Question about church carry

[chipbennett]

Had a funny moment in church this morning... Our worship leader was introducing a new worship song to the congregation and said the he had a disclaimer about the song. There was a lyric in the song that says something about "laying down our guns" and he wanted everyone to know that that was is no way a political statement. He went on to say that it is just a metaphor used in the song and that the church supports our rights and he even made a comment about all of those out in the audience currently carrying.

Was the song "Let Love Win" by Carrollton?

 

[HoughMade]

...He may not, under the guise of private property rights, demand that a welcomed person act in any particular manner

Sure he can. One can be invited and then dis-invited and made a trespasser based upon, essentially any condition the landowner wants to impose...or simply change his mind and tell the person to leave for any reason or no reason at all.

...nor may the private property owner violate the rights of a welcomed person.

Good news. The 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to private land owners, only to the government. Therefore, a private landowner can eject a person once invited for carrying if he wishes, all while not violating a Constitutionally protected right.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to private land owners, only to the government.

Because I have a Heart as big as Atlanta, I cannot tell you that it should apply to private land owners.

 

[HoughMade]

Because I have a Heart as big as Atlanta, I cannot tell you that it should apply to private land owners.

My friend, I don't operate on "should", only "is". I'll leave "should" to philosophers and millenials.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

My friend, I don't operate on "should", only "is". I'll leave "should" to philosophers and millenials.

I'll tilt at windmills elsewhere.

 

[Cameramonkey]

When was that? Violent crime is at the lowest rate since at least 1970. We are safer today than in my entire lifetime.

What I find sad is that a cc-er is assumed "up to something", even by others who CC, and even by their brothers and sisters in the church.

He apparently only listens to drive by media and does not subscribe to the plethora of facts and published research.

 

[Amishman44]

Our church has a Safety & Security team (with visitors in the 4,000 range every weekend) in order to keep an eye on things and identify any potential 'risks' if seen. They're plain-clothed and blend-in quite well with those around them and yet still interact naturally with others in a friendly manner.

I've been CCing in church since 2002 when I acquired my initial Indiana Carry License...today, my wife CC's with me.

In our church, while it's a pain to exit (time wise) due to the volume of individuals standing and talking after the service, we do choose to sit near the front right of the sanctuary for 2 reasons...it's a great seat - visibility wise - for what's happening on stage and it's the fartherest seat in the place from the main entrance/exit doors (except for an emergency exit not to far from our seats in case of fire.) If anything happens during a service...we have a few seconds to visibly identify it, hit the deck and/or take action against it before it gets to us! It's like sitting in a corner booth in a restaurant with one's back against the wall...seeing first matters!

 

[Bill of Rights]

Because I have a Heart as big as Atlanta, I cannot tell you that it should apply to private land owners.

???

 

[Expat]

I'll tilt at windmills elsewhere.

You could use the argument that I have been seeing lately. If you are open to the public then you no longer have any rights to control your property.

 

[HoughMade]

You could use the argument that I have been seeing lately. If you are open to the public then you no longer have any rights to control your property.

If you keep this up, some INGOers may realize that they don't value freedom as a general concept, just when it comes to them and their own feelings.

...naw, that's crazy talk. A realization like that would take an open mind and introspection.

 

[w_ADAM_d88]

Was the song "Let Love Win" by Carrollton?

I believe the song is Guns/Napoleon by John Mark McMillan.

 

[chipbennett]

Sure he can. One can be invited and then dis-invited and made a trespasser based upon, essentially any condition the landowner wants to impose...or simply change his mind and tell the person to leave for any reason or no reason at all.

So, you agree with me. Awesome.

Good news. The 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to private land owners, only to the government. Therefore, a private landowner can eject a person once invited for carrying if he wishes, all while not violating a Constitutionally protected right.

Again, you agree with me 100%. Good news, indeed.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Chip, I think I see where you're going with this, but your mistake is in saying that the property owner cannot "under the guise of private property rights, demand that a welcomed person act in any particular manner."

The property owner can demand that a person on his property not use either his right of free speech or his RKBA, as a condition of remaining there. Example: If I go in to McDonalds, I will be welcomed as a customer... right up until I start going to the other patrons in line and at tables and telling them that the Burger Thing next door has flame-broiled Whoppers with cheese on sale; a bigger sandwich, better tasting, for less money. When I start making their customers leave, they will be within their rights to tell me that the manner in which I'm acting has made me unwelcome. If you want to split hairs, yeah, they're still telling the person he is unwelcome, but the upshot of it is that if I then, on notification, apologize and promise not to continue the unwelcome behavior, I may not be ejected, especially if I pull out a wad of cash and tell them I want to order $150 in Sausage McMuffins w/cheese. (Think Epic Meal Time)

Of course, I could also be misreading you and missing you just trying to goad Hough, too... But that's not what's happening, is it?

