Church Security & Legally Armed Parishioners

  • Thread starter Thread starter childinthefaith
  • Start date Start date
I said the same thing you did. I was wrong. I now understand this was only said in the context of a response to the idea that a pastor can absolutely do anything he wants. A priest still has limits as defined by law, and has limits to authority over property as defined by the bishop.

He can, normally, ask someone to leave or face criminal trespass, or deny concealed weapon carriers.
 
farronwolf said:
The Church disagrees with you.

The right of self preservation is certainly a God given right.

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
Click to expand...
Has the Church ever stated that the right to bear arms is derived from the right to self-preservation? I do not know. They are not the same thing though. I do believe that this right is as likely a part of the Fourth Amendment as the militia clause though. But in any case, the right to self-defense is Church teaching. The right to bear arms, not so much, though it is possible it is derived from that.

In the passage above, the point is not that legitimate self-defense is absolute. The absolute is love of self and respect for life. And even that, as with most rights, ours may be limited by another’s legitimate right.
 
Because the Constitution doesn’t say so.

Do we want to put requirements in place to practice free speech or exercise of religion? I am certain no one will consent to that. Religion and speech can be as dangerous as firearms in some cases. Simply look at the way we as a population have accepted and participated in derogatory speech coming out of our Capital and helped spread it on social media.

If folks don’t like the Constitution as it is written regarding the 2A, they are free to try to change it. Good luck.

The founding fathers of our country realized, and rightly so, that persons had a right to self preservation and the right to oppose an oppressive government. After all we had just fought a long war against an oppressive government. So they included the 2A in the Bill of Rights along with all the other rights that folks have no problem with and expect. Why is the 2A such a contested right among some segments of the public? Is it because it deals with an object that if used improperly can cause death? I suppose so. However just because certain people choose to do harm with an object and a right that is granted by the Constitution, we should not simply abandon the rights of all the population.

My take, on it.

So to get back to your requirements for all who own a firearm. What one needs to learn to hunt safely is not the same as what one needs to learn to carry a firearm on their person for defense. Two completely different types of firearms and different set of circumstances. The purchase of a firearm does have criteria, and they are much the same as Texas’ requirements to have a LTC. Form 4473 asks similar questions before one is able to legally purchase a firearm. This has been in place for decades.
 
I thought your position was that it was a constitutional right to be able to get a concealed carry permit. If that is the case, why are the requirements for a CCL ok, even if they are not in the constitution, yet the same requirements are not ok for gun use/ownership because they are not in the constitution.

What difference does it make if one wants to hunt or not? I did not know hunting was constitutionally protected. Its still a firearm. I do not believe the 4473 and background check is done by FBI, requires fingerprints on file, checks if for mental illness history. It simply checks federal databases for criminal history. And it is not required for private purchases of guns.
 
farronwolf said:
Do we want to put requirements in place to practice free speech or exercise of religion?
Click to expand...
Yes, I do, and we have. Like I said rights end (or at least may be adjusted) where another person exercising their rights begins. All basic civil rights have limitations. Until the courts rule that regulation of firearms violates the Second Amendment in and of itself, there is no need to change. Just as the Constitution does not restrict gun ownership to militia, it also does define what is allowed, It only says the basic right in general is not to be infringed. It is too broadly written for all the dogma that both the right and left claim.
 
The Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms individually. The Heller and Mc Donald decisions by the SCOTUS reaffirmed those rights in places like DC and Chicago where there was an outright ban on firearm possession. The Constitution also allows for rights to be limited where there is a need for public safety. Which is why one is required to have a tax stamp for silencers, and fully automatic weapons. Also why felons, people with a history of violence against others and mentally ill are banned from owning firearms.

The limitations in some states and CHL, LTC whatever it is in those states arise from the fact that by carrying a firearm on your person you are more than likely going to be entering into properties which are not yours. For instance in Texas if you are on your property, or in your vehicle, you are not required to have a LTC. The LTC allows you to enter the bank or grocery store or where ever one might go daily and carry your gun. Your rights have limits due to the rights of the property owners rights to their property.

