Gun Day at Church cancelled...

[U-said-it]

I found this interesting tidbit from late last month recently:

Arkansas guns-in-church bill dies in state Senate

According to the Associated Press, the proposal to amend the state's concealed-weapons law to remove "any church or other place of worship" from a list of places where firearms are banned failed by a voice vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The bill's lead sponsor, Rep. Beverly Pyle (R-Cedarville), said churches should have the option of deciding for themselves whether or not to allow firearms in their buildings. The Arkansas Concealed Carry Association said the issue was not whether weapons ought to be in church but rather the separation of church and state.

"The issue is that self-defense is a moral decision, and that decision should not be made for churches by the state," opined a blog entry on the group's website. "Churches have the freedom to make this decision free of government coercion."

I really wonder about people who's biggest legal inconvenience is the fact that they can't take a piece into church, but I guess there are shootings/attacks in churches every now and then... Maybe they should have the right...?

_

[OneThirty8]

I really wonder about people who's biggest legal inconvenience is the fact that they can't take a piece into church

I really wonder about most people who feel that it is necessary to own a gun. Cops and military personnel need them at times in order to do their jobs, but the rest of us really don't need them. The Second Amendment doesn't say that we can carry guns--it says that we have the right to bear arms. I personally own a sword, and that's really more than I need. And I'm not claiming to be a tough guy--I'm quite the opposite. I just never find myself in a situation that could be made better if I access to a deadly weapon.

Maybe they should have the right...?

Nah. Arguments about the Second Amendment aside, we really don't need people carrying guns into crowded places.

[jaredfogle]

Really, whose idea was this?

That is just so completely stupid.

[Roofus]

Just like the Democrats to shit all over the Constitution.

[Ex-Cyber]

I really wonder about people who's biggest legal inconvenience is the fact that they can't take a piece into church

I really wonder about most people who feel that it is necessary to own a gun. Cops and military personnel need them at times in order to do their jobs, but the rest of us really don't need them. The Second Amendment doesn't say that we can carry guns--it says that we have the right to bear arms. I personally own a sword, and that's really more than I need. And I'm not claiming to be a tough guy--I'm quite the opposite. I just never find myself in a situation that could be made better if I access to a deadly weapon.

Aside from the fairly mundane activities of hunting and recreational shooting (neither of which requires that people be allowed to carry guns around everywhere), it seems like a small but loud group of people basically want to prepare for fantasy scenarios where their gun allows them to be a hero (there was a lot of this kind of stuff voiced pretty directly after the Virginia Tech shooting - if only a virtuous citizen with a concealed carry permit had been there etc. etc.). Home defense comes up a lot, and I think it's only marginally more realistic for most people. The Colorado law indemnifying homeowners who use deadly force against trespassers (who need not be attacking/threatening them) is commonly called the "make my day" law. I can scarcely even begin to describe how screwed up that is.

[Jaded JAaron77]

I go to school in Arkansas. From what I understand, this was brought up after a few churches got shot up by outsiders, during service. The point of the law was to allow people to defend themselves. It's the same as people trying to get guns allowed on campuses after the Virginia Tech shooting.

[Lartrak]

The bill's lead sponsor, Rep. Beverly Pyle (R-Cedarville), said churches should have the option of deciding for themselves whether or not to allow firearms in their buildings. The Arkansas Concealed Carry Association said the issue was not whether weapons ought to be in church but rather the separation of church and state.

I actually agree with this. Individual businesses, churches, etc, should be allowed to decide whether concealed carry is acceptable on their own property, not the law by itself.

The Colorado law indemnifying homeowners who use deadly force against trespassers (who need not be attacking/threatening them) is commonly called the "make my day" law. I can scarcely even begin to describe how screwed up that is.

Ya know, I read the text of the law, and I don't understand how it applies to people merely on your property. However, in searching I came across a couple of examples where it was applied as such. I don't get it.

"(1) The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into a dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.

(3) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force.

(4) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force"

Perhaps "dwelling" was interpreted to include "land"? That seems a very broad interpretation of the word though...

I generally approve of the language of this bill, actually. However, I do think they should have some kind of "end of threat" language in there. That is, it appears there is no stopping point to prevent someone from simply deciding to finish off a wounded, disabled, intruder.

[Ex-Cyber]

I generally approve of the language of this bill, actually. However, I do think they should have some kind of "end of threat" language in there. That is, it appears there is no stopping point to prevent someone from simply deciding to finish off a wounded, disabled, intruder.

The main thing I disapprove of is that it doesn't really require a threat in the first place:

when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight

That's so broad that you could probably get away with killing a straitjacketed Gandhi. After all, he might headbutt your shins in frustration.

[Lartrak]

That's so broad that you could probably get away with killing a straitjacketed Gandhi. After all, he might headbutt your shins in frustration.

Why would a straitjacketed Gandhi be breaking into somebody's home?

I'm just generally of the opinion that if somebody breaks into your house, that's a threat against anyone living inside, and violence against the intruder is a justifiable response.

