SB 88 Houses of Worship and Firearms

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • KellyinAvon

    Blue-ID Mafia Consigliere
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Dec 22, 2012
    24,797
    150
    Avon
    Senators Jack Sandlin and Michael Young have authored SB 88. Synopsis and link below. Senator Sandlin is a strong 2A supporter who introduced a similar bill last year. I spoke with him earlier this year at a 1500 and he said he'd be introducing it again. More to follow, it's only 4 pages so it shouldn't take too long to read even for me.

    Houses of worship and firearms. Permits a person who may legally possess a firearm to possess a firearm on school property that also contains a house of worship, unless prohibited by the house of worship, if the person possesses the firearm while: (1) attending a worship service; (2) conducting business with the house of worship; (3) receiving pastoral services; (4) attending a program sponsored or permitted by the house of worship or the school; or (5) carrying out the person's official duties at a house of worship, if the person is employed by or a volunteer at the house of worship and the house of worship has assigned the person duties that require the person to carry a firearm. Exempts certain law enforcement and retired law enforcement officers described in the federal Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) from the prohibition against carrying a firearm on school property.

    Senate Bill 88 - Houses of worship and firearms - Indiana General Assembly, 2019 Session
     

    Trigger Time

    Air guitar master
    Rating - 98.6%
    204   3   0
    Aug 26, 2011
    40,112
    113
    SOUTH of Zombie city
    Sounds like a feel good does nothing law. The antigun houses of worship will still ban them and be within the law.
    I want constitutional carry and I want it now. Let's get a group together and sue the state for it.
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    This needs legs. Its a no brainer. How anyone can be against this is beyond me.

    I'm against it - at least as currently proposed.

    Yet another feckless half measure. Simply allow LTCH holders on school property and be done with the games.

    Mostly this^

    But, more to my situation, I've worked out a solid legal argument (in case I ever need it) that the building where they teach kids on the property of my house of worship is not a "school" as defined by the applicable laws. There is not policy at the moment, partly because they think they don't need one. (There was a thread somewhere on here that went through the definitional issues.)

    If the legislature now gives my house of worship the ability to deem it a GFZ, then I'm kinda hozed.

    Frankly, I think MOST houses of worship that have a place where they teach kids are not "schools" within the legal definition. So, this would, in effect, further impinge on the right to carry rather than protect it.

    These legislators need to do a better job of figuring out what the current state of the law is.
     

    Cameramonkey

    www.thechosen.tv
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    35   0   0
    May 12, 2013
    31,688
    77
    Camby area
    Yet another feckless half measure. Simply allow LTCH holders on school property and be done with the games.

    dont disagree, but thats a bridge too far.

    I think we can all agree that a building, when no students or teachers are present, should be considered the generic building it is. Or that a non school building on school property is not a school per se.

    Just getting that passed is a good first step.
     

    halfmileharry

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    65   0   0
    Dec 2, 2010
    11,450
    99
    South of Indy
    Anyone consider the option of not attending any house of worship that prohibits weapons?
    I'm not a believer in the govt sticking their nose in any private organization. Their house... their rules as far as I'm concerned.
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    dont disagree, but thats a bridge too far.

    I think we can all agree that a building, when no students or teachers are present, should be considered the generic building it is. Or that a non school building on school property is not a school per se.

    Just getting that passed is a good first step.

    I think the first step would be for them to look at re-defining "school" to exclude buildings that teach children that are on property owned by a religious entity.

    Check out this thread:
    That's a great observation.

    Part of the calculus is whether that same NFP "owns" or "rents" the building that leads off section 1.

    For a Catholic church/school, the property is usually owned by the diocese - which is its own entity. The diocese doesn't run the church/school. The local church is usually a separate entity. The local church doesn't own the property, nor does it pay rent. So, the actual property probably isn't "school property."

    Hypothetically, let's say there's a local church called First Local Church of God (FLCG). The property is owned by FLCG and the pre-school is run by FLCG. Then, it arguably meets the definition.

    But, let's say the pre-school is run by a separate entity, the FLCG Mothers' Ministry (FLCG-MM). FLCG doesn't charge FLCG-MM rent, because it is a ministry. Then, I'm not sure it meets the definition.

    Yes, that is a rather technical legal difference. But this kind of thing is why there are so many lawyers. And so many laws.
     

    KellyinAvon

    Blue-ID Mafia Consigliere
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Dec 22, 2012
    24,797
    150
    Avon
    dont disagree, but thats a bridge too far.

    I think we can all agree that a building, when no students or teachers are present, should be considered the generic building it is. Or that a non school building on school property is not a school per se.

    Just getting that passed is a good first step.

    Props on the Operation Market Garden reference there Cm.

    I keep wondering why a school makes a church (and all the adjoining property) a school 24/7.
     