The NICS system which is what is used in conjunction with the 4473 does not require finger prints. But states are required to report court ordered admittance to mental facilities, criminal offenses, ect. This is what is lacking. Many states do not report timely accurate information to the FBI.

The private sales of firearms is not covered by the NICS system. It is the duty of the individual to ensure they are not selling a gun to a prohibited person as best they can. I have only sold one gun individually and that was to a sibling. If I were to sell a gun to someone I wasn’t very familiar with, I would require that person participate in a dealer transfer and fill out the appropriate 4473. That is just me, others may not be so cautious.

As far as rights beginning and ending. If I carry my gun and never infringe on someone else’s right to safety, I haven’t infringed on their right. No different than if I carry words in my mouth and keep it shut from anything that would infringe on another persons rights. If I make a threat to them, or slander them, or do something that would be considered liable, or yell fire in a crowded theater, I have violated my right of free speech and am subject to penalties of law. But we are not required to pass some sort of test in order to exercise our free speech. We are not required to get approval to do so, we are only limited after we do so and violate the law. Many folks think that people should have to pass a test in order to exercise their rights under the 2A, but not any other. That is very curious.
 
The same concept applies to carrying a gun. If I simply have it, not threatening anyone, not taking it out and playing around with it recklessly, or any of that other nonsense, I have violated no one else’s rights.

I took objection to the OP of this thread in that in his state, he had to get explicit permission from the church in order to carry into the church. If his Bishop has stated that it is not admissible in his dioceses, he is wrong for carrying the gun. I also noted that our Bishop prefers that we not open carry into church, which I have no problem abiding by. The Bishop, and by his authority, the Priest is in control of the property and therefore can set the rules.
 
I take no issue with self defence. Nowhere in that are guns mentioned.
[/quote]

Maybe I should just use a sling shot.

Kind of like the analysis of last nights debate. Bloomberg carried his wallet to a gun fight, and it didn’t work out so well for him. 😆

I prefer to have the best tool for the job, whether it is when building something or personal defense.
 
Actually not. There is little ability to limit collateral damage when using bombs or grenades. In most circumstances when bombs, artillery or even the grenade whether thrown or from a launcher, they are for offensive purposes.

For the same reason you are not allowed to booby trap property for defense. Once put in place it will indiscriminately activate against whom ever or whatever trips the trap. When grandma or the little girl scout trips it they will be the victim of the trap when it was intended for the burglar. People in control of the gun get to make the final decision as to whether the threat warrants use of the deadly force. Hopefully they shoot accurately and there isn’t collateral damage.

Oh, and I do have a sling shot but my mom warned me I might put someone’s eye out if I used it so I stick to my guns. 🤣
 
farronwolf said:
As far as rights beginning and ending. If I carry my gun and never infringe on someone else’s right to safety, I haven’t infringed on their right.
Click to expand...
In the context of this one topic, it is a violation of property rights not to allow property owners control over safety on their own property. That is why even in Texas no business or person is forced to allow CCL folks onto their property. Whether the reason of the store owner, or priest, is something one agrees with, they retain the right to exercise authority over their property. No shoes, no shirt, no service, is another example of how this has already been used.

My parish addresses the issue by not addressing it. Since there is no sign one way or another, one can carry concealed. If someone, or a group, started carrying, let’s say, less concealed, then the issue might have to be considered. As long as everyone who has a gun is total discreet, I do not see the issue ever being discussed.

BTW, thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut, patience, rationality, and service.
 
Last edited:
tafan2 said:
40.png
farronwolf:
Many folks think that people should have to pass a test in order to exercise their rights under the 2A, but not any other.
Click to expand...
I certainly do. Why not? And it seems you do also.
Click to expand...
I do not.

