Guns at church policy changed

[randy]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I definitely agree training is key.

What state requires that level of training?  Any?  I know Utah doesn't because my husband had a conceal carry permit and his training didn't get to the level, not even close iirc....and if Utah is up at the top as far as quality control....

The follow-on training to which I refer is training from a qualified instructor at a local gun range, or from a business specializing in self defense.  This would be training NOT mandated by the state at the time of CCP certification.  This is training that is above and beyond any state requirement to receive a CCP.

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

In situations that are prohibitive like that, you can always carry a cane.  A heavy wooden cane. They can't prohibit you from having a cane to help you walk.   

I have a shillelagh I keep by my bed when my husband is on a trip.

[sunstoned]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

Especially if that miss results in someone screaming in agony as his insides explode or kids are yelling “mommy, mommy” while she bleeds out. 

Bullets have to go somewhere. Is there any reason to suppose a miss is going to hit wood rather than flesh in a crowd?

Agreed.  More people carrying guns means means more chances that accidents will happen.  More guns does not mean more safe. 

[Avatar4321]

6 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Much greater faith will be required in the future. The day will soon be upon us that we need to learn to let the Lord fight our battles.

So let's start building it now. The Lord can protect us. And if He doesn't than it 's His will. Trust Him

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

This article seems to indicate that the recent announcement was because of the change in the state law:

While the new policy on firearms applies to the entire church, a letter about the change was recently sent to local leaders in Texas and shared with members, Woodruff said. The letter was sent because of a change in state law there that will permit the carrying of open and concealed weapons in places of worship unless a person is notified that it is prohibited.

Texas bishops were asked to share the church’s adjusted policy publicly with 362,946 Mormon members in the state before Sept. 1, Woodruff said.

“The decision has been made not to place written signs on our buildings, but rather, prior to September 1, 2019 we are asking all bishops in Texas to read the following statement in the sacrament meetings of all units to give effective oral notice to members of the Church and visitors that weapons are not permitted,” a letter from the church to its leaders states.

Woodruff said the policy will be formally communicated to local church leaders “in the near future.” Those leaders will be responsible for sharing the guidelines with the 6.7 million members across the United States. The church’s policy tweak comes about one year after a volunteer firefighter was fatally shot inside one of its churches in rural Nevada.

Excellent- thanks.

I had a feeling it had something to do with the Texas changes but never put the puzzle pieces together.  Plus the liability avoidance issue in making guns "prohibited"

It all makes a lot more sense now- thanks!

 

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, strappinglad said:

When Pres Nelson visited my ward a while back,.....

Utah is so spoiled.  President Nelson visits a ward?

President Uchtdorf speaks at a stake conference?   Are you kidding me?

We might get a GA once every 3 or 4 years in a stake conference, an apostle like maybe one in 5 years.  First presidency-- NEVER

Maybe once in 10 years a regional thing or in a stadium or something- a video just to our area etc- but like shaking the hand of a Prophet?  Locally?  Not going to happen.

[strappinglad]

44 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Utah is so spoiled.  President Nelson visits a ward?

Sorry,not Utah or the USA. It helps to know someone...

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, sunstoned said:

In situations that are prohibitive like that, you can always carry a cane.  A heavy wooden cane. They can't prohibit you from having a cane to help you walk.   

Never take a cane to a gunfight.

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, strappinglad said:

Sorry,not Utah or the USA. It helps to know someone...

Well excuuuuse me brother SIR.! 

I guess I better be much nicer to you....

 

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Excellent- thanks.

I had a feeling it had something to do with the Texas changes but never put the puzzle pieces together.  Plus the liability avoidance issue in making guns "prohibited"

It all makes a lot more sense now- thanks!

 

How does liability work if one is killed or injured in a prohibited zone?

[CV75]

17 hours ago, Anijen said:

Good clarification, I thought you meant those who are fearful of becoming a victim.

No, I mean actual gang members, off the street, who were in jail awaiting trials for whatever they did wrong. I was with the County Attorneys Office interviewing to see if any would turn over state evidence. I had my share of death threats.

Call the police. If it is a likely threat that imminently may happen, then go buy a gun, get trained, apply for a CCP. This advice is especially for women. I have also a nice aluminum bat under my bed, however if a big man, high on drugs, breaks into the house with intent to harm my wife or daughters a hand gun is the best equalizer for them. 

I appreciate your background and expertise in advising those facing such challenges. It does seem to fall outside the scope of the policy, which is limited to prohibiting guns on Church property.

[Amulek]

52 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

How does liability work if one is killed or injured in a prohibited zone?

You can only go after the shooter. 

Say, for example, you are a public school teacher, and the city prohibits employees from carrying guns at work. If you were a teacher who brought a gun to school and then became involved in a shooting, someone might have a cause of action against you personally for personal injury, wrongful death, emotional damages, punitive damages or more, but the entity they really would want to go after - the one with the deep pockets - is your employer: the city. 

However, the city would turn around and say, not so fast. We have an official policy prohibiting our employees from carrying firearms. When Leeroy Jenkins over here decided to violate our policies he did so as an individual actor and his actions were his own - he was not acting as an agent on our behalf, so we should not be held liable for his behavior. 

I suspect that is what the church is trying to do with their policy: avoid the potential for institutional liability in the event that something goes wrong. So, when the church's risk-management (and possibly insurance) teams look at the chance of there being a mass shooting in a church building as opposed to the likelihood of their being a negligent discharge, the smart decision is to hedge your bets against the most likely outcome. 

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

How does liability work if one is killed or injured in a prohibited zone?

If guns are prohibited the church is thereby by rejecting liability for accidents Etc.

