Senate Brings Gun Issue Before God

By January 31, 2013

As concealed carry legislation heats up on campus, another similar issue is in the Arkansas house and senate.  The bill proposes to remove churches and places of worship as prohibited places for a licensee to carry a concealed weapon.

Senate bill 71, called the Church Protection Act of 2013, was filed on Jan. 17 and passed in the senate on Jan. 28. Currently, the bill resides in a judiciary committee in the Arkansas House of Representatives, according to Arkansashouse.org.

Politicians and students bicker about their feeling of security and their 2nd amendment right to bear arms, but Sen. Linda Chesterfield (Dem.) hits the nail on the head saying “… I also am very cognizant about what my bible says when it talks about the church, ‘my house shall be called a house of prayer,’” on KATV.com.

Perhaps it is just my Catholic upbringing in a safe, suburban neighborhood, with my church within walking distance of my home, but if there is ever a place a gun will never belong, it is in the church. A place of worship should not be tarnished with people carrying weapons.

While I sit in my pew, I want to be praying to my dear Baby Jesus rather than fretting about the person sitting next to me who may be packing heat. I cannot fathