Guns at church policy changed

[HappyJackWagon]

12 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

No, it's not, and it is a serious responsibility to choose to carry a gun.  But it's one of those things that correspond to the saying, "It's better to have something and not need it, than to need something and not have it."

As for training, it's interesting that some states mandate considerable training and testing to get a CCP, and some nothing at all.  My state of residence is Washington, and was somewhat of a leader in licensing concealed pistol carriers -- all the way back in the 1950s I believe.  It requires only that you have a clean criminal record (which includes adjudication for mental illness). One out of every 20 residents of Washington holds a CCP.  And how much trouble has this lack of training requirement caused?  None at all.  

I've held a Washington state CCP license for about 20 years, and I've never found myself in a situation where I needed to use it.  But the wife of an acquaintance of mine who lived in Portland, Oregon (another state that requires very little training for a CCP) was forced to shoot a man who was burglarizing their home, killing him.  He kept coming for her even after she had pulled her pistol and warned him off, even as she was pointing it at him.  It was judged a righteous shooting by the law, but she was very traumatized by what she had to do.  Under the circumstances what is there to do?  If you have displayed your firearm, and the perp keeps coming anyway, he's going to take it from you and probably kill you with it.  You can't trust that he won't.  It turned out that this particular guy was a career criminal, who had just gotten out of prison three weeks before.  

I don't know the particulars of your friend's situation, so maybe there was no other way. BUT it does strike me as at least a possibility that drawing a weapon on an intruder could escalate the situation to the point where lethal force is needed. I would imagine she felt a bit emboldened to confront the robber because she had the weapon. If she didn't have the weapon, maybe she would have hid or left the house etc. I know that's not always possible but not all robbers will be armed or even dangerous, even though they are breaking the law. The introduction of a gun to that situation may have made things worse.

Are there situations at church where the introduction of a weapon may escalate the drama to a point where lethal force is needed, when otherwise it wouldn't have been?

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Are you suggesting that leaders may have instituted the policy as a way to save money, even though it could possibly put people at greater risk?

Sounds cynical. I thought cynicism was the job of the critic  

(I'm teasing a little but I mean no offense)

I think people by and large do what legal counsel tells them to do. 

[randy]

6 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

It's hard to imagine anyone without training (such as police receive) responding well in a high pressure situation.  

Again..it's a matter of training and proficiency.  Even LE do not know how they will respond when actually faced with a life and death situation (Parkland Deputy).  However,  I believe "we" need to be given the ability to protect ourselves.  Through proper training and mental discipline in a high stress situation...odds are much better that the individual will respond in a disciplined and measured way.  There are many examples where a "regular Joe" responded in a professional and reasonable manner.  Make no mistake, NONE OF US know exactly how we would respond until we're actually faced with it.  But again...through proper training the odds are greater that we will respond appropriately.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

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

Perhaps we have reached a threshold of fearful members who should not be allowed near any firearm in the first place.

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I think that the reason for the policy is as is stated in the policy "Churches are dedicated for the worship of God and as havens from the cares and concerns of the world."  The idea of weapons being carried at church seems incompatible with that statement. 

I never suggested liability risk would be the exclusive reason. 

[Amulek]

51 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

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?

I've been to several 'cowboy churches' where open carry was the norm. I thought it was great. YMMV.  

 

[CV75]

1 hour 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 am aware that local leaders have been instructed to design unit/building safety plans that include active shooter protocols.

[bluebell]

25 minutes ago, Calm said:

What kinds of tests exist to weed out people who have a hard time taking in a situation under fire and making effective decisions on risks, etc?

People may be very good shots, may know all the rules and plan to abide by them...but how can anyone predict how they will act in a crisis until it happens?

Since the tests are issued by the state they are all a little different, but here's a good article written by someone who took a concealed carry class a couple of weeks ago in Chicago that talks a little bit about that kind of thing.  

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

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."

