ARKANSAS church carry

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
 
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!
 
Glenn,
I intend to use your "atheist" argument in my testimony before the Juduciary Committee. Maybe they will put THAT in the NY Times!
 
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.
 
Death by Committee... or maybe not

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

Can you elaborate please? Regarding the signage issue.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Dang. I was hoping we could get something like Texas has. Signage letters of a minimum size and font with Act 419 wording...or something to that effect.

These **** ant little stickers with a slash through a gun within ten feet of an entrance being legal here really **** me off.

You have no idea how many times I have carried into a place because I didn't see that tiny sticker until I have been there a few times.

Act 419 needs lots of work.
 
Church guns could be the next barbeque rigs if people would open their minds a bit, just look at womens church hats...its anything goes. Have never understood the church prohibitions.
 
Last edited:
HB1237: Still going...

A few people have contacted me over the last couple of days asking about the status of HB1237. I just want to reassure you all that it is not dead- but the hill may now be a bit steeper to climb thanks in part to a single religious group. More details below- but I have had new people calling, e-mailing, and messaging me over the last couple of days. They were expressing shock that the bill was not passed. If we can get together better next time, I think we can overcome this.

I'll start with the general info:
The bill was not passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee, but it has a second chance. With an amendment, this bill can be presented again. An amendment has been drafted which I believe will satisfy some concerns without compromising the rights of any church or CHCL holder. I will provide the specifics of this amendment when it is made public, as I do not want to do so before it is appropriate.

Now, to the specifics. Whitaker, Taylor, and Thompson supported the bill. Johnson was not present, but he is a strong opponent. Luker and Wilkins are also probably hopeless but we don’t need to letup on them. The remaining members, Chairman Wilkinson and Sue Madison are the ones we hope will help tip the scales on the next vote.

Chairman Wilkinson made a point of recognizing his pastor and a colleague who was there to speak in opposition to the bill as "special guests." When debate for the bill came up, he noted that he was a Presbyterian and he had checked and found that four other members of the committee were Presbyterian, too. Religious liberty died right there.

The Presbyterian group opposing the bill is PC USA (READ THIS) . They are not mainstream Presbyterians and certainly do not speak for all Presbyterians, as I was assured by a very vocal supporter who is a Presbyterian.

I am personally troubled that the influence of a single religious group had that much power in swaying the decision of the panel. The only way to counter this will be with a room full of supporters when this comes up again. I was the only pastor there to speak in support of the bill. One other came in, but arrived too late to testify due to work obligations. Others had planned to attend, but were prevented from doing so for various reasons. It happens. Our schedules are very unpredictable, but next time around we need everyone who can to make a point of being there so that if we do lose a few, we won't be left in the same situation again.

Again, thank you all for your support. By the way- most of the pastors supporting this are not CHCL holders, but they do believe in the right of a church to make its own decision on this matter.

Nathan Petty
 
Last edited:
Hey guys, I am an instructor here in Arkansas and with ARCCA. I was reading the posts and wanted to clarify the current sign issue because I read that someone was obeying the ghostbuster sign. Current law states that the sign per 5-73-306 (19)(A) must be "clearly readable at a distance of not less than ten feet that "carrying a handgun is prohibited"." Since there are quotes around the verbage, the sign must say exactly that. The Arkansas State Police and ARCCA's legal counsel both agree to that interpretation. Therefore, ghostbuster signs and other "no weapons allowed" signs are invalid in Arkansas. Just remember concealed means concealed.
 
It looks like a majority of the Senate Judiciary committee members have banded together to kill this bill.
This is a good time for them to hear from the citizens of Arkansas. The only reason churches are on the list of prohibited places is because the state made a religious judgment call in behalf of all the churches of Arkansas- assuming that a church was no place for a firearm. There is no public safety concern applicable to churches which is not also applicable to other places which are not on the list- such as daycares, nursing homes, hospitals, banks, or funeral homes.
The only reason this has stalled is because some liberal lawmakers have branded it a gun issue rather than a private property rights issue. It is troubling enough that calling it a "gun issue" somehow makes it okay to kill the bill- as if the Second Amendment was in some way a less than desireable law- but to see them deny the rights of private property owners (churches) just because they want to restrict law-abiding gun owners is outright shameful.
Yes, I am mad. I wish I could tell the whole story here and you would understand why I am angry. These anti-gun members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have failed the people of Arkansas, failed the US Constitution, and failed to keep their oath to uphold the Constitution. I hope those who have stalled it find themselves looking for work after the next election.
Taylor, Whitaker, and Thompson are your friends, citizens of Arkansas.
Wilkinson, Wilkins, Luker, Madison, and Johnson would rather see you unarmed and defenseless in a place where only criminals will carry guns.
 
I would like to urge every arkansas resident to let the Senate Judiciary committee know about the following incidents:

http://wjz.com/local/police.church.shooting.2.941531.html

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/03/shooting-church-maryville-st-louis.html

Two church shootings in the past three Sundays. And one occurred while off-duty police officers were on guard.
Tragic stories. Both victims dead. But at least someone was there to catch the bad guys after they had murdered.

For your conveneince:
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

Thanks,
Nate
 
Rep. Pyle will be running HB1237 again. This means this is our LAST chance to get our voices heard on this. I will let you know as soon as I find out when this will happen.

Please see the story here. Some good details:
http://www.todaysthv.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=81421&catid=2

This is obviously a response to the murder of Pastor Fred Winters in Illinois
this past Sunday. That makes two church murders in the U.S. since this bill was sent to the Senate (the other, Patricia Ann Kelly, was murdered by her estranged husband at a church where three off-duty police officers were on guard on Feb. 22 in Maryland).
It is a shame that something less than dead bodies would not catch the attention of the Judiciary Committee members.

Thanks,
Nathan
 
Rev nate, I continue to follow your plight on Ark. Carry. It is unfortunate that this continues to be an issue, and that the killings are the only way to further this issue. I will continue to monitor the situation and wish you luck.
 
HB1237, the “church carry bill” is on the agenda for the Senate Judiciary Committee TOMORROW, Wednesday, March 11. Right now I am waiting on a confirmation as to whether or not the bill will actually be run tomorrow. But, since it is such short notice, I wanted to give everyone a big heads up on this. I will send out another message later this evening to confirm this agenda, but right now it looks like 10 am tomorrow.
Please do not think that HB1237 is going to pass easily. We still need your physical presence and your vocal support in this meeting. It will still be very close.
Thank you,
Nathan Petty
 
Last edited:
HB1237: The last stand

The Senate Judiciary Committee will hear HB1237 on Wednesday, March 18 at 10am- that is one week from today.
I think we were all caught off guard when HB1237 was not passed by this committee last time. But this is our second chance- a chance to do it right. The sentiment of some committee members is beginning to sway towards supporting this bill. A strong show of support next Wednesday will undoubtedly help tip the scales in our favor.
The Senate Judiciary Committee will meet in room 171. Enter the Capitol building on either the east or west side. If entering the east, go under the stairs and enter through the glass doors. Room 171 is in the south wing of the Capitol. When you reach the stairs on the south end, look to your left and there you will see room 171.
I have found that some folks have been reluctant to attend these meetings because it sounds intimidating: big granite building filled with worsted wool and super-egos. But don’t be intimidated. That’s your building and those people are there to listen to you.
Please let me know if you plan to attend so that we can get an idea on where we will stand with supporters. Regardless of which way this goes, this will be the last chance any of us have to make our voices heard on HB1237. I am optimistic, but cautiously so.
Thanks,
Nathan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top