ARKANSAS church carry

[RevNate]

HB1237 was either "passed over" or "pulled down" today on the House floor. Exactly which procedure was followed is unclear in the information I am receiving- but either is not a bad thing yet. Please allow me to explain...

Yesterday in the House Judiciary Committee meeting, the primary objection to the bill as written was that churches which chose not to allow concealed carry would be required to post a sign to that effect at each entrance, as per Arkansas law pertaining to other private properties (with the exception of a dwelling place, of course).

Some asserted that the state would not have the right to require such a posting (see rant below)*. It was discussed that perhaps it might be more proper to remove this requirement for churches only and leave it up to the CHL holder to assertain whether or not he/she would be permitted to carry while on the property of each individual church or place of worship.

Apparently, the bill is to be ammended so as not to require churches to post the signs. The bill is still on the House calendar for tomorrow 2/5.

*Rant: How is the State overstepping its bounds by asking a church to post a sign (as per proposed bill), but not overstepping its bounds when it singles out churches and requires them to prohibit all concealed carry 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (as per current law)??!! We must have "No Smoking" signs, "Exit" signs, and the state tells us how many designated handicap parking spaces we must have... am I missing something here? Truly, I know I am not missing anything. I think this one point (signage) was all the opponents could find to oppose as a constitutional matter. All other opposition stems from emotionalism.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The state might be able to regulate carry if it could show a clear and present danger to carry. However, the desire to regulate carry in churches or other locations of worship seems to be based on some psychological view of holiness and an insult to God to carry or perhaps some faith in divine intervention. Well, that doesn't seem the role of the state. Conditions of worship are not the role of the state but of the religious institution. If there is no danger that is differential, I opine that the Constitution protects religious institutions from such regulations.

The real reason as expressed by anticarry forces is to make so many restrictions that carry becomes useless or very inconvenient.

So, if atheists bought a building and decided to meet on Sunday to deny the existence of God, could the state ban carry at their meeting?

[RevNate]

2/5/2009 2:20:47 PM Re-referred to the Committee on JUDICIARY COMMITTEE- HOUSE

The purpose of the re-referral is apparently to add an ammendment which would exclude churches from the requirement to post signs if they choose to prohibit concealed carry on their property. That was the main point of contention in the Judiciary Committee meeting on Tuesday. It is still expected to pass the house, especially with this ammendment.

I do have mixed feelings about such an ammendment and argued against it in my testimony before the committee. Two objections I have (briefly stated, short version):
First, it would require each CHL holder to inquire of the status of the weapons policy for each church.
Second, it is inconsistent with previous applications of the Establishment Clause and would require the state to impose a different standard on churches than on other private property holders. In principle, that mindset is the root of the flaw in the current law. So, it is just a matter of principle.

The ammendment should be available for viewing sometime tomorrow morning. I will reserve judgment until then.

Regardless, I will still support this bill because it is a step in the right direction. Maybe a baby step, but a step nonetheless.

[RevNate]

Glenn, you are correct, but the issue we are dealing with here is that the Constitution (U.S. or State) hasn't been used to determine the direction of the law.

Two state reps have openly stated the reasons for their opposition to this bill:
One stated that his denominational leaders opposed it.
The other said it just didn't "feel right."

So much for the Constitution.

[Jack Burton]

Rev...

Here's something that I wrote that may be of help to you all...

In addition... that business about the sign is a strawman and here's how to demolish it...

1) a church would ONLY NEED to post that sign for one reason and one reason only... if they desire to prosecute people carrying a gun onto their property and willfully breaking the law.

Without the sign they still have the authority and power to ask anyone to leave the property if they know he is carrying a gun. And he must or else AFTER that point he is subject to other laws concerning trespass.

The only ability that sign gives is the ability to prosecute. Period. If they don't want to prosecute... they don't need the sign.

2) Does the church desire to use the prosecutorial power of the government or would they rather use the moral suasion of being God's Sancutary? Do they wish to acknowledge the greater power of the government in keeping them safe? No church that is in a right relationship with God would even consider putting such a sign up on their entrances. It merely shows just how spiritually weak they really are.

And since they acknowledge it is the strong right arm of the Lord that is their protection... then their arguments that they don't want to put up the sign are just meaningless. That's like a Baptist church demanding that it have the right to not put up a cruxifix. It was never going to do so anyway, so a law giving them that "right" is vain and empty.