Guns should not be there under any circumstance. Period.

They are making the strongest possible point that guns should not be there.

The earlier terminology was that guns were "inappropriate", a much softer term.

It is my opinion that the new terminology makes their rejection of liability stronger.

That's just my opinion though and I am not a lawyer.

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

You can only go after the shooter. 

Say, for example, you are a public school teacher, and the city prohibits employees from carrying guns at work. If you were a teacher who brought a gun to school and then became involved in a shooting, someone might have a cause of action against you personally for personal injury, wrongful death, emotional damages, punitive damages or more, but the entity they really would want to go after - the one with the deep pockets - is your employer: the city. 

However, the city would turn around and say, not so fast. We have an official policy prohibiting our employees from carrying firearms. When Leeroy Jenkins over here decided to violate our policies he did so as an individual actor and his actions were his own - he was not acting as an agent on our behalf, so we should not be held liable for his behavior. 

I suspect that is what the church is trying to do with their policy: avoid the potential for institutional liability in the event that something goes wrong. So, when the church's risk-management (and possibly insurance) teams look at the chance of there being a mass shooting in a church building as opposed to the likelihood of their being a negligent discharge, the smart decision is to hedge your bets against the most likely outcome. 

 

What Amulek said.

That fella talks mo' gooder than me.

 

Edited August 27, 2019 by mfbukowski

[randy]

12 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Agreed.  More people carrying guns means means more chances that accidents will happen.  More guns does not mean more safe. 

Hmmmm....   If you're at Church, and say 6 well trained and proficient Bretheren are carrying....and they're scattered throughout the Bldg in their various classes...the odds are greater that one of them is near the Primary so you don't end up with another "Newtown".  Again, training is the key here.  Negligent discharges are just that...negligent.  A modern firearm kept in a proper holster in the possession of a well trained and responsible gunowner will not discharge, and the chances an accident occurring is almost...if not..zero.   

With respect to having faith in the Lord to protect us in those situations, to have him fight our battles etc,  I agree with all of that.  We should exercise faith.  I guess good and faithful people can agree to disagree on how best to exercise that faith.  I choose to exercise mine by doing all that's within my power to protect my family,  then exercise faith in the Lord that he will make up the difference during the battle.   For me it falls into that category that's taught in the BoM..."for by grace are we saved, after all we can do...."

Edited August 27, 2019 by randy

[Tacenda]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Utah is so spoiled.  President Nelson visits a ward?

President Uchtdorf speaks at a stake conference?   Are you kidding me?

We might get a GA once every 3 or 4 years in a stake conference, an apostle like maybe one in 5 years.  First presidency-- NEVER

Maybe once in 10 years a regional thing or in a stadium or something- a video just to our area etc- but like shaking the hand of a Prophet?  Locally?  Not going to happen.

So far Elder Uchtdorf and Pres. Oaks (Elder at the time) for my wards/stakes, neener neener.

[mfbukowski]

43 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

So far Elder Uchtdorf and Pres. Oaks (Elder at the time) for my wards/stakes, neener neener.

[Ahab]

17 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Tom Cruise can do it. 

So how does putting more restrictions on owning guns legally provide more protection from folks who should not have guns?

It doesn't. It may make it more difficult for those who should not have guns to get guns, as well as those who are legally allowed to have guns, but anyone who should not have a gun could still get one if they really wanted to get one.

Laws help to protect people who obey laws but no law can protect against people who are willing to break laws.

 

17 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Maybe we are talking past each other.

Maybe so.  I don't know.  What was your point?

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, randy said:

If you're at Church, and say 6 well trained and proficient Bretheren are carrying....

We had 24 in Elder's Quorum last week.  A couple were investigators- and I don't mean like Sherlock Holmes "investigators"- that term in church cracks me up.  But anyway, 6 brethren is roughly 25% of the active quorum.

Things are different hereabouts.  We had the cops show up last year because someone was supposedly carrying and going to go after an individual member.  Turned out to be a confusion- but still.....   Doesn't give you a warm feeling inside!

[MustardSeed]

There might be some areas where certain individuals decide for themselves how to proceed.  I don’t think my BIL has been without arms his whole career.  Undercover DEA-he protects his family and himself even when he’s having family dinner at my parents house. 

Hes a Bishop now.  Unlikely though that he will announce but I’ll bet he has a gun at his ankle Sunday. 

Edited August 27, 2019 by MustardSeed

[bsjkki]

The law enforcement officers in my ward carry a gun. It’s encouraged. I’m not sure any others will quit carrying because of this policy but I don’t know of any non law enforcement that carry.

[mfbukowski]

3 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Laws help to protect people who obey laws but no law can protect against people who are willing to break laws.

THAT is precisely the whole problem with gun control.

Plus the fact that if we banned all gun ownership tomorrow, we would still have as many guns around as we do today.   I don't understand how that could work even in theory.  Who knows who has grandpa's old shotgun in the attic?  Or his AK 47 for that matter?  Did all those just evaporate?  Even military weapons from WWI or WWII are.... military weapons designed to kill people and were very effective at doing so!

And then you have all the anti-gun movie stars with armed body guards.

So gun owners are just supposed to turn in their guns because people without guns asked nicely?

They are just voluntarily going to turn them in?   Go figure.

[RevTestament]

13 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

So let's start building it now. The Lord can protect us. And if He doesn't than it 's His will. Trust Him

I think that is a problem the early restored Church had. I think the militancy stirred up more trouble than it helped...

[nuclearfuels]

I'll be prepared for self-defense, without arms, regardless of what the policy is. 

[ksfisher]

3 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

I'll be prepared for self-defense, without arms, regardless of what the policy is.