Because it is not written in the Constitution. It is a God given right to be able to defend one’s self against another’s aggression. Whether a person chooses to carry a gun in the event the need arises is their choice. That is as long as they are abiding by the laws set forth in the state in which they live.

Texas didn’t have concealed carry until 1995. Before then it was illegal to carry a handgun on your person. You could carry a shotgun or rifle pretty much anywhere you chose, and still can, but that isn’t practical.

The voters put pressure on the legislature to change the laws, and so we now can carry a handgun on our person once we meet the criteria set forth by the state.

Laws since 1995 have been passed allowing for less restrictions. This is what the people of the state want.
 
farronwolf said:
If I carry my gun and never infringe on someone else’s right to safety, I haven’t infringed on their right.
Click to expand...
The circumstance to consider is the environment likely to be created when the societal norm entails the easy and widespread availability of weapons; when guns are considered as routine as hats. Do we foresee this leads to weapons falling into the wrong hands? Do we foresee weapons being reached for in inappropriate circumstances?
 
farronwolf said:
It is a God given right to be able to defend one’s self against another’s aggression.
Click to expand...
The right is to the act of self-defence itself, and even that has limits. What you may do “just in case” you are threatened is an entirely distinct issue.
 
Rau said:
The circumstance to consider is the environment likely to be created when the societal norm entails the easy and widespread availability of weapons; when guns are considered as routine as hats. Do we foresee this leads to weapons falling into the wrong hands? Do we foresee weapons being reached for in inappropriate circumstances?
Click to expand...
Anything is possible with anything. However we can’t legislate or live our lives under what if scenarios.

If we take anything from guns, to cars, to speech, to electronics, you name it, we all can come up with a scenario in which they are deemed bad and should be prohibited. But that is not a standard by which we should measure their usage.

Guns are in come circumstances as available as hats. I certainly have more guns than I do hats. I carry a gun every day but very seldom wear a hat. That is just me.

Would I rather the unstable fellow who lives next door, who is a felon wear a hat more frequently than he carries a gun. Absolutely. His failure to abide by the law is exactly why it is now sitting in jail for a time because he was a felon in possession of a firearm along with 4 or 5 other felony warrants. But he isn’t me and visa versa.
 
Rau said:
The right is to the act of self-defence itself, and even that has limits. What you may do “just in case” you are threatened is an entirely distinct issue.
Click to expand...
No one has argued that the right of self defense doesn’t have it’s limits. At some point the victim certainly can become the aggressor and should be held to account under the law.

Your statement of what you may do just in case you are threatened needs some clarification. Are you saying that one shouldn’t carry a gun “just in case” they are threatened? Or are you saying your actions while being threatened should be tempered?
 
farronwolf said:
Are you saying that one shouldn’t carry a gun “just in case” they are threatened? Or are you saying your actions while being threatened should be tempered?
Click to expand...
I said: “What you may do “just in case” you are threatened is an entirely distinct issue.”. Meaning: Distinct from the right to act in response to threat.
 
What if scenarios are precisely what many people use to jusifty:

Having Insurance
Carrying a spare tire
Washing their hands
Keeping a fire extinguisher handy
Keeping a first aid kit handy
Getting a checkup from the doctor
Maintaining your car, house or other possession
Going to church
list could go on
and…carrying a firearm
 
Law abiding citizens who carry a gun have no problem accepting it for the most part. There are exceptions.

There are law on the books in Texas which property owners can use to keep people from entering their property with guns. It is up to the property owner to follow the law, just as much as it is up to the gun carrier to follow them.

You will have to admit that there are some law abiding citizens who don’t want to accept that folks who carry their gun to church, abiding by the law, have every right to do so regardless of others personal objections. They are not breaking the law, not affecting others, so it shouldn’t be a problem. But to some it is.

Church is no place for a gun. Opinion
I wouldn’t feel comfortable if people had guns in church. Your problem, not mine, as long as I am abiding by the law.
You shouldn’t feel you need to carry a gun. Opinion
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top