A state lawmaker is proposing to allow people who are legally qualified to carry concealed weapons to bring them to houses of worship as long as the pastor or church board approves.
The proposal, filed ahead of the legislative session that opens March 29, is one of 74 House bills that have been filed so far.
State Rep. Henry Burns, a Republican, filed a bill to let a church, temple, mosque or other religious institution authorize “any person issued a valid concealed handgun permit” to carry it into a place of worship.
It is hard to put into words fully how much I am repulsed by this idea.
South Carolina law already does this and it was specifically approved at one local church which I attended.
#1
Why?
State law now prohibits concealed weapons in prisons, courthouses, government buildings, the State Capitol, airports and houses of worship.
I think we would all prefer that guns not be a part of the liturgy. However, I don’t see why the government would single out churches as places where there shouldn’t be any. Why not movie theaters? Diners? Taverns? Banks? Auto repair shops? Malls?
It looks like some sort of sentimental attachment to a bill about keeping government buildings under control of police officers.
the thing I never have understood about these discussions is the widespread popularity of carrying concealed weapons. If jurisdictions elect, through their legislatures, to permit general carriage of lethal weapons by the citizens, is there not merit to requiring that they be carried openly? I find myself really wanting to know when I am in the presence of armed citizens. I don’t dispute their right to own weapons (I own one myself, but don’t carry it out in society), but want to have enough information about how many weapons are in circulation so that I can make an informed decision to avoid certain situations.
More to the direct point of the post, why does one need this kind of legislation?
Rest at ease, NoVA. If you are in my presence in Virginia, you’ll be comforted to know I am carrying.
Keep it on the outside, Dilbert. Just in case I don’t recognize you. And, if you please, check your shooting irons at the door of the church. I have always owned firearms, but have never understood why people would want to carry them around on a daily basis, even in Virginia. My point is simply that they should be plainly visible to all.
NoVA, the church is, of course, for now, off limits by law “except for good reason” I believe the statute reads. Currently it seems society’s violent miscreants surely deserve a gun-free safe haven from law abiding armed citizens. Hopefully, the Senate and House of Delegates under Gov. McDonnell’s signature will correct this shortcoming with a change to the law.
As to your request, I decline as is my right to do. Live with it and be comforted someone might be close at hand when waiting for 9-1-1 to respond takes too long to matter.
There is no right to carry concealed, Dilbert. Some states permit it, but the Supreme Court repeatedly has stated that the states have the right to impose conditions on concealed carry. Do us all a favor and carry openly (and I think it safe to say that is your right in Virginia) so we can make informed decisions about whether we want to be around you when you feel the necessity to bring lethal force into everyday situations.
NoVA, Virginia is a “must issue” state for concealed carry permits for qualified citizens. The role of the judge is to determine whether the qualification has been met – basically an administrative process. Split hairs as you wish. I will be carrying along with thousands of other law abiding Virginia citizens. Our track record has been solid and citizens of the Commonwealth have never been safer.
#8
Kentucky is also a “shall issue” state. After attending a day of classroom and range instruction and a background check, the state “shall” issue the concealed carry license. It makes far more sense for citizens to carry their weapons concealed than openly. Much better that would-be muggers, rapists, etc., have to consider that anyone they are contemplating assaulting might well be armed. And of course we would all look pretty silly walking around in our suits, dresses, or what have you, with pistol belts strapped on openly.
Why would that look silly? It’s a basic American right. If it’s worth carrying, it’s worth carrying openly.
#11,
Nonsense. Your’s was not a serious reply so I think I’ll discontinue the discussion.
I meant it to be serious. Beyond the basic point of bearing arms being a constitutional right, there is also merit in knowing exactly where the deadly force is in any given daily situation. In my jurisdiction, bars are not supposed to serve to persons carrying weapons. How do they know if the weapon is not visible. If I walk into a grocery store with my kids and I feel that there are too many weapons in view, I may elect to come back later. If I can’t see them, how do I make that judgment? Similarly, if I constantly notice that weapons are being carried in profusion along the routes of my comings and goings, I may make an informed judgment that I should start carrying myself (or, conversely, that there is so much deadly force around that I don’t need to carry). But how do I make those judgments if I am unaware of the presence of lethal weapons. We all have a constitutional right to bear tomahawks, bows and arrows, swords, Bowie knives and firearms under the Second Amendment. The federal government (we’re waiting to hear about the states) has the right to impose reasonable regulations on that carriage. My point is that it would be eminently reasonable simply to require that the weapons be plainly visible.