Carry in Church that has "School"

[BE Mike]

The following is what I ran across. Does anyone have any information that is contradictory? In the state of Indiana, a daycare is exactly that, a daycare. Indiana state law classifies a daycare as an establishment that provides care for children 6 yrs and younger. even if the center follows a curriculum, it is not a school. A "daycare" operated by a church, is almost always a childcare ministry, not a day care, and therefore is not required to be licensed by the state, nor is it a an actual daycare or a school. To be such, it would have to be licensed as such. So the answer to your question is no its not.

As clarification, pre-school is not actually a school either, it is a descriptive term under indiana state law and does not require any licensing or regulation, unless they recieve state or federal funding. It is a very convoluted sytem to say the least.

So what does all of this mean ? Basically, a daycare is neither a public nor private school in any sense of the word school, nor is it a parochial school even if it is run by a church. Therefore, concealed carry would be no different than carrying at walmart.

 

[T.Lex]

I belong to a church that also has a school - a real K-8 school. The church and the school are on the same parcel of land, but totally separate buildings.

If someone were to carry at the church, I believe there is a good argument that it is legal, because they are separate buildings. The school "sits" on church property, not the other way around. However, someone should be careful NOT to carry within the actual school, which has a connected gym.

On the wrong day, or with the wrong situation, a prosecutor might disagree. It would take a jury and an appellate court (or 2) to sort it out.

That doesn't really address your point, though, with regard to pre-k or daycares. It is just an approach that makes sense to me. If the church and the "school" are in the same building, then that's a really tough call IMHO.

 

[TheSpark]

The church daycare/school is always a little sticky. They key is what the state considers it to be (how it is licensed/not licensed). Unless you know for sure I would steer clear.

Our state, for whatever reason, does not like the idea of having our kids protected. They (unintentionally) encourage mass killers to prey on them by leaving them in a vulnerable, often unprotected, gun free zone.

 

[K_W]

If there is a state licensed school on the property, the entire property is a gun free zone 24/7/365.

Even if the pastor says it's OK.

The only exception is the parking lot, where you must lock it in your vehicle before you leave your car, or MAYBE if the pastor hires you as security for $1 a year or something.

 

[T.Lex]

If there is a state licensed school on the property, the entire property is a gun free zone 24/7/365.

Well, while this is good advice, it isn't totally accurate.

IC 35-41-1-24.7
"School property" defined
Sec. 24.7. "School property" means the following:
(1) A building or other structure owned or rented by:
(A) a school corporation;
(B) an entity that is required to be licensed under IC 12-17.2 or IC 31-27;
(C) a private school that is not supported and maintained by funds realized from the imposition of a tax on property, income, or sales; or
(D) a federal, state, local, or nonprofit program or service operated to serve, assist, or otherwise benefit children who are at least three (3) years of age and not yet enrolled in kindergarten, including the following:
(i) A Head Start program under 42 U.S.C. 9831 et seq.
(ii) A special education preschool program.
(iii) A developmental child care program for preschool children.
(2) The grounds adjacent to and owned or rented in common with a building or other structure described in subdivision (1).

Looking at (2) - the grounds must be adjacent to and owned or rented in common with the school building or other structure. Assuming we're talking about a private school, then it becomes:
A building or other structure, owned or rented by a private school and the grounds adjacent to and owned or rented in common with the building or structure.

In my situation, the "school" does not own anything. The parcel is owned by the church. There is no ownership or rental agreement. That's why I think it the area is more "church" than "school." Except for the actual building that is used as a school. But, honestly, I think the way the statute is worded, that might actually be a stretch for the prosecutor to say, since the building isn't owned by any school. The "school" has no separate entity status.

By the way, this does not constitute legal advice to you or anyone else. This is informational as to the definition of "school."

 

[K_W]

B. An entity required to be licensed.

the church is required to have a license to run a full school, there for the Church as a whole is now a gun free zone.

 

[Peter McM]

My newly-formed church is currently renting the auditorium of a jr. high school. I carry almost every Sunday, even openly with my suit coat off.

 

[T.Lex]

B. An entity required to be licensed.

the church is required to have a license to run a full school, there for the Church as a whole is now a gun free zone.

I took a quick look at the cross references, and it looks like they applied to daycares and pre-k, not a "full school." Registration is mandatory, but according to at least 1 federal Department of Education resource, "licensing" is not required.
https://www2.ed.gov/admins/comm/choice/regprivschl/regprivschl.pdf

Besides, even if you're right, I think there's a better-than-average chance that application to my situation would be a bit absurd. The deeded owner of the property is the Roman Catholic Diocese of Lafayette. That would make ever diocesan property a "school."

In the quest for consensus, I think we can both agree that the law is not well written. It could be clarified and still be a GFZ.

 

[T.Lex]

My newly-formed church is currently renting the auditorium of a jr. high school. I carry almost every Sunday, even openly with my suit coat off.

See - this is NOT a good idea. If it is a public jr. high, it is still a school, even when it isn't being used as a school.

That is thin ice upon which you are treading.

 

[AndersonIN]

See - this is NOT a good idea. If it is a public jr. high, it is still a school, even when it isn't being used as a school.

That is thin ice upon which you are treading.

I disagree...........No longer "thin ice"............he's trying to walk on water!