As I pointed out recently, the State of Texas has just passed a law allowing concealed carry in any house of worship.  The Handbook only applies to members in good standing, who will follow those rules.  Others will do as they wish -- legally in some places.

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

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."

Prohibiting concealed carry in Church will not prevent these shootings at all.

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

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

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?

Off duty law enforcement officers are not usually required to carry.  They may if they wish.  Someone said that FBI requires its agents to carry at all times.

[randy]

I live in Texas and this letter was read in Sacrament mtg yesterday.   I'm wondering,  since Texas has made it legal to carry in houses of Worship, the Church has stated that it's prohibited in it's Meetinghouses..I wonder if the Church will put the requisite (ghostbuster/guns prohibited) signage on it's doors to make it "official" to all who enter.   I suspect not.      The "visitor/investigator"   obviously would not be aware of the Church Handbook policy.     

Edited August 26, 2019 by randy

[Anijen]

What is going to happen to the gun ranges in the basement of the meeting houses?

Just an FYI, almost all states it has been illegal to carry a gun inside a place of worship, the exception if your'e a uniformed police officer still can.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

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.

 

A friend of mine in the ward carries. Admittedly he’s professionally trained. But I gotta say I felt safer when he let me know     

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, hoo rider said:

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.  

Statistics are no comfort when you are in the situation.

[randy]

3 minutes ago, Anijen said:

What is going to happen to the gun ranges in the basement of the meeting houses?

Just an FYI, almost all states it has been illegal to carry a gun inside a place of worship, the exception if your'e a uniformed police officer still can.

Actually, this is only half correct.   It is legal to carry inside a place of worship with the permission of the Church Leadership/Pastor.

[randy]

1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said:

Statistics are no comfort when you are in the situation.

Exactly!

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

But accidents may kill one or two and twenty of them match one mass murderer.

We don't hear about near misses for accidents and may not even hear about many accidents that injured or killed people.  However, I assume such things must get reported to SL.

I do think this would be a good topic for them to explain the decision in detail given the position on guns so many members have in the US.

Yeah. We had those discussions in our high school faculty meetings after the lockdown. 

[CA Steve]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

A friend of mine in the ward carries. Admittedly he’s professionally trained. But I gotta say I felt safer when he let me know     

As I said, I have no problem with LEO who carry at church. I know we have some there every week. 3 of my neighbors are current or retired LEO and I am glad they live around me. The issue isn't a gun at church, it is the person carrying it.  And, by the way, two of my brothers are retired LEO. After listening to their stories about police work, I realized there are LEO out there who probably shouldn't have a gun in spite of their training.

 

Honestly everyone of us likes to think that in a situation where we were faced with imminent danger, we would be capable of defending ourselves better if we had a weapon. It's hard to consider that most of us may not react as coolly and capably in that kind of situation as we would like. We all want to be safer, so we share a common goal. The question is how that goal is best achieved. In my view, it is not furthered by increasing the accessibility to those very weapons that are part of the problem. 

Edited August 26, 2019 by CA Steve
So Scott doesn't correct me for not using the correct version of immanent vs imminent. :)

[Anijen]

Also just an FYI, Utah's concealed carry permits (CCP), are the most recognized and respected CCP's in all the states.

The reason why Utah's CCP is the best:

• Required fingerprints
• Required background check for purchase permit
• Additional background check for the CCP
• Cannot have ANY felonies in your past or present, even if they have been resolved
• Cannot have ANY domestic violence charges (charges not convictions)
• No misdemeanors that are of battery, assault, domestic violence, or sexual molestation charges
• And the #1 reason Utah has the best CCP is that every two weeks your name is on a continuous background check schedule. This means; my Utah CCP which I received over ten years ago, I have had a background check every two weeks since... If any of the above come up, I will get flagged and the state will be notified and an officer will come to my door to make sure I have no guns.