Any church that admits it needs the sign is a church that admits it is no longer under the protection of God. And since there is no MANDATORY rule that says the church MUST put one up... the whole point and argument is itself vain and empty.

Jack
John Brown Unversity
Class of '80

[RevNate]

Your logic is undeniable.
And..... that is why it most certainly would not affect our legislature!

Great article. I will keep it in my back pocket just in case!

[RevNate]

The ammendment has been filed. You can read it at http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assemb.../HB1237-H2.pdf but it simply says
"Amend House Bill No. 1237 as engrossed, H2/2/09 (version: 02-02-2009 09:10):
Page 3, delete lines 18 through 24"

Those lines, to be deleted from this HB1237 by this ammendment, would have been additions to the law as the bill was originally written. So, essentially the ammendment simply leaves these proposed lines out of the bill:

18 (E) A sign posted as authorized in this subdivision
19 (a)(18) at a place of worship does not prohibit a person or entity exercising
20 lawful control over the physical location of the place of worship, from
21 allowing a licensee to carry a concealed handgun into the place of worship.
22 (b) This section does not preclude a licensee or a person with a
23 license to carry a concealed handgun recognized by § 5-73-402 from carrying a
24 concealed handgun into the parking lot or parking area of a place of worship.

Basically, these lines addressed an issue that legally did not need to be addressed since private property owners already have the power to make that discretion. (So WHY are they debating concealed carry in churches in the first place?????!!!!!)

Anyway, the bill as now proposed makes ONE change to the current law- it removes Section 1 "Prohibited Places" (a) (16) "any church or otherplace of worship.

So, as I understand the bill as ammended, churches would be removed from the list of prohibited places, and those which wished to prohibit concealed carry would still be required to post a sign to that effect.

I call this an improvement.

[cold dead hands]

I admire your courage and your desire to make a wrong a right. I did sign your petition. Not too many around the NWA side. Time to get the message out. Maybe (see the next line).

But, concealed means concealed and I just don't go to church.

Tell the AR politicians that they have forced faithful gun owners out of church and that just might get their attention.

Jesus didn't need a gun, but he told his apostles to arm themselves. This is the God-man speaking the truth about self defense. It is a god given right, and I don't even consider my self to be a follower of god.

Truth is that our CCW laws need a big revamping.

[RevNate]

Truth is that our CCW laws need a big revamping.

True indeed. We are getting there one step at a time. remember when we had to have serial numbers on our permits, couldn't even carry in a resturant that served alcohol, etc.? We have seen some good changes. Including a reduction in renewal fees and permits extended from four to five years.

I say all of that to throw in another plug for the Arkansas Concealed Carry Association. They are really doing a good job, and have been instrumental in the changes which have taken place since their inception.

Not too many around the NWA side.

One of the other pastors who testified in support of this bill came all the way from Springdale. Keep getting the word out up there!

[RevNate]

Given a "do pass" by the Judiciary Committe as ammended. On the agenda for the House on Wednesday, Feb. 11.

[arktravler]

How's it look Rev.? Think we're gonna get it?

[RevNate]

From what I am hearing, it will likely pass the House, though there is expected to be some significant opposition. I am optimistic nonetheless.

But that brings us to our next- and most imposing hurdle- the Senate Judiciary Committee. I do not believe it will get through this committee without some serious wrangling. And I do mean serious. I don't want to publicly "show our hand" on this- but suffice it to say that we have put the call out for some help from the Big Guns on the national scene- and I'm not talking about the NRA. More details will be available as things progress.

It seems like we have come through a big battle just to get where we are today- but the truth is that the largest hill to climb still lies ahead of us.

This is action time like never before. As soon as HB1237 gets through the House, I will post the strategy for our next step here.

Nathan

[RevNate]

HB1237 passed the House. Stay tuned!

[arktravler]

Thanks for the updates Rev.!

[RevNate]

Welcome to phase 3. Here is the action plan.

Our next step is to get HB1237 through the Senate Judiciary Committee. This will likely not come easily. Hearing from you will make a difference, though. Listed below are the e-mail addresses of the Senate Judiciary Committee Members. Please be firm but respectful in your communications. The swing vote in this committee will likely be Senator Robert Thompson from District 11. His district covers Clay, Greene, and Craighead counties. Please, if you are one of his constituents, make a special effort to contact him. If you know someone from his district, please ask for their help.

