Guns at church policy changed

[Scott Lloyd]

I just read a Deseret News story on this. The writer interviewed the pastor of a church in Texas. He said it is fine to have a no-guns-at-church policy but that the church should then hire security guards. His rationale is that it is the responsibility of the pastor (we would say bishop) to protect the flock physically as well as spiritually. 

I think the guy makes a lot of sense. If it’s cost-prohibitive to hire security for the meetinghouse, perhaps volunteers could do it who are already CCP holders. Make it a Church calling, perhaps. Their training and regulation should be tightly controlled, of course. 

[Ahab]

22 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

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.

What I wonder about is what people are thinking when they talk about people who would murder other people being somehow stopped by laws that would make it harder for them to get a gun.

Like they're going to be concerned about legally getting a gun before going out to murder other people?

Murdering other people is a pretty severe violation of law.  Illegally getting a gun, still a crime, yes, but pretty much nothing in comparison to murdering other people.

I realize that making it complicated to get a gun would slow some people down in their quest to obtain a gun but anyone who is intent on murdering some other people isn't going to be prevented by complex gun purchase laws.

They could just steal a gun, which is pretty much nothing in comparison to actually murdering other people.

[Amulek]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

Never been in a ward/branch that didn't have someone officially trained to kill.

Moscow it was one, two? CIA operatives.

In the ward I grew up in, we had a guy who worked for the CIA...as a forensic accountant. Not exactly Jason Borne material, but he did always have to carry a sidearm. 

 

[randy]

26 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I just read a Deseret News story on this. The writer interviewed the pastor of a church in Texas. He said it is fine to have a no-guns-at-church policy but that the church should then hire security guards. His rationale is that it is the responsibility of the pastor (we would say bishop) to protect the flock physically as well as spiritually. 

I think the guy makes a lot of sense. If it’s cost-prohibitive to hire security for the meetinghouse, perhaps volunteers could do it who are already CCP holders. Make it a Church calling, perhaps. Their training and regulation should be tightly controlled, of course. 

I agree!  I would hope and pray that the church will enact "active shooter" protocols in the Stake, and do exactly as you have proposed.  That is a smart and reasonable compromise...and one that I could live with.  Absent of those protocols in place, I would have to reevaluate my position relative to this new policy.

If the Bishop were to interview those in his Ward who held CCP...and determined their level of training to be at the level required...that is the route I would think they should go.  In my case, if I were to be considered...I would pay for any additional training that the Stake felt was needed for that calling.  I bet most, if not all the others who were to be considered would be willing to do the same.  Win Win for everyone.

Edited August 27, 2019 by randy

[provoman]

11 minutes ago, randy said:

I agree!  I would hope and pray that the church will enact "active shooter" protocols in the Stake, and do exactly as you have proposed.  That is a smart and reasonable compromise...and one that I could live with.  Absent of those protocols in place, I would have to reevaluate my position relative to this new policy.

If the Bishop were to interview those in his Ward who held CCP...and determined their level of training to be at the level required...that is the route I would think they should go.  In my case, if I were to be considered...I would pay for any additional training that the Stake felt was needed for that calling.  I bet most, if not all the others who were to be considered would be willing to do the same.  Win Win for everyone.

terrible idea.

Did you every hear about the two Utah "neighborhood watch" person that got into a shoot out with each other? One is now paralyzed and the other got 5 years in prison.

Zimmerman is reported to have had a ""little hero complex,".

 

 

 

[Amulek]

45 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If it’s cost-prohibitive to hire security for the meetinghouse, perhaps volunteers could do it who are already CCP holders. Make it a Church calling, perhaps. Their training and regulation should be tightly controlled, of course. 

This isn't necessarily a bad idea. The problem, however, is that it's exactly the opposite of what it appears the church is trying to achieve by prohibiting firearms in buildings. 

If the goal is to avoid institutional liability, then the church can't be having its agents (bishops, stake presidents, etc.) telling people to carry guns. Because that could make the church potentially liable for whatever happens in relation to said guns / individuals. 

 

[randy]

The Church would darn well have liability if it has a serious incident with fatalities....and it's demonstrated that the Church took zero action to protect it's members in the face of an ever escalating number of these tragic events.

[JAHS]

Her's a news article from 15 years ago that stated that firearms were prohibited in the church buildings. 

1 February 2004 - Salt Lake City, Ut News Story No Firearms in Latter-day Saint Houses of Worship
 
SALT LAKE CITY — The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has mailed a letter to its local leaders in Utah informing them that the Church "plans to invoke ... Utah law and give public notice that firearms are prohibited in the Church's houses of worship, including temples, meetinghouses, the Assembly Hall, the Salt Lake Tabernacle, and the Conference Center."

This action implements the Church's position announced by the First Presidency in 1996 that churches are dedicated for the worship of God and as havens from the cares and concerns of the world and that, consequently, lethal weapons, concealed or otherwise, do not belong in houses of worship. The Church shares this belief with many other religions in Utah.

The Church will register its position with the State Bureau of Criminal Investigation and provide notice in the newspaper, as required by the Utah law that allows religious organizations to prohibit concealed weapons from their premises.