The most common federal law that is broken by gun owners is the gifting or selling of a gun to a friend or relative who lives out of state from the person who is giving or selling his gun. They will be breaking federal law if given or sold to someone who lives in a different state than them. To give a firearm away (or sell) to someone who lives out of state you must go through a FFL (Federal Firearms License) holder.

[Bernard Gui]

29 minutes ago, randy said:

Again..it's a matter of training and proficiency.  Even LE do not know how they will respond when actually faced with a life and death situation (Parkland Deputy).  However,  I believe "we" need to be given the ability to protect ourselves.  Through proper training and mental discipline in a high stress situation...odds are much better that the individual will respond in a disciplined and measured way.  There are many examples where a "regular Joe" responded in a professional and reasonable manner.  Make no mistake, NONE OF US know exactly how we would respond until we're actually faced with it.  But again...through proper training the odds are greater that we will respond appropriately.

I was very surprised at my reaction in our school-shooter event. I became fiercely protective of my students. Barbarian mode. After securing the doors and students, I scoured the room for weapons and came up with a steel snare drum stand. I stood next to the hall door and was determined to play home run derby if the bad guy tried to break the window to activate the crash bar and come into my room. I had no idea this fiddle playing nerd could react that way. 

[Bernard Gui]

2 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Also just an FYI, Utah's concealed carry permits (CCP), are the most recognized and respected CCP's in all the states.

The reason why Utah's CCP is the best:

• Required fingerprints
• Required background check for purchase permit
• Additional background check for the CCP
• Cannot have ANY felonies in your past or present, even if they have been resolved
• Cannot have ANY domestic violence charges (charges not convictions)
• No misdemeanors that are of battery, assault, domestic violence, or sexual molestation charges
• And the #1 reason Utah has the best CCP is that every two weeks your name is on a continuous background check schedule. This means; my Utah CCP which I received over ten years ago, I have had a background check every two weeks since... If any of the above come up, I will get flagged and the state will be notified and an officer will come to my door to make sure I have no guns.

The most common federal law that is broken by gun owners is the gifting or selling of a gun to a friend or relative who lives out of state from the person who is giving or selling his gun. They will be breaking federal law if given or sold to someone who lives in a different state than them. To give a firearm away (or sell) to someone who lives out of state you must go through a FFL (Federal Firearms License) holder.

That’s great for folks who obey the law and get permitted. How does Utah filter the real folks that are likely to commit gun crimes? Those are the ones I worry about.

Edited August 26, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said:

That’s great for folks who obey the law. How does Utah filter the real folks that are likely to commit gun crimes?

They hire law enforcement officials to shoot them in the act of committing those gun crimes, when they find them... regardless of their skin color.

[Bernard Gui]

9 minutes ago, Ahab said:

They hire law enforcement officials to shoot them in the act of committing those gun crimes, when they find them... regardless of their skin color.

Key words....when they find them. Usually after they've done their nasty work, no? I can't imagine they went through some sort of permit system before going out and doing whatever they do.

Edited August 26, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

But accidents may kill one or two and twenty of them match one mass murderer.

We don't hear about near misses for accidents and may not even hear about many accidents that injured or killed people.  However, I assume such things must get reported to SL.

I do think this would be a good topic for them to explain the decision in detail given the position on guns so many members have in the US.

I don't see reduction in accidental shootings by licensed carriers in chapels as a significant benefit, but maybe some do. From my experience, it's crazy folks with an axe to grind who do the damage. It's hard to prevent them from hurting people.

 

Edited August 26, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

Deny legal liability for your actions if your bullet passes through the shooter and injures (or kills) someone else. 

 

Good answer. Liability has to be what it's about. In certain States there are so many people who routinely carry weapons that it could become a shootout at OK corral. The gun and your wallet are just things you grab in the morning and take with you naturally.

You're right I think that is the concern.

Edited August 26, 2019 by mfbukowski

[provoman]

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

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?

 

2 hours 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.