To get this through committee this time, we will need to focus on rights rather than need. The Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment and the Equal Protection clause of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment are on our side. Please point out that if it is wrong to carry a gun into a church, it is wrong on the basis of moral and religious standards and as such, it is the right of the church to make that determination, NOT the State. Current law is a violation of church rights. They will listen to that better than “I need my gun to protect myself.” We have to make this a constitutional and personal property rights issue.

I hope you are all sitting down for this one. The ACLU has been contacted about this and it is possible that they will be on our side. Stranger things have happened, I suppose. But this is drawing national attention already and the ACLU likes attention. It would be nice to see them on the side of the good guys for a change.

Here are the Senate Judiciary committee members. Please remember the above information and reference HB1237. Enjoy!

Senator Ed Wilkinson. Greenwood, AR District 6 [email protected]
Senator Ruth Whitaker. Cedarville, AR District 3 [email protected]
Senator Henry Wilkins IV. Pine Bluff, AR District 5 [email protected]
Senator Jim Luker. Wynne, AR District 17 [email protected]
Senator Sue Madison. Fayetteville, AR District 7 [email protected]
Senator Jerry Taylor. Pine Bluff, AR District 23 [email protected]
Senator Robert Thompson. Paragould, AR District [email protected]
Senator David Johnson. Little Rock, AR District 32
[email protected]

And for the ease of cutting and pasting:
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]


Please note that HB1237 is not on the Senate Judiciary Agenda yet, but it is not too early to get started.

[RevNate]

HB1237, the “church carry bill,” will be reviewed by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, Feb. 25th at 10 am.
First- let me encourage those who are pastors, if at all possible, to be present for this meeting. I learned from the House Judiciary Committee meeting on this bill that our presence speaks much more loudly than our e-mails. We have almost succeeded in getting this through, but it probably will not happen without one very strong, final push. If there is any way possible, please plan to attend and let me know if you will be able to be there.
Our only hope of success is if we focus on HB1237 as the solution to a 1st Amendment Establishment Clause (so-called “separation of church and state”) issue. We need to be unified in this message: it is not the State’s place to single out churches and place a restriction on us because the State does not have the authority to decide moral issues for the church.
I will be getting more updates to you soon. Please let me know if you can attend this meeting.
Thank you,
Nathan Petty

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Good luck! At least you made the NY Times!

I think the church/state argument is irrefutable. The state cannot impose conditions of worship unless there is a clear and present danger - which is not the case in church carrry allowed by the religious institution.

Or, as I said before, carry should be banned at official atheist meetings - propose that as an amendment to the current law!

[RevNate]

Glenn,
I intend to use your "atheist" argument in my testimony before the Juduciary Committee. Maybe they will put THAT in the NY Times!

[cold dead hands]

Email of support (and yes, I was very polite and logical) sent to my district rep.

Would love to be there in person, but it is very far away for me and I doubt they want to listen a regular anti-overreaching-government guy like myself.

Good luck.

[RevNate]

Three swing votes to concentrate on before the Feb.25th Committee meeting:

Senator Robert Thompson. Paragould, AR District [email protected]
Senator Sue Madison. Fayetteville, AR District 7 [email protected]
Senator Jim Luker. Wynne, AR District 17 [email protected]

Looking for a pastor in Luker and Thompson's districts who supports HB1237. PM me.

Thanks!
Nathan

[RevNate]

The Senate Judiciary committee failed to pass HB1237. The vote appeared to be 3 to 4. Those in favor: Taylor, Whitaker, Thompson.
The bill's sponsor, Rep. Beverly Pyle, intends to work with a couple of opponents and work out an amendment which would satisfy their objections to the signage issue.
So, the bill is still alive. We just have to wait to see what amendment may be offered and go from there. Two more votes on the committee will do it.

Following are the notes from my testimony:

I speak to you today not only as a pastor, but also in behalf of four dozen other pastors, ministers, and religious leaders who believe strongly that the passage of HB1237 is necessary to correct a serious violation of rights which are guaranteed to us and our congregations by the Constitution of the United States.

The question before you today is not whether it is right for a law-abiding citizen to carry a handgun into a church building, but rather WHOSE right it is to say whether it is right or wrong. As much as I would stand beside any Pastor who does not want law abiding citizens to bring a handgun into their church building, the truth is that any law which makes that decision on behalf of a church denies every church the right to make a free choice on a moral and religious issue. In the end, the state has made a moral and religious judgment for all churches and not all churches agree with it.