Once the actions of registering and providing public notice are completed, individuals with concealed-carry weapons permits will not be allowed to bring their firearms inside Latter-day Saint houses of worship.

The Church's position and these announced actions apply only to houses of worship. The Church has not taken a position on legislation regarding guns in public schools or other public places.

So why did this go from prohibited to inappropriate and back to prohibited again?

[randy]

31 minutes ago, provoman said:

terrible idea.

Did you every hear about the two Utah "neighborhood watch" person that got into a shoot out with each other? One is now paralyzed and the other got 5 years in prison.

Zimmerman is reported to have had a ""little hero complex,".

 

 

 

Again...training, training, training!      There are copious amounts of examples of LEO's having various types of "complexes" that led to sad conclusions.  We are human.  There is no magic wand that can be waved to solve this ever growing problem.  But, we can't IMO stand on the sidelines and simply do nothing.   We as a Church need to prepare for these eventualities.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think the guy makes a lot of sense. If it’s cost-prohibitive to hire security for the meetinghouse, perhaps volunteers could do it who are already CCP holders. Make it a Church calling, perhaps. Their training and regulation should be tightly controlled, of course. 

One possible problem is that a licensed security guard must be employed by a company and be on assignment working FOR that company to be "legal" at least that is my understanding.  I believe that is because it is the company that takes on the liability for hiring that individual.  So you cannot be a "free lance" security guard to my knowledge as an independent contractor.

[ksfisher]

7 minutes ago, JAHS said:

So why did this go from prohibited to inappropriate and back to prohibited again?

In this context both words have pretty much the same meaning to me.  One is a little softer way of saying it.  I'm guessing some people didn't understand that and the language was clarified.

[randy]

To be clear,  I understand and empathize with the sentiment expressed in the policy change.  I get it.   But, short of locking the meetinghouse doors after a certain time... protections of some sort need to be in place to protect the members.

[mfbukowski]

Has anyone heard of the idea of seeking forgiveness after the event instead of seeking permission before? 

Again, if you save a life by doing something "prohibited" what will be the consequences?

 

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, randy said:

To be clear,  I understand and empathize with the sentiment expressed in the policy change.  I get it.   But, short of locking the meetinghouse doors after a certain time... protections of some sort need to be in place to protect the members.

Even if we added every security feature available to the public there would still be a chance that someone could come into a building a murder someone before anyone had a chance to stop it.

With that understanding, the best security we can possibly have is to know that WHEN we die it is not a bad thing but a good step in the right direction.  And every family member should know what it means to die a good death.

 

[mfbukowski]

2 minutes ago, randy said:

To be clear,  I understand and empathize with the sentiment expressed in the policy change.  I get it.   But, short of locking the meetinghouse doors after a certain time... protections of some sort need to be in place to protect the members.

You DON'T lock the doors after a certain time?  That's a calling in itself to check and lock the building on a rotating basis.

We have homeless folks breaking in to sleep in buildings that are locked.  Local kids get in to play basketball at midnight, or have a buddy who watched a careless or trusting leader enter his code on the lock pad.

It's a different world I guess.

[mfbukowski]

3 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Even if we added every security feature available to the public there would still be a chance that someone could come into a building a murder someone before anyone had a chance to stop it.

With that understanding, the best security we can possibly have is to know that WHEN we die it is not a bad thing but a good step in the right direction.  And every family member should know what it means to die a good death.

 

Everyone has to die eventually and very few know ahead of time when that will be. 

 

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

Everyone has to die eventually...

 

That's right.  It is something that can't be prevented, no matter how much security we have or how well we can shoot with a gun...

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

very few know ahead of time when that will be. 

I'm 58 years old now so definitely sometime within the next 50 years, more likely within the next 30 years, and quite possibly even today from something that would be a total surprise to me.

So I live my life knowing I need to be ready to go at a moment's notice.  At least I don't have to pack for the trip.

[randy]

14 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Even if we added every security feature available to the public there would still be a chance that someone could come into a building a murder someone before anyone had a chance to stop it.

With that understanding, the best security we can possibly have is to know that WHEN we die it is not a bad thing but a good step in the right direction.  And every family member should know what it means to die a good death.

 

hmmmm….I suppose we will agree to disagree.  I will protect my family to the utmost of my ability.  I will protect them the best why I know how, and at the same time exercising faith in Christ.  Standing by, not being prepared to act and having the tools needed to protect them adequately is not in my nature.  Joseph and company only had one six shooter among them...but they tried their best, and did what they could....and let the Lord do or not do what he saw fit.  But, at least they took action and did their absolute best.   Again, I understand the sentiment of the policy, but when it comes to the protection of my loved ones....well, it ups the ante quite a bit.

[randy]

21 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You DON'T lock the doors after a certain time?  That's a calling in itself to check and lock the building on a rotating basis.

We have homeless folks breaking in to sleep in buildings that are locked.  Local kids get in to play basketball at midnight, or have a buddy who watched a careless or trusting leader enter his code on the lock pad.