 

@FearlessFixxer published depositions about this case

https://www.roanoke.com/news/local/roanoke_county/roanoke-county-woman-sues-local-mormon-church/article_d102cce7-a012-5cb3-b498-7c1c77600679.html

 

A Roanoke County woman is suing local leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for defamation because she claims church officials issued a letter to Roanoke County police claiming the woman caused disturbances on church property and made other churchgoers fear for their safety.

Karena McGraw, a former member of the Cotton Hill branch of the church, is suing several church leaders whom she claims made false and defamatory statements in order to intentionally harm her reputation. She is seeking $850,000 in damages.

The civil lawsuit, filed Aug. 1 in Roanoke County Circuit Court, alleges Kevin Bohon, president of the Roanoke stake of the church, Noah McDaniel, second counselor of the Roanoke stake, and Paul Rucker, bishop of the Cotton Hill ward, defamed McGraw after she expressed concerns about a local church leader.

The church leaders named in the lawsuit have not yet filed responses in Circuit Court.

“Our desire is that our chapels and services are places of peace, where members can come to feel welcome and secure as they worship together,” said Eric Hawkins, a church spokesman based in Utah. “We hope to resolve the dispute so we can welcome her back to the congregation.”

McGraw’s lawyer, Stan Barnhill, declined to comment.

Last summer, McGraw expressed concerns about a local church leader and what that person was teaching her daughter, which McGraw considered to be “against the basic tenets of the faith.” Court documents do not make clear if the church leader McGraw complained about is one of the church officials named in the lawsuit.

After Karena McGraw expressed her concerns, she met with Kevin Bohon’s sister-in-law, Shannon Bohon. After that, Kevin Bohon met with McGraw’s husband, Patrick McGraw, and alleged Karena McGraw had “inappropriate” conduct in the church parking lot on the day she met with Shannon Bohon, according to court documents.

In August 2015, Rucker met with Patrick McGraw and said he could “fix” Karena McGraw if she would meet with church leadership. Rucker also stated he had prior experience “fixing other strong-willed, independent-minded women,” according to the lawsuit.

During the meeting, Rucker also told Patrick McGraw that Karena McGraw was “going to kill somebody, like the guy at Smith Mountain Lake,” the court documents say.

The statement is presumably a reference to Vester Flanagan, a disgruntled former employee of WDBJ-TV (Channel 7), who shot and killed reporter Alison Parker and cameraman Adam Ward at Smith Mountain Lake last year.

Rucker later made similar statements to Patrick McGraw’s parents, court documents state.

The church leader also said Karena McGraw brandished a firearm in the church parking lot and then brought the gun into the building, claims the plaintiff refutes in her lawsuit.

Virginia law makes it a misdemeanor to bring a gun or other weapon into a place of worship while a meeting for religious purposes is taking place, though some exceptions apply.

In October 2015, a law firm in Salt Lake City, Utah, sent McGraw a letter informing her that because she violated church policies, created disturbances on church property and caused other church members to fear for their safety, she was no longer welcome on church property and would henceforth be treated as a trespasser, according to court documents.

Church officials lied about the allegations in the letter to “put [Karena] McGraw in her place and punish her,” according to the lawsuit.

The three church leaders named in the lawsuit then delivered a copy of the same letter to the Roanoke County Police Department, which McGraw claims was done to harm her reputation.

Roanoke County has not received such a letter from the church, county spokeswoman Amy Whittaker said. The county also doesn’t have any other information pertaining to McGraw and the church, she said.

McGraw claims that she has suffered emotional distress and humiliation because of the false allegations and church officials’ decision to turn over the letter to local law enforcement.

“As leadership of the Church, they were intent on making an example of [Karena] McGraw to dissuade others, not in leadership positions — especially women — from the same level of independent thinking and speaking that [Karena] McGraw exhibited,” according to court documents.

McGraw is seeking $500,000 in compensatory damages and $350,000 in punitive damages.