SB 88 Houses of Worship and Firearms

[HoughMade]

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).

My church rented Merrillville High School for a couple of years. I agree. Under current law, a school is a school is a school whether used for church purposes or not, but under the proposed legislation, not so much. The school property gun prohibition would not apply to:

Except as provided in subsection (b), a person who:
(A) may legally possess a firearm; and
(B) possesses a firearm on school property in connection with or while:
(i) attending a worship service or religious ceremony conducted at a house of worship located on the school property;...

...and you should not have to explain what you believe when setting forth the law. I've always found it weird...and somewhat simpleminded to argue with a lawyer who is stating legal fact just because they are describing law you don't like.*




*See also- federal MJ prohibition.

 

[rhino]

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 dont' think it is, really. The Indiana License to Carry Handgun was valid on school property until the 1990s when some knee-jerk legislation was passed because (in my opinion) of violence in Southern California.

The LtCH needs to be valid pretty much everywhere.

 

[2A_Tom]

Agreed^^^^

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Pretty confident that won't happen in our lifetime.

You are correct. An expression of anger/frustration rather than reality on my part.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

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.

You are correct. Typed in frustration rather than in reason.

 

[brotherbill3]

Oh look SB 's are starting to show up ... cool ... I'll catch up in a bit.

Thanks Kelly!

 

[KellyinAvon]

Oh look SB 's are starting to show up ... cool ... I'll catch up in a bit.

Thanks Kelly!

No problem Bill. I'm shocked I beat you to it. Good to have you back on the forum.

 

[T.Lex]

My church rented Merrillville High School for a couple of years. I agree. Under current law, a school is a school is a school whether used for church purposes or not, but under the proposed legislation, not so much. The school property gun prohibition would not apply to:

Would not a more elegant solution be to amend the definition of "school" to not include buildings when they are being utilized for religious worship? That would support the separation of church and state, too.

(Kinda not sure how, but it sounded good.)

By the way, I didn't really think it necessary to start a new thread on this, but a Brazilian shot up a cathedral down there. Not saying that kind of thing might be contagious, but religious institutions tend to attract... crazy. (No, I don't want to take that topic to the Christianity thread.) I bring it up here, though, to support the idea that these kinds of places may increase the chance of needing to defend oneself and others.

 

[brotherbill3]

No problem Bill. I'm shocked I beat you to it. Good to have you back on the forum.

Life still has me overwhelmed ... just working to stay afloat and all the numbers in (or going) black from red
... I wanted to have somethings set up by now and I just ... don't ... can't.


I'v poked my nose in now and again - but I "NEED" (for personal resilience) to get back up on (and driving) this wagon.

Glad there are a bunch of us paying attention.

 

[rhino]

Life still has me overwhelmed ... just working to stay afloat and all the numbers in (or going) black from red
... I wanted to have somethings set up by now and I just ... don't ... can't.


I'v poked my nose in now and again - but I "NEED" (for personal resilience) to get back up on (and driving) this wagon.

Glad there are a bunch of us paying attention.

Need some help?

 

[KellyinAvon]

Need some help?

Hey Bill! You got Rhino, you got me, sounds like a formidable team to me.

 

[brotherbill3]

FYI - there is a "SECOND" version of this - SB 135 ...

and I'm working on sorting this out the help. keep it real guys.

 

[KellyinAvon]

FYI - there is a "SECOND" version of this - SB 135 ...

and I'm working on sorting this out the help. keep it real guys.

I saw that, Senator Sandlin is the only author on 135. On a cursory review I could see no difference (lines on specific page match identical on each bill.) Hhhmmm... need to compare side by side.

 

[mergatroid]

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;

This is the problem. "unless prohibited by the house of worship".

Businesses, ie, houses of worship, should not be in the position to create law. It would be similar to giving a "no gun" sign in your business window the force of law.

Bad Idea, that part anyway.

Needs better drafting to be sure.

 

[Dead Duck]

This is the problem. "unless prohibited by the house of worship".

Businesses, ie, houses of worship, should not be in the position to create law. It would be similar to giving a "no gun" sign in your business window the force of law.

Bad Idea, that part anyway.

Needs better drafting to be sure.

But here's the kicker.......
Who is the One actually in charge and has the absolute last Word in what's permitted and prohibited in any house of worship?

God!

Last time I asked Him about carrying my gun in His house He said it was A-OK with Him. So anybody who wants to kick me out for carrying in church, need to take it up with the Lord cause He has my back.

 

[ashby koss]

+1,000,000,000,000 rights shall not be infringed

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.

 

[KellyinAvon]

This is the problem. "unless prohibited by the house of worship".

Businesses, ie, houses of worship, should not be in the position to create law. It would be similar to giving a "no gun" sign in your business window the force of law.

Bad Idea, that part anyway.

Needs better drafting to be sure.

Private property rights. Signs don't have force of law here in the Great State of Indiana, but property rights are as vital as 2A rights. Two sayings come to mind: their house, their rules; concealed means concealed.

 

[rhino]

Private property rights. Signs don't have force of law here in the Great State of Indiana, but property rights are as vital as 2A rights. Two sayings come to mind: their house, their rules; concealed means concealed.

The difference would be, if the current language were retained, anyone who carries in such a church is a felon. If that nonsense is eliminated, the church could still kick you out if they don't want you carrying and they find out about it, but the person is not in big legal trouble - exactly the same way it is now with churches that do not have schools.

 

[brotherbill3]

The difference would be, if the current language were retained, anyone who carries in such a church is a felon. If that nonsense is eliminated, the church could still kick you out if they don't want you carrying and they find out about it, but the person is not in big legal trouble - exactly the same way it is now with churches that do not have schools.

QFT ... ding ding ... and the part above the Kelly in Avon noted.

Constitutional Carry - does not affect either of these provisions.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Yeah, not a fan of a church who would tell me I cant carry. So I would vote with my feet.

They need the ability to make their own private property rules, so I dont have a problem with this part. I dont like it personally, but its better than the alternative.