CHL Stops Church Shooting

ShootistPRS said:
In Washington, I believe, it is only legal to carry in a church or temple with the permission of the pastor. Sometimes the pastor is overruled by church leadership.
I always encouraged those who could to carry in my services. I carried and I knew I could use the help.
Click to expand...
No, WA law doesn't restrict carry in churches at all. You don't need the pastor's permission.
 
It's a guess on my part, but I seriously doubt it. Small Rural Texas towns are very familiar with guns and most are hunters. I don't think this tiny little church would ever make a statement to their congregation about Concealed Carry.

You better believe it will be a conversation moving forward in about every church in America. And it's highly likely that ushers will be concealed carry, as well as any off-duty LEO's that attend that particular church.

Of course this is in exception to Chicago and New York. You live there and you are on your own with your ability to run fast and hide effectively. Those two cities want the criminals to have the upper hand. They prove it by their laws and lack of enforcement.

...........
 
The latest press conference reported that a neighbor had shot at the guy with an AR15. He then called his dad and told him that he had been shot. At some point he shot himself
 
No, WA law doesn't restrict carry in churches at all. You don't need the pastor's permission.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think you sort of do need the pastors permission. Just not specific permission for you, personally.

WA law doesn't restrict carry in churches, specifically. Churches are treated like other private businesses open to the public, under the law.

The owner /operator has the right to say carry or no carry allowed. In the case of churches this is either the pastor or church administration.

(If they don't post some kind of "no guns" sign, then you aren't prohibited. As far as I know, there is no specific legal definition of what the sign has to be)
 
This morning I did some quick research on Ballistic Vests, just out of curiosity - having never owned/worn/considered one.

I don't think its feasible that a civilian such as myself (not a pawnbroker, not a person who carries around vast amounts of cash, not a celebrity of any sort) wears a vest daily just for the sake of wearing one.

But I did some research on them. They protect against handguns and would require armor plating to protect against rifles.

So, assuming the killer had no armor plating, he was probably very wounded if struck by the Good Samaritan's AR15.

That being said, I am so sorry that nobody in that church was armed. It is so sad.

This is really what the 2nd Amendment was all about - to secure your freedom, to provide you security, you have the right to be armed.

And you can't go anywhere unarmed nowadays. And I'm the first one to admit that I carry, and times I'm frikkin lazy and I don't carry. Except, the more these insane instances happen, the more I just wonder if carry'ing is really becoming a social responsibility.

Which I think, "Left Winger's," would have a heart attack if you looked at carrying a gun from the perspective that, "a citizen has a social responsibility to his community to be armed."

Gun control was supposed to stop this guy from getting a gun. Its coming out that the guy sent threatening texts to the in laws - they did not call the police?

Mind boggling...


Hope my post wasn't off/too off topic. I know when these shooting situations happen, it is very difficult to sort of keep responses and the TOS of this website in line.
 
44 AMP said:
Actually, I think you sort of do need the pastors permission. Just not specific permission for you, personally.

WA law doesn't restrict carry in churches, specifically. Churches are treated like other private businesses open to the public, under the law.

The owner /operator has the right to say carry or no carry allowed. In the case of churches this is either the pastor or church administration.

(If they don't post some kind of "no guns" sign, then you aren't prohibited. As far as I know, there is no specific legal definition of what the sign has to be)
Click to expand...
This is incorrect. Churches and private businesses in WA can post any kind of "no guns" signs they want, but they mean absolutely nothing in a legal sense.

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/washington.pdf

In WA state "no gun" signs have zero force of law. If you're on private property and someone (a store owner, a pastor, etc.) finds out you're carrying then they can ask you to leave. At that point if you don't leave you'd be trespassing. But they can also ask you to leave if they don't like your T-shirt; those trespassing laws aren't specific to guns.

My point was that ShootistPRS was incorrect when he posted that you need permission from your pastor to carry in a church in WA. The WA carry RCWs don't prohibit carry in churches and make no mention of requiring permission to do so.

Legally, you can carry in church without ever getting anyone's permission. And if they find out and don't like it, they can kick you out. At that point the only way you'd be breaking any laws is if you refused to leave. And that goes for any other private business in WA, regardless of any signs they may or may not have posted.

And before someone points it out: Yes, you can't carry in places like schools, bars, mental hospitals, courthouses, etc. in WA, but it's not the sign that makes it illegal to carry there, it's the fact that those places are specifically prohibited under WA law and they're required to post signs alerting people to that fact.
 
Last edited:
It really doesn’t matter if there’s a law against church carry, or any combination of rules that others have posted or not.
There’s enough perception in the general public that churches are off limits for guns to keep people from carrying. Same goes for theaters or other public gatherings. It will be highly unlikely that anyone would be carrying even if allowed. Most of the public think lots of gun myths are true such as, registrations, waiting periods and so forth.

This next statement is just a guess, but if 10 LTC Holders are in a room together, I’d bet none of them would be armed. Most people I know that have a license rarely carry, maybe a road trip or something.
 
Which I think, "Left Winger's," would have a heart attack if you looked at carrying a gun from the perspective that, "a citizen has a social responsibility to his community to be armed."
Click to expand...

