Church Security & Legally Armed Parishioners

  • Thread starter Thread starter childinthefaith
  • Start date Start date
The 2A doesn’t imply or mean that a private party can’t deny you to carry a firearm or other things on their property. Any prohibitions from limiting firearms is on the government, not private property owners.

The Church is private property, so if they decide they don’t want guns on their property, they are well within their rights to ban them.

Our rights stated in the Constitution are overridden when we are guest on someone else’s property. That doesn’t mean that they can discriminate against protected classes of people.
 
TK421 said:
Except it’s not really hyperbole. If you just do a completely literal reading of the 2nd amendment, there’s no arbitrary distinction between a rifle or a handgun or a chain gun or vehicle-mounted guns. Even strongly pro-gun people draw a line at some point, and they do it with or without regard to the Constitution.
Click to expand...
By this you merely prove that you have an exceeding shallow understandin of the issue.

I suggest that you begin to remedy that by carefully studying the majority decision in U. S. v Miller.
 
First, I want to say I have no objection to conceal and carry in Church, but I have to respect the reasoning of priests and bishops that do forbid. However, I find this need to carry a gun everywhere for “defense” a bit disingenuous. I do not see the same people in Kevlar, something that is literally defensive, nor do I see the same people wearing face masks for protection from the flu, something far more deadly. A gun, which can be used to defend oneself by taking the life of an aggressor, is different than the above pure defensive measures, in that it can also be used offensively. So, while I respect the desire to have one’s parish church allow concealed carry, I do not respect those that will do it when forbidden, or allow their fears to prevent them from receiving the Holy Sacrament.
graciew said:
You tell me how you can tell the good from the bad guys in a crowd in a flash of a few seconds.
Click to expand...
No one has ever claimed that defensive use of firearms will save everyone. The unfortunate fact of life, for police and citizen alike, is that some dire action will be taken, maybe people will die, and nothing can stop the fact that the criminal always gets to move first.

Thought for the month: He becomes guilty of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor. Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Good point, except for what is typical. Also, Kevlar does no protect the head, or others, which are good points. But it appears to me that handguns are really typical.

www.statista.com

Guns used in mass shootings U.S. 2023 | Statista

Handguns are the most common weapons used in mass shootings in the United States. Other types of guns used in mass shootings include rifles and shotguns.
www.statista.com www.statista.com

Thought for the month: He becomes guilty of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor. Catechism of the Catholic Church
 
IterumEgoVeniam said:
No, in the way the amendment is written they’re clearly two separate entities.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Click to expand...
From U.S. v Miller:
" The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. “A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.” And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

I strongly suggest that everyone study this decision carefully. The individual’s right to private ownership of military small arms is the exact thing that the Second Amendment protects.
 
You addressed my post about multiple people shooting at a time…
As in a sudden disturbance in the street with multiple people ,even without guns, it is sometimes hard to tell who is running after who for example.
Anyway, being prudent, listening to to those who really know about the issues in real life, that is important.
God bless you and protect you always.
 
Last edited:
graciew said:
it is sometimes hard to tell who is running after who for example.
Click to expand...
Generally the person in the back is running after the guy in the front.

Unless you are saying that you don’t know which is the one that might need protection.

For that, it doesn’t really matter. Unless one of them is firing wildly, it isn’t my concern.
 
IterumEgoVeniam said:
I’m familiar with it, I just don’t care about a court ruling. I’m speaking specifically about the text and the text alone of the second amendment.
Click to expand...
This is the same method that the anti-gun people to twist the amendment into meaning things that it does not. You can’t possibly arrive at an adequate understanding of the amendment without referencing the associated documents that deal with how and why it was arrived at.
 
graciew said:
You addressed my post about multiple people shooting at a time…
As in a sudden disturbance in the street with multiple people ,even without guns, it is sometimes hard to tell who is running after who for example.
Click to expand...
If you can’t identify the people who need to be shot, you don’t shoot anyone. That’s covered in Gun Handling 101. In fact, you shouldn’t even need to be told that.
graciew said:
Anyway, being prudent, listening to to those who really know about the issues in real life, that is important.
Click to expand...
I do, and I have studied (and continue to study) them carefully. That’s why my position is as it is.
graciew said:
God bless you and protect you always.
Click to expand...
And you and yours.
 
But as I have said, unless one of them is shooting wildly into a crowd, why does it matter? They’ll both be gone in a moment.

I’m certainly not going to give chase so I can shoot someone.

I carry for my protection. With that, I may also be protecting someone else. I don’t go looking for ways to pull my weapon and shoot it. In fact, I would be happy if I never have to pull it.
 
Being murdered anywhere is never a good thing regardless of our state of grace. We have every right as people and Catholics to protect ourselves and the lives of those around us. Some might even call it a duty.
 
neophyte said:
40.png
TK421:
Except it’s not really hyperbole. If you just do a completely literal reading of the 2nd amendment, there’s no arbitrary distinction between a rifle or a handgun or a chain gun or vehicle-mounted guns. Even strongly pro-gun people draw a line at some point, and they do it with or without regard to the Constitution.
Click to expand...
By this you merely prove that you have an exceeding shallow understandin of the issue.

I suggest that you begin to remedy that by carefully studying the majority decision in U. S. v Miller.
Click to expand...
Yeah, exactly, the Supreme Justices needed to make stuff up, because the original amendment is vague and aged poorly.

The lower courts don’t even follow their lead on a wide scale, and since the judiciary can’t enforce its own rulings, it really doesn’t matter.
 
Last edited:
neophyte said:
There is no good reason to forbid me from carrying my pistol into mass. It would endanger no one
Click to expand...
One danger is if there is a loud sound, the gun carrier assumes the worst and fires inside the building causing other Packers to fire.

The danger of an accidental shooting is very real. I do not want to go to mass where I don’t know who has a gun. Open carry would be the best option, then I can decide to be far away from the guns
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top