The commandment, “Thou shalt not kill” is often misunderstood. More correctly translated, “Do not murder” this commandment from God does not mean that believers are not to use necessary means to defend themselves against those who would kill them. In fact, in addition to meaning that we are not to cause willful harm to others, inherent in this command is also our God-ordained duty to protect others from harm.

Even Jesus told his disciples on the night He was arrested that if any did not have a sword, he should sell his coat and buy one to protect themselves. It was on that same night that Peter misused his sword and was severely reprimanded by Jesus for it. It was there that Jesus said, “those who live by the sword will die by the sword.” Jesus himself made a distinction there. Where we are never to use a weapon offensively or to do harm to an innocent person, it is our duty to provide for self-defense and for the protection of innocent human life. To do anything less is to violate God's law. It is absurd to assume that God's law ends when we enter the church doors.

This is where the current law oversteps the sovereignty of the local congregation. Every daycare in Arkansas can choose to allow or prohibit concealed carry. Every hospital, every nursing home, every bank, even Chuckee Cheese has that right and it is appalling that religious institutions have been singled out and denied that right with no just cause, which is in itself a violation of the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution- but where many have opposed this bill because they believe the current law is necessary to maintain the sanctity of the church, it is not the role of the state to preserve the sanctity of the church and it is not the role of the state to impose religious judgment calls on the churches.

Regardless of what policy any church may adopt when this bill becomes law, only after it becomes law will they be able to do it knowing that they got to follow their conscience, and not submit to a state-imposed religious mandate.
If there were 500 or 5,000 pastors speaking out against this bill and not a single one here to support it, I hope you would still see that the issue before you is not a matter of public policy preference. This bill might not win a popularity contest, but it does correct a wrong which has stood uncorrected for way too long. This is not a matter of public policy. This is a matter of constitutional right. The purpose of the constitution has never been to confirm the preference of the majority, but to protect the rights of all citizens- even a single citizen- and even to do so against the preference of the majority.

For anyone to assume that any religious institution is served favorably by the current law, I assert, is a naïve assumption. I concur with the statement by Dr. DiPippa (Dean of the UALR Bowen School of Law), that “religion can not be free if we protect only those people and groups with which we agree. Rather, the test of freedom is whether we are willing to extend its protections to those with whom we disagree.” Every pastor who does not want to allow concealed carry by law-abiding citizens in the building where they serve has the constitutional right to follow that conviction, but no right to impose that conviction upon others. For those of us who hold the opposite conviction, our rights are just as real and just as sacred.

Today each of you hold within the power of your respective votes the ability to make a choice- a choice concur with the preference of some, or to restore the rights of all. I trust your decision will be governed by the principles of freedom and religious liberty.

[arktravler]

Good stuff Rev. . Thanks for all you're doing..

[RamSlammer]

Thanks for your work on this Rev. I personally brought this up with a senator last week and he's supportive.

[cold dead hands]

The bill's sponsor, Rep. Beverly Pyle, intends to work with a couple of opponents and work out an amendment which would satisfy their objections to the signage issue.

Can you elaborate please? Regarding the signage issue.

[RevNate]

As proposed, the bill would simply remove "any church or place of worship" from the list of prohibited places.
Any entity not included in that list can still prohibit concealed carry by posting a sign, or signs- as specified in Act 419 of 1995. So, if churches were removed from the list, they would fall under that provision by default.
One issue which the opposition has held onto is that the state could not compel speech (i.e. require the posting of a sign) on the part of churches which do not wish to allow concealed carry.
Some have suggested requiring churches to "opt-in"- that is, post signs which indicate concealed carry is allowed. That won't fly either.
The bill was written with the intent of removing any mention of "church" from the current law. Apparently that did not sit well with some. So, the solution would be to make an exception for churches- to allow them to decide their own policy, but not require them to publicly notify. That means the onus would be on each CHCL holder to find out the policy of a church before carrying. I have mixed feelings about that. But, in the end I will support any change which allows churches to set their own policy. It's all "baby steps."
The state tells us to post exit signs, no-smoking signs, and how many handicap parking spots we have to designate. So, really the whole "sign" issue is a distraction.
It is ridiculous to think that the state has the authority to impose a moral judgment on the churches (i.e. guns don't belong in churches), but does not have the authority to require posting a sign. It's a double-standard.
I anticipate that making a special exception for churches would cause this bill to lose some votes when it comes back to the house, but it may likely gain a few on the other side. It will be close, no matter what.