I'm a left winger and my heart is still beating.
The problem with the armed citizen argument is that it depends on randomness. There is a random possiblitiy that a good guy with a gun is in position to stop a bad guy and further random chance that the good guy is competent in their ability to use their gun.
The argument depends on a bunch of what ifs.

The most recent church shooter should have not been able to purchase a gun. He spent a year in the brig for domestic violence. But because of the vagaries of the law a violation under military justice didn't have the same effect as under civil justice and he didn't fall under the law that would make it illegal for him to buy a gun.

Domestic violence is one of the predictors of mass shooting. Keeping guns out of the hands of people guilty of domestic violence would seem to be more effective than trusting in a random guy with a gun.
 
rickyrick said:
Most people I know that have a license rarely carry, maybe a road trip or something.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much it. For me that's pretty much out of laziness, and thinking, "meh, I'm not going to need my gun." And the fact that most of us gun owners are, "non-violent peoples trying to live our lives, just like anybody else."

I have been, "working on," carrying my weapon all the time. I have been, "striving," to get to the point where I am always armed.

Often I am - unarmed.

That said, I am a martial artist, I am not completely defenseless. But, self defense is: carrying.
 
I'm a left winger and my heart is still beating.
The problem with the armed citizen argument is that it depends on randomness. There is a random possiblitiy that a good guy with a gun is in position to stop a bad guy and further random chance that the good guy is competent in their ability to use their gun.
The argument depends on a bunch of what ifs.

The most recent church shooter should have not been able to purchase a gun. He spent a year in the brig for domestic violence. But because of the vagaries of the law a violation under military justice didn't have the same effect as under civil justice and he didn't fall under the law that would make it illegal for him to buy a gun.

Domestic violence is one of the predictors of mass shooting. Keeping guns out of the hands of people guilty of domestic violence would seem to be more effective than trusting in a random guy with a gun.
Click to expand...

I was thinking of the exact same thing when I was watching the news this morning. "Domestic violence" rings about the same bell on gun background checks as "Theft" rings on a job application for a retail store. No firearm vendor, in their right mind, would even THINK of selling a gun or ammo to anyone who rings a bell on domestic violence. And for this case in Sutherland TX, I think the guy got more than one case for domestic violence. One during his military service, yes, but some sources were also saying he had a history of these and involving civilian law enforcement as well. So I just cannot wait to find out how this POS loser got his hands on a semiautomatic rifle. Someone dun' goofed and they may be facing criminal charges once all this is sorted out.
 
There’s enough perception in the general public that churches are off limits for guns to keep people from carrying. Same goes for theaters or other public gatherings. It will be highly unlikely that anyone would be carrying even if allowed.
Click to expand...

I guess I'm outside the norm, then. I was sitting at the piano with a small pistol in my pocket during the moments when the tragedy in Texas was unfolding. I know for a certainty that I was not the only armed person in the congregation, either. And this is in a church of a denomination that is generally perceived as being left of center.

Overall, I agree that not all licensed carriers carry all the time, but I don't think the number approaches zero, either.
 
Buzzcook said:
The most recent church shooter should have not been able to purchase a gun. He spent a year in the brig for domestic violence. But because of the vagaries of the law a violation under military justice didn't have the same effect as under civil justice and he didn't fall under the law that would make it illegal for him to buy a gun.
Click to expand...

Are you saying a domestic violence conviction under military justice does not make one a prohibited person under 18 USC 922(g)? Because I do not think that is correct. It might well be that the military isn’t reporting those convictions to NICS so he was able to pass the NICS check. In any case, if the reporting I’ve read was accurate he was also the subject of a protective order which should have had the same effect and landed him in NICS regardless.

I do know the Governor stated he had applied for a CHL and been denied a permit.

ETA: Just looking at the statute and news reports, the Sutherland Springs shooter was disqualified under 922(g)(1) (confined for 12 months by military), 922(g)(8) (protective order), and 922(g)(9) (convicted in ANY court of a crime of misdemeanor domestic violence).
 
Last edited:
I think its important to point out that he, "dishonestly," manipulated the NICS check. Yes, the NICS system passed him, but he failed to fill out the paperwork honestly

https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download

It doesn't really mean the military had to report the convictions. He lied filling out the paperwork. He didn't, "pass the background check," he beat the background check.
 
Here we go again -- fifty states, fifty sets of rules.

Churches are not gun-free zones under state law in my state. Like any private property owner, churches can post and signs do have force of law. That said, I can't remember ever seeing a "No Guns" sign in any church in the state - I'm 73 years old and I've been in a lot of churches in those 73 years.

I wonder if this will prompt them to start posting?

A friend -- fellow NRA instructor -- is on the security committee for the church he attends. We discussed this shooting last night. He said his committee has been intentionally avoiding the topic of people being armed during services, but he agrees that it's time to start having that discussion.
 
I think its important to point out that he, "dishonestly," manipulated the NICS check. Yes, the NICS system passed him, but he failed to fill out the paperwork honestly
Click to expand...

Not so!!!

The Texas church shooter received a Bad Conduct Discharge: There is a difference.

The underlying reason for the BCD was domestic violence against his wife and child.
 
Yep, he lied about the domestic violence conviction. But he did not "beat" anything. The domestic violence conviction was not reported to NICS.

BTW: This guy was refused a concealed carry permit in Texas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top