It's a different world I guess.

The Meetinghouse doors are NOT locked during the times Wards are meeting.  You guys lock your doors after your meetings start?

[Ahab]

7 minutes ago, randy said:

hmmmm….I suppose we will agree to disagree.  I will protect my family to the utmost of my ability.  I will protect them the best why I know how, and at the same time exercising faith in Christ.  Standing by, not being prepared to act and having the tools needed to protect them adequately is not in my nature.  Joseph and company only had one six shooter among them...but they tried their best, and did what they could....and let the Lord do or not do what he saw fit.  But, at least they took action and did their absolute best.   Again, I understand the sentiment of the policy, but when it comes to the protection of my loved ones....well, it ups the ante quite a bit.

I was only trying to state what the best security policy is or should be.  But sure, go ahead and do whatever you can to try to keep someone from murdering your family.  I will fight to protect mine from something like that too.  But still, the best thing to do is to make sure they are ready to go, whenever they go, and that they know what it means for you to be ready too.  That is the best security anyone could possibly have.

[randy]

2 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I was only trying to state what the best security policy is or should be.  But sure, go ahead and do whatever you can to try to keep someone from murdering your family.  I will fight to protect mine from something like that too.  But still, the best thing to do is to make sure they are ready to go, whenever they go, and that they know what it means for you to be ready too.  That is the best security anyone could possibly have.

From a Gospel perspective..of course we should be preparing for that everyday of our lives.   From the practical "here and now" point of view...I will continue to pay car insurance, life insurance, health insurance, wear seatbelts, have a fire extinguisher in my home and on the boat, continue to wear life vests...and do all the other things we all do everyday to help "protect" ourselves and our family.  I will continue to not be annoyed when I go to my grandkids programs at school when I have to be "buzzed in" and STILL go to the office to sign in and get my "visitor" name tag.     This issue of "concealed carry" at church is just another one that I would rather have as an option, rather than be taken away from me.

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, randy said:

From a Gospel perspective..of course we should be preparing for that everyday of our lives.   From the practical "here and now" point of view...I will continue to pay car insurance, life insurance, health insurance, wear seatbelts, have a fire extinguisher in my home and on the boat, continue to wear life vests...and do all the other things we all do everyday to help "protect" ourselves and our family.  I will continue to not be annoyed when I go to my grandkids programs at school when I have to be "buzzed in" and STILL go to the office to sign in and get my "visitor" name tag.     This issue of "concealed carry" at church is just another one that I would rather have as an option, rather than be taken away from me.

The issue of "concealed carry" at church is just a matter of "the practical "here and now" point of view" though, so maybe you could understand why the Church is establishing that policy from the practical "here and now" point of view.  To reduce insurance costs and liability, which are 2 of the reasons, and to just give people more peace of mind knowing that nobody in the building should be carrying concealed weapons other than law enforcement officers.

 You may be fine with the idea that anybody walking in could be coming in with a concealed weapon and maybe a permit for it if they have obeyed the law up to that point, even people you do not know, but I would rather nobody come in with a gun, even if they are permitted.

 

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, randy said:

The Church would darn well have liability if it has a serious incident with fatalities....and it's demonstrated that the Church took zero action to protect it's members in the face of an ever escalating number of these tragic events.

Unless leaders have some specific reason to suspect an attack, how can they be liable for failing to prevent it? 

I'm sorry, but I don't think the church has any more of a duty to protect its members from a mass shooting than a McDonald's has to protect their employees / customers from the same. 

 

[Garden Girl]

I have a concealed carry permit but leave my weapon home (a beautiful little S&W 38-special)... I've mentioned here previously that we have 3 police officers, including the chief of police, in my ward who attend Sac Mtg in full uniform with weapons, take Sacrament and then leave.  Also, the former chief of police who does carry at all times, and teaches the gun safety class at the local community college.  Lately I've been thinking about carrying, but guess that plan is moot... I'm a good shot and comfortable with my weapon, and after recent news events had considered carrying, but... no.  Not now.

from the beach on a beautiful fall-feeling day... GG

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, Garden Girl said:

I have a concealed carry permit but leave my weapon home (a beautiful little S&W 38-special)... I've mentioned here previously that we have 3 police officers, including the chief of police, in my ward who attend Sac Mtg in full uniform with weapons, take Sacrament and then leave.  Also, the former chief of police who does carry at all times, and teaches the gun safety class at the local community college.  Lately I've been thinking about carrying, but guess that plan is moot... I'm a good shot and comfortable with my weapon, and after recent news events had considered carrying, but... no.  Not now.

from the beach on a beautiful fall-feeling day... GG

I'm envisioning you as a sweet little old lady who lives somewhere near the beach in the Pacific Northwest, which is where I happen to live too.  The Pacific Northwest, I mean.  I remember you saying something about how you live near the beach and how you are kinda old now.

Anyway, it is a nice little vision I have as I envision you this way.  A sweet little old lady who has what she calls a beautiful little S&W 38-special, who also happens to pack a pretty good understanding of the gospel, as I know it.

Impressive!