Blessings,
Bill

So, you agree with me. Awesome.



Again, you agree with me 100%. Good news, indeed.

 

[chipbennett]

Chip, I think I see where you're going with this, but your mistake is in saying that the property owner cannot "under the guise of private property rights, demand that a welcomed person act in any particular manner."

The property owner can demand that a person on his property not use either his right of free speech or his RKBA, as a condition of remaining there. Example: If I go in to McDonalds, I will be welcomed as a customer... right up until I start going to the other patrons in line and at tables and telling them that the Burger Thing next door has flame-broiled Whoppers with cheese on sale; a bigger sandwich, better tasting, for less money. When I start making their customers leave, they will be within their rights to tell me that the manner in which I'm acting has made me unwelcome. If you want to split hairs, yeah, they're still telling the person he is unwelcome, but the upshot of it is that if I then, on notification, apologize and promise not to continue the unwelcome behavior, I may not be ejected, especially if I pull out a wad of cash and tell them I want to order $150 in Sausage McMuffins w/cheese. (Think Epic Meal Time)

Of course, I could also be misreading you and missing you just trying to goad Hough, too... But that's not what's happening, is it?

Blessings,
Bill

It seems we're in agreement. A property owner may (for any reason) consider a *person* welcome or unwelcome (i.e. trespassing) on the property, in exercising private property rights. But provided that said person is acting lawfully (you present an example of potentially unlawful behavior in your example) in exercising rights, private property rights do not extend to overriding or superseding the rights of said person.

Case in point: if a private property owner does not wish a welcomed person to have a firearm on the private property, and a person is on said property and in possession of a firearm, the property owner can decided that said person is no longer welcome, and ask him to leave (i.e. trespass that person, if he does not comply with the request to leave). But the private property owner may not disarm that person. Attempting to do so (physically) would constitute an assault on that person, by the property owner.

 

[HoughMade]

I agree that they can not physically disarm them. They can, however, say: "give up the gun or leave" and enforce that.

 

[ATM]

I agree that they can not physically disarm them. They can, however, say: "give up the gun or leave" and enforce that.

The latter does not infringe on their right to bear arms, only the privilege of remaining on the property.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I'm not sure what you're referencing as potentially unlawful, but while the owner of the property can't personally physically remove you*, it is indeed the person's actions that are being dictated as unwelcome.

*This point is up for debate. IN law says that if you have no other reasonable means to remove someone from your property, you may use force, including deadly force. That is a BIG "if", to be decided by a jury later, and too, that refers to your home, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle. I don't know how it all shakes out on a business property. (This is typed from memory... I may have the specifics of the law slightly incorrect, but I believe I've maintained the spirit of the law in this post.)

Blessings,
Bill

It seems we're in agreement. A property owner may (for any reason) consider a *person* welcome or unwelcome (i.e. trespassing) on the property, in exercising private property rights. But provided that said person is acting lawfully (you present an example of potentially unlawful behavior in your example) in exercising rights, private property rights do not extend to overriding or superseding the rights of said person.

Case in point: if a private property owner does not wish a welcomed person to have a firearm on the private property, and a person is on said property and in possession of a firearm, the property owner can decided that said person is no longer welcome, and ask him to leave (i.e. trespass that person, if he does not comply with the request to leave). But the private property owner may not disarm that person. Attempting to do so (physically) would constitute an assault on that person, by the property owner.

 

[chipbennett]

I'm not sure what you're referencing as potentially unlawful...

You were talking about someone coming on someone else's property and interfering with the property owner's business. That is the behavior that I was referencing as potentially unlawful.

...but while the owner of the property can't personally physically remove you*, it is indeed the person's actions that are being dictated as unwelcome.

Indeed, but it is only the person's *presence* that can be acted on as unwelcome. (Again, provided that said person is otherwise behaving lawfully. Unlawful behavior can be dealt with, obviously.)

*This point is up for debate. IN law says that if you have no other reasonable means to remove someone from your property, you may use force, including deadly force. That is a BIG "if", to be decided by a jury later, and too, that refers to your home, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle. I don't know how it all shakes out on a business property. (This is typed from memory... I may have the specifics of the law slightly incorrect, but I believe I've maintained the spirit of the law in this post.)

Blessings,
Bill

Agreed on all points.

 

[Hiker1911]

Indiana churches are not only houses of worship, they're a safe haven!

 

[INPatriot]

I bet some parishioners in that French village attending mass when their priest had his throat slit wished someone in that church was carrying.