 

[Cameramonkey]

See - this is NOT a good idea. If it is a public jr. high, it is still a school, even when it isn't being used as a school.

That is thin ice upon which you are treading.

IANAL but I agree. Luckilly for you it sounds like you havent been seen by the right person yet who understands the law. I'd stop before they do and you need to meet Mr. Relford on a professional basis.

I recall the absurd situation last summer down in Bargersville. Mothballed school. Not in use as a school but still owned by the school district. Private sports league (I dont remember the sport) was granted permission to use the athletic fields. Even though the school was closed and not in use as a school at any time by the school district, The attached athletic fields were legally a GFZ simply because it was owned by the school district thanks to the poorly worded, overly broad law. If a disused schoolyard is a GFZ, I cant imagine how a rented gym in an active school isnt.

As the law is written, I think Beech Grove Schools could buy the property that BGF sits on and that would instantly render their operation illegal as-is. Its not about what is going on at the property, its who owns or rents it.

 

[T.Lex]

Heck, I remember an appeal soon after LEOs became aware of the school-GFZ legislation (at least, the department at issue in the appeal had just become aware of it).

Fact pattern (as I recall it): late night/early morning call about suspicious activity at a school, officers dispatched to check it out, find nothing. While there, a guy is walking across the school property to get home. There was a brief detention as an officer checked him out. Had ID and a Larry and pistol. Officer had no reason to link him to the suspicious activity call, and they had polite departure. Officer told his supervisor about it and the supervisor decided they needed to arrest the guy for having a firearm on school property.

So they did.

So he got convicted, which was affirmed on appeal (in a non-published opinion, as I recall). That pretty much sucked.

(As an aside, nothing was in the record, but I suspect this was an individual that was otherwise known to officers.)

 

[K_W]

I would contact a lawyer.

 

[Cameramonkey]

To clarify for all, as I recall, If the church is running the school strictly as an UNLICENSED ministry program, the GFZ doesnt apply, correct? My family and I are looking for a new church and one of them has a M-F preschool, but they are not state licensed as a school. So they are not covered by IC 35-41-1-24.7 since they are unlicensed?

 

[T.Lex]

To clarify for all, as I recall, If the church is running the school strictly as an UNLICENSED ministry program, the GFZ doesnt apply, correct? My family and I are looking for a new church and one of them has a M-F preschool, but they are not state licensed as a school. So they are not covered by IC 35-41-1-24.7 since they are unlicensed?

Best to check with them to see if they have ANY licenses from the state. If any licenses contain references to Ind. Code 12-17.2 or 31-27, then chances are it is a GFZ. Especially if it is in the same building as the church-church.

 

[WebSnyper]

My newly-formed church is currently renting the auditorium of a jr. high school. I carry almost every Sunday, even openly with my suit coat off.

Uhm, pretty sure that is illegal, and you do not want to try and defend that. How are you even thinking this is legal?

See - this is NOT a good idea. If it is a public jr. high, it is still a school, even when it isn't being used as a school.

That is thin ice upon which you are treading.

Agreed.

I disagree...........No longer "thin ice"............he's trying to walk on water!

Yep, there is no disputing it is a school in this particular case, and charges would be difficult to defend against.

 

[Dead Duck]

All good advice above.
It's only a school if it is "State Licensed" as a school. Then you will need permission from the owners to carry there.

If just a school, ask the principal and the school board.
If it's a church, just pray and ask God for permission.

 

[BE Mike]

The church "school" I'm thinking about is pretty much described in the original post. It is a pre-K, not licensed by the federal government, nor state or local school district. It receives no public funding. What I'm hearing you folks say is that no one disagrees that it is not a school, as defined by law, but instead a Christian ministry. The law, like a lot of laws are vague. It would be nice to see it clarified. I would think that such a church school should fall under the purview of the First Amendment. Anyway, back to the original quote, it would seem that a proper person would be allowed carry under Indiana law. Our church leadership is not generally opposed to concealed carry at church. The issue of general safety at church is being reviewed and this is one of many specific topics that have popped up. Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[HoosierLife]

I thought a private church school could authorize those that are legally allowed to carry, to carry on school premises. It ad to be authorized by the principal, pastor or ruling body.

Hopefully that hasn't changed. A few years back I printed up some documents for our church with all the IN code about that and had the pastor and carrier sign it.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Best to check with them to see if they have ANY licenses from the state. If any licenses contain references to Ind. Code 12-17.2 or 31-27, then chances are it is a GFZ. Especially if it is in the same building as the church-church.

Man, All this round and round legalese makes my head hurt. I think We are good in my case because They are exempt from the latter because they arent a group home, caring for troubled youts, etc (IC 31-27-2-7). I am still trying to figure out how to tell if they are covered by 12-17.2-4. Is there a search you can do for a license under that statute? I dont have an easy way to contact them to ask the question, and frankly, Im not sure how to ask in a way that I can guarantee to get the correct answer. I dont want to be in the position of "But mr prosecutor, miss X told me on the phone that they werent."

ETA: I do see a reference on the website that they are licensed by the board of health, but thats the only license they advertise. The requirements are eerily close to whats in 12-7. Either an overlap of requirements, or they are covered by that statute.

http://ronbranson.wix.com/aldersgateindy#!preschool/c19g1

Sounds like if we do narrow it down to that church, a conversation with the pastor is in order if indeed a written waiver is a legal possibility.