me feel any safer. Not every situation is equal, nor is every person with a weapon.

For example, if a wacko comes in and just starts shooting up the place, I would hope someone is carrying to take him down, even recognizing a possible risk for collateral damage because I would suppose any possible collateral damage would still be less than a free-firing gunman.

But what would happen if someone isn't shooting, yet still being threatening in some way?  How could a conceal/carry gunman exacerbate the tension and actually lead towards greater violence? Or what if the risk of collateral damage would be greater than the person making the threats. I definitely don't know the answer but I do know there are people with weapons at church I would not want taking matters into their own hands. I wouldn't trust their skill or their decision making.

ETA- I suspect that this new policy is a result of a cost/benefit analysis of conceal/carry at church. I'm guessing the leaders have decided there is less threat to the random gunman coming into a building, than the threat of average members carrying weapons at church on a regular basis.

Why do you suppose there are never any mass shootings at gun shows?

[LoudmouthMormon]

14 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I agree with this policy. I am totally fine with LEO carrying weapons in a church environment, but the reality is that I would not be comfortable knowing that any adult in my ward, should he or she so choose, could also bring a weapon to church. I don't know about everyone else, but there are a few members I know who I absolutely would not  trust to carry a weapon. It would not surprise me if others thought the same of me. In my opinion, the answer to gun violence does not lie in arming more people.

CA Steve, as in "Steve who lives in California"?   If you live in CA, I don't think you have to worry much about armed lawful citizens.  CA is a "May issue" state, where an applicant must show that "good cause exists for the issuance of a license".  And lots and lots of CA issuing authorities stick a pretty high bar on what "good cause" means to them.

So don't worry Steve, pretty much the only folks around you who are armed are the lawbreakers.  All the law abiding folks you know are unarmed, in or out of church.  Feel better?

Edited August 26, 2019 by LoudmouthMormon

[randy]

I'm not a fan of this new policy as well.   I have a concealed carry license, have had lots of training (former Military), I maintain my proficiency etc etc.   In a spirit of compromise,  I would propose that those who have a concealed carry license  and have demonstrated a level of training and proficiency in its use, could submit their desire to carry at Church, and let the local leaders determine who is allowed to carry.  My feeling is that that each Ward should allow at least two Brethren to carry concealed during meetings.  We live in a different time.  I do NOT like to abdicate the responsibility of my protection and the protection of my loved ones to LE, who when seconds matter are minutes away.  Truth is too, that many licensed civilians are former Military/LE, highly trained and skilled and maintain the proper level of discipline required in those types of high stress situations.  I might also add that there are many "regular" civilians who also maintain a very high level of profiency and discipline as well.

All that said,  I hate the idea that our meetinghouses are "gun free zones", and therefore could be thought of as "open season" for the crazies out there.

I hope our Church Leaders revisit and reconsider this policy.

[LoudmouthMormon]

In my ward's facebook page a few years ago, a sister said she wanted to get a conceal carry permit, and was looking for other sisters to go to training with her.  Three or four sisters responded with stuff like "you'll love it!  I got mine three years ago."

My bishop is on record expressing gratitude to anyone who takes on the responsibility of carrying, as they might save the life of one of his kids someday.  He also wears his suit coat even in the 85 degree heat.

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

This is being discussed on the lds mommy groups in facebook and a lot of people are not happy about it.  I can see where the church is coming from, and I can see where other people are coming from too.  It's a hard situation.

I suspect the Church is aware of more incidents with guns being present in church buildings and leaders are making decisions based on that, not just on incidents publicized widely.

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

No policy will disarm someone who intends to hurt people.

It likely will prevent accidents though.

[Bernard Gui]

5 minutes ago, randy said:

I'm not a fan of this new policy as well.   I have a concealed carry license, have had lots of training (former Military), I maintain my proficiency etc etc.   In a spirit of compromise,  I would propose that those who have a concealed carry license  and have demonstrated a level of training and proficiency in its use, could submit their desire to carry at Church, and let the local leaders determine who is allowed to carry.  My feeling is that that each Ward should allow at least two Brethren to carry concealed during meetings.  We live in a different time.  I do NOT like to abdicate the responsibility of my protection and the protection of my loved ones to LE, who when seconds matter are minutes away.  Truth is too, that many licensed civilians are former Military/LE, highly trained and skilled and maintain the proper level of discipline required in those types of high stress situations.  I might also add that there are many "regular" civilians who also maintain a very high level of profiency and discipline as well.

All that said,  I hate the idea that our meetinghouses are "gun free zones", and therefore could be thought of as "open season" for the crazies out there.

I hope our Church Leaders revisit and reconsider this policy.

Other than counting on obedience, having metal detectors in the foyer, or having the members frisked on entry, there is no way to ensure compliance.

[Bernard Gui]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

It likely will prevent accidents though.

Yes, but accidents don’t kill twenty people.

[JAHS]

11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I suspect that this new policy is a result of a cost/benefit analysis of conceal/carry at church. I'm guessing the leaders have decided there is less threat to the random gunman coming into a building, than the threat of average members carrying weapons at church on a regular basis.

Then there is the issue of the average member accidentally firing the gun in a place where there is a lot of people close together.  I tend to agree with this policy, although I am OK with trained off-duty police officers carrying and most likely there is at least one in every congregation in the church (There are several in my ward). 
Not sure though if this policy also includes off-duty police officers?

[hoo rider]

12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 

ETA- I suspect that this new policy is a result of a cost/benefit analysis of conceal/carry at church. I'm guessing the leaders have decided there is less threat to the random gunman coming into a building, than the threat of average members carrying weapons at church on a regular basis.

I agree with your suspicion.  While some multiple shootings make big headlines, the reality is the number of people killed in them is very few as compared to other unnatural causes of death.  Many corporations (including where I work) have made the same decision.  My understanding is that their greatest concern is having a heated altercation (e.g. someone gets fired, someone gets excommunicated) where that person has a gun on them and starts shooting before they have a chance to cool down.  

If I chose to carry concealed, I would just ignore the church prohibition.  Concealed means concealed.  

[CA Steve]

7 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

CA Steve, as in "Steve who lives in California"?   If you live in CA, I don't think you have to worry much about armed lawful citizens.  CA is a "May issue" state, where an applicant must show that "good cause exists for the issuance of a license".  And lots and lots of CA issuing authorities stick a pretty high bar on what "good cause" means to them.

So don't worry Steve, pretty much the only folks around you who are armed are the lawbreakers.  All the law abiding folks you know are unarmed, in or out of church.  Feel better?

I assume then you would be quite comfortable with me sitting next to your family in a crowded sacrament meeting and leaving the decision of when to use a gun and how, up to me, correct? Is that the kind of church meeting you want to attend? A few weeks ago at a gun range I did hit the target occasionally.

 

[Calm]

I would go with assigning a couple of  highly trained people to be present at the usual meetings, but I can so see other individuals who really, really shouldn't carry taking that as justification to conceal carry even with the rules.  Limiting it to LEOs may avoid that.

I cannot imagine this decision was made without a lot of thought and research into incidents and best preventive practices.

Edited August 27, 2019 by Calm