[Ex-Cyber]

Why would a straitjacketed Gandhi be breaking into somebody's home?

That's an exaggeration, obviously, but it's not exactly unheard of for someone to come "home" to the wrong house after hitting the bars. In fact, it happened just a few months ago here in Colorado Springs, complete with the poor bastard getting shot to death by the homeowner. I think the details of that particular case supported the use of violence in (justifiably perceived) self-defense, but it demonstrates the point that not everyone who goes into a home uninvited is there for evil ends.

I'm just generally of the opinion that if somebody breaks into your house, that's a threat against anyone living inside, and violence against the intruder is a justifiable response.

This law is basically saying that you can deliberately kill the intruder, based on nothing more than a belief that they're there to engage in any criminal activity whatsoever, and be immune from criminal charges for doing so. That seems to me to put property above human life.

[Specially Cork]

It gives people the power to sentence burglars to death, which is bizarre, because those same people would never give a judge and jury the power to do the same.

I can understand the logic in wanting a gun to defend your home, but it's important for the owner to be properly trained in using that firearm. Surely a responsible gun-owner would threaten the person first, then take a non-lethal shot if they didn't leave/submit/whatever? The idea that some scared-shitless guy can legally run around his house with a lethal weapon blasting away seems very wrong to me.

[Lartrak]

It gives people the power to sentence burglars to death, which is bizarre, because those same people would never give a judge and jury the power to do the same.

I can understand the logic in wanting a gun to defend your home, but it's important for the owner to be properly trained in using that firearm. Surely a responsible gun-owner would threaten the person first, then take a non-lethal shot if they didn't leave/submit/whatever? The idea that some scared-shitless guy can legally run around his house with a lethal weapon blasting away seems very wrong to me.

Depends on the circumstances. A popular school of home defense thought is that nothing is a better burglar-remover then the cha-chak sound of a homeowner pumping the action on his shotgun. I am of the opinion that if you hear someone trying to break into your home telling them you're armed and will shoot is the best thing to do, but if they're actually inside your house, I'm not so sure. Probably depends on where they are, the size of the home, etc. If I woke up with someone sneaking around inside my room, and had a gun handy, I think shooting them is the correct response. But, if they were downstairs, and I was upstairs, probably informing them of the situation after calling the police would be best. However, I really do think you have to assume any person who has broken into your home means you physical ill will. It's just the best assumption for your own safety.

As far as non-lethal shots - that's really a no go. You'd be at very close range, and someone can quite easily die from a single bullet in the leg, especially at that range (very true with something like a shotgun, one of the best home defense weapons as buckshot won't penetrate walls and keep going nearly as easily as slugs will). If you're firing at someone, you need to assume they're going to die from it. In a break in situation, you also don't know if the intruder is armed or not, and you want to make sure they can't retaliate.

That seems to me to put property above human life.

The way it is worded does imply that to some degree, though it does mention you're supposed to believe they mean to use physical force on occupants. However, I do think you should be able to assume anyone breaking into your house means to hurt you, thus this distinction isn't too important. Not directly relevant, but are you aware of the way Texas law operates? In Texas the law actually states you're allowed to shoot people to defend your property. There it is quite unambiguous: you can certainly value your own property over someone's life who is trying to steal it, at least deep in the heart of Texas. You can also shoot people trespassing at night. The case of Joe Horn is one example of Texas law.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,374223,00.html

[pavelbure]

Why would a straitjacketed Gandhi be breaking into somebody's home?

That's an exaggeration, obviously, but it's not exactly unheard of for someone to come "home" to the wrong house after hitting the bars. In fact, it happened just a few months ago here in Colorado Springs, complete with the poor bastard getting shot to death by the homeowner. I think the details of that particular case supported the use of violence in (justifiably perceived) self-defense, but it demonstrates the point that not everyone who goes into a home uninvited is there for evil ends.

I'm just generally of the opinion that if somebody breaks into your house, that's a threat against anyone living inside, and violence against the intruder is a justifiable response.

This law is basically saying that you can deliberately kill the intruder, based on nothing more than a belief that they're there to engage in any criminal activity whatsoever, and be immune from criminal charges for doing so. That seems to me to put property above human life.

i put my family and my property above any low life p.o.s. that would break into my home.

should i wait until he pulls out a gun or a knife before i react ? by then it could be too late.

what do you propose to do if someone breaks into your house, what steps would you take ?

[Ex-Cyber]

i put my family and my property above any low life p.o.s. that would break into my home.

That's understandable; I just don't think it should be written into the law in such a one-sided way.

what do you propose to do if someone breaks into your house, what steps would you take ?

I'm not criticizing anyone for defending themselves. In the case I mentioned I probably would have done the same thing. However, if there is evidence to suggest that I was essentially engaging in manslaughter or murder, I think it should be decided by a judge and jury rather than having the process trumped by what amounts to a property rights argument. Note that the law doesn't just say that the use of force is legal, it says that the resident who used force "shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force".