    Cameramonkey

    www.thechosen.tv
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    35   0   0
    May 12, 2013
    31,688
    77
    Camby area
    Anyone consider the option of not attending any house of worship that prohibits weapons?
    I'm not a believer in the govt sticking their nose in any private organization. Their house... their rules as far as I'm concerned.
    Yes.

    But this isnt about private property rights. This is about the state telling a house of worship they have no choice in the matter if they choose to have a school on property. Under current law, even if a church with a school on property WANTED to, they couldnt.

    Props on the Operation Market Garden reference there Cm.

    I keep wondering why a school makes a church (and all the adjoining property) a school 24/7.

    Purposefully overly vague language. They cover all real property, not just the buildings, with no differentiation between whether the school is in session, school function is running, etc. Once a school, always a school. It only becomes NOT a school when the municipality closes it and sells it. (or a church dissolves the licensed school)
     

    KellyinAvon

    Blue-ID Mafia Consigliere
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Dec 22, 2012
    24,797
    150
    Avon
    Anyone consider the option of not attending any house of worship that prohibits weapons?
    I'm not a believer in the govt sticking their nose in any private organization. Their house... their rules as far as I'm concerned.

    If the leadership of a church didn't want me there for whatever reason (be it can't carry a tune in a bucket or the G26 in the Super Tuck) I wouldn't attend there. The government telling me my church is a school is a different matter. The vast majority of private schools in Indiana have religious affiliation. I have no idea how many have houses of worship on the same property (making that building a school as well), but one is too many.
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    Yes.

    But this isnt about private property rights. This is about the state telling a house of worship they have no choice in the matter if they choose to have a school on property. Under current law, even if a church with a school on property WANTED to, they couldnt.



    Purposefully overly vague language. They cover all real property, not just the buildings, with no differentiation between whether the school is in session, school function is running, etc. Once a school, always a school. It only becomes NOT a school when the municipality closes it and sells it. (or a church dissolves the licensed school)

    I'm sorry, but is there a citation or something?

    That isn't my recollection of the law.
    IC 35-31.5-2-285 [parpahrased]:
    "School property" means a building or other structure owned or rented by a - private school that is not supported and maintained by funds realized from the imposition of a tax on property, income, or sales.

    First Church of Photgraphic Monkeys owns property. It has a building in which kids learn. That doesn't make it a school. The school doesn't own (or rent) the property. The church does.

    Where is it written that a church that teaches kids becomes a school, in terms of a legal definition?
     

    Cameramonkey

    www.thechosen.tv
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    35   0   0
    May 12, 2013
    31,688
    77
    Camby area
    I'm sorry, but is there a citation or something?

    That isn't my recollection of the law.


    First Church of Photgraphic Monkeys owns property. It has a building in which kids learn. That doesn't make it a school. The school doesn't own (or rent) the property. The church does.

    Where is it written that a church that teaches kids becomes a school, in terms of a legal definition?

    If you are right, why are we having this discussion? (and why is the bill proposed?)

    And when I first read that, I read it as "First Church of Pornographic Monkeys." LOL
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    If you are right, why are we having this discussion? (and why is the bill proposed?)

    Because the legislature doesn't exist to solve problems. It exists to pass laws.

    And legislators rarely understand the things they tinker with. (In my experience.)

    And when I first read that, I read it as "First Church of Pornographic Monkeys." LOL

    Tomato, tomato.

    ;)
     

    HoughMade

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 24, 2012
    35,615
    149
    Valparaiso
    I'm against it - at least as currently proposed.



    Mostly this^

    But, more to my situation, I've worked out a solid legal argument (in case I ever need it) that the building where they teach kids on the property of my house of worship is not a "school" as defined by the applicable laws. There is not policy at the moment, partly because they think they don't need one. (There was a thread somewhere on here that went through the definitional issues.)

    If the legislature now gives my house of worship the ability to deem it a GFZ, then I'm kinda hozed.

    Frankly, I think MOST houses of worship that have a place where they teach kids are not "schools" within the legal definition. So, this would, in effect, further impinge on the right to carry rather than protect it.

    These legislators need to do a better job of figuring out what the current state of the law is.

    What about churches that rent public schools on Sunday to conduct services?

    It's pretty common.
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    What about churches that rent public schools on Sunday to conduct services?

    It's pretty common.

    Interesting. I'm not familiar with that.

    If they are public schools, then IMHO the school doesn't lose the "school" flavor just by being rented out. In that case, I think the school GFZ should apply.

    Wait.

    Let me make clear that I don't think schools should be GFZs for LTCH holders. I'd LOVE to get that changed. But if that is Arnhem, I think getting an exception for rented-out-schools-as-churches will be our Eindhoven (or Nijmegen). We might "win" it, but at a significant cost (and for how long).
     
    Top Bottom