Image courtesy Dean Weingarten
Louisiana is one of a few states which ban guns in churches, but allow church leaders to allow guns on a case by case basis. According to Concealed Carry.com, as of 2018, there were ten states and the District of Columbia with this policy of religious discrimination against churches which approve of an armed population.
The laws in states that ban guns in church are a way to demonize guns. They fairly scream: Guns Bad! Good People Don't Have Guns!
The laws flip the script of the Second Amendment, where guns are assumed to be part of every day life. Arms were seen as property so valuable, they were directly protected in the Bill of Rights.
The states which have such laws are listed at concealedcarry.com.
They are Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, and South Carolina.
The District of Columbia has a similar law.
With the exception of the District of Columbia, the ban on guns in church, without special permission, are in pro-Second Amendment states.
North Dakota, Missouri, Arkansas, and Mississippi are Constitutional Carry states. Louisiana, Georgia, Ohio, and South Carolina have shall issue concealed carry permits.
In most states, the carry of guns in churches is treated the same as on other private property.
My church, in Arizona, actively accepts armed worshipers. Many attendees carry openly.
In colonial America, some colonies required worshipers to bring arms to church.
The Louisiana bill, HB 334, would flip the script back toward the traditional position, with guns having an accepted, honored place in American life. If you have a problem with that, it is allowed, but it is *your* problem, not the problem of American society.
Notice the framing of the issue by a reporter in Louisiana. Here is the lead from 4wwltv.com:
To Terry’s dismay -- a series of gun bills passed the house Friday. One -- House 334 -- would allow those who have a concealed carry permit to carry a concealed handgun into a church.That phrasing indicates guns need to be "allowed" to be in Church, not that carrying guns is a Constitutional right, and particular churches are allowed to ban guns on their private property if they wish to do so. The quote sets the stage. Guns are Bad!
“There is too much murder and violence and particularly gun violence that goes on right now without exacerbating that by arming our citizenry and encouraging that,” said Terry.
It is the script which progressive have been pushing in the United States for nearly 100 years.
The assumption, under English and American law, is everything which is not forbidden is allowed. The progressive assumption is the opposite: everything which is not allowed, is forbidden.
The American traditional assumption encourages innovation and tolerance. The individual is mostly in charge of their own life. The progressive assumption is the government knows best, and should make our decisions for us.
To be fair, the progressive assumption has changed from endorsing Christian morality up until about 1965, to endorsing pagan or Roman sexual mores or lack of constraints after 1965. At the moment, the progressive ideal seems to attack traditional Christian sexual morality, the idea of the family, marriage and, it must be said, motherhood.
Progressive policy has come to promote sexual activity without limit or responsibility, essentially the sexual morality in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World.
Single women vote Democrat by large percentages.
Banning guns in churches is another way for leftists to enforce their vision of what is acceptable and what is not.
Louisiana has a veto proof Republican majority in the House and is one vote short of a veto proof majority in the Senate. It has a Democrat governor, John Bel Edwards. There is a strong chance he will veto the bill, if it is sent to him.
Republican legislators are likely to give him that decision.
©2020 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Posts
2 comments:
History is all the proof you need How many people killed in church were unarmed? How many might have lived if they were armed? The Texas church shooting is a good example. A guy with an AR-!5 assault rifle shot up the church, killing many. None of them were armed. the guy that shot that attacker Took him out with a defensive AR-15 rifle. the weapons were nearly identical the only difference was one was in the hands of the attacker and the other in the hands of the defender.
Clearly the Texas Church shooting makes a very important second amendment point. When some people travel from one state to another, according to supreme court rulings, your federally guaranteed rights travel with you across state lines. the second amendment federally guaranteed right is one of those rights that travel with you. Say I, a resident of Arizona , a second amendment state travels to Texas and just happens to be there on a Saturday or a Sunday and wants to attend church. Many churches have out of state visitors at their services, It has been a custom to identify visitors and welcome them in my church. Now I'm setting there enjoying the service and an armed shooter pops in and starts shooting. What should I do? set there and get shot or return fire. Wait a minute I don't have a Texas carry permit so I just wind up dead with the rest of the shooters victims. But the united States supreme court says my right to carry and defend my self crosses state lines. didn't I cross a state line to get to Texas? So how the hell does Texas have the authority to deny my right to carry. some thing in the constitution no one is remembering. the license or permit is basically a tax on your constitutional right and according to the federal constitution a state is forbidden to tax a person from another state. Texas has no authority to require me to pay their tax. therefore Texas cant require me to have a license or permit to exercise my federally guaranteed right of self defense. A USSC ruling about 1984 ruled that a vehicle from one state is protected for a bonified traveler, in side that vehicle is Arizona territory if the vehicle is licensed in Arizona. Arizona carry rights prevail. I can have a firearm in that vehicle any where Arizona allows it to be. a second USSC ruling ruled that the vehicle must qualify as a home away from home totally contradictory to the ruling all rights cross state lines. It makes no difference where I am in side the borders of this nations I have my constitutional rights with me. No state has the authority to deny federally guaranteed rights and I need my right to self defense where ever I happen to be. If I am setting in a church in another stated you better believe if some one comes in shooting I am returning fire. And in that instance no cop has the authority to deny my rights. when police break the law they violate their oath of office. at that time they are physically no longer with any authority. they are just someone with a gun threatening you. It will take a long time for thug cops to understand this. but that is a valid legal argument. One thing people must begin to understand. Cops by court ruling Investigate crime. they very rarely have the opportunity to stop crime. there is nothing to investigate until the crime is committed. Exercising a constitutional right is not a crime.
Post a Comment