ARKANSAS church carry
- Thread starter RevNate
- Start date
Rep. Barbara Nix of Saline County (District 28) has been removed as a co-sponsor of this bill.... but the GOOD news...
Rep. Dawn Creekmore of Saline and Pulaski counties (District 27) has replaced her as one of 14 co-sponsors. Rep. Creekmore is a member of the House Judiciary Committee (that is a very good thing). This makes three members of the committee who are co-sponsors on this bill now.
Rep. Dawn Creekmore of Saline and Pulaski counties (District 27) has replaced her as one of 14 co-sponsors. Rep. Creekmore is a member of the House Judiciary Committee (that is a very good thing). This makes three members of the committee who are co-sponsors on this bill now.
Quick update...
Four House Judiciary Committee members are now co-sponsors on the bill. Additionally, one other member has committed to support it. The committee is made up of 20 members, so five is a long way from a majority, but I am optimistic.
Judiciary Committee review is tomorrow (Tuesday) at 10. I will be there with other pastors to speak in support of it.
Fox16, KTHV channel 11, and KATV channel 7 each featured stories on this bill in their Sunday evening local news broadcasts. The slant was not favorable to our cause. I will let everyone know what the committee does as soon as I gt home tomorrow evening.
Four House Judiciary Committee members are now co-sponsors on the bill. Additionally, one other member has committed to support it. The committee is made up of 20 members, so five is a long way from a majority, but I am optimistic.
Judiciary Committee review is tomorrow (Tuesday) at 10. I will be there with other pastors to speak in support of it.
Fox16, KTHV channel 11, and KATV channel 7 each featured stories on this bill in their Sunday evening local news broadcasts. The slant was not favorable to our cause. I will let everyone know what the committee does as soon as I gt home tomorrow evening.
The House Judiciary Committee passed HB1237 with a "do pass." There was some debate, which I may fill you in on after I get some rest.KTHV, KATV, and FOX16 were all there- along with radio station KUAR.
This is a victory, but this is only step 1 of 5.
Step 2: This bill will be considered on the House floor. This is the time for ALL ARKANSANS to contact your state representative and urge the passage of this bill.
Go to http://www.arkansas.gov/house/reps.php to find your rep and get his or her contact information. Please reference HB1237.
Thank you all for your support.
Nathan
This is a victory, but this is only step 1 of 5.
Step 2: This bill will be considered on the House floor. This is the time for ALL ARKANSANS to contact your state representative and urge the passage of this bill.
Go to http://www.arkansas.gov/house/reps.php to find your rep and get his or her contact information. Please reference HB1237.
Thank you all for your support.
Nathan
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.
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
New member
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
Inactive
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
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
Ammendment filed
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.
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
Moderator
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.
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.
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.
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!
Last edited:
arktravler
New member
How's it look Rev.? Think we're gonna get it?
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
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
arktravler
New member
Thanks for the updates Rev.!
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 wilkinsone@arkleg.state.ar.us
Senator Ruth Whitaker. Cedarville, AR District 3 whitakerr@arkleg.state.ar.us
Senator Henry Wilkins IV. Pine Bluff, AR District 5 hwilkins@arkleg.state.ar.us
Senator Jim Luker. Wynne, AR District 17 lukerj@arkleg.state.ar.us
Senator Sue Madison. Fayetteville, AR District 7 madisons@arkleg.state.ar.us
Senator Jerry Taylor. Pine Bluff, AR District 23 taylorj@arkleg.state.ar.us
Senator Robert Thompson. Paragould, AR District 11thompsonr@arkleg.state.ar.us
Senator David Johnson. Little Rock, AR District 32
johnsond@arkleg.state.ar.us
And for the ease of cutting and pasting:
wilkinsone@arkleg.state.ar.us, whitakerr@arkleg.state.ar.us, hwilkins@arkleg.state.ar.us, lukerj@arkleg.state.ar.us, madisons@arkleg.state.ar.us, taylorj@arkleg.state.ar.us, thompsonr@arkleg.state.ar.us, johnsond@arkleg.state.ar.us
Please note that HB1237 is not on the Senate Judiciary Agenda yet, but it is not too early to get started.
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 wilkinsone@arkleg.state.ar.us
Senator Ruth Whitaker. Cedarville, AR District 3 whitakerr@arkleg.state.ar.us
Senator Henry Wilkins IV. Pine Bluff, AR District 5 hwilkins@arkleg.state.ar.us
Senator Jim Luker. Wynne, AR District 17 lukerj@arkleg.state.ar.us
Senator Sue Madison. Fayetteville, AR District 7 madisons@arkleg.state.ar.us
Senator Jerry Taylor. Pine Bluff, AR District 23 taylorj@arkleg.state.ar.us
Senator Robert Thompson. Paragould, AR District 11thompsonr@arkleg.state.ar.us
Senator David Johnson. Little Rock, AR District 32
johnsond@arkleg.state.ar.us
And for the ease of cutting and pasting:
wilkinsone@arkleg.state.ar.us, whitakerr@arkleg.state.ar.us, hwilkins@arkleg.state.ar.us, lukerj@arkleg.state.ar.us, madisons@arkleg.state.ar.us, taylorj@arkleg.state.ar.us, thompsonr@arkleg.state.ar.us, johnsond@arkleg.state.ar.us
Please note that HB1237 is not on the Senate Judiciary Agenda yet, but it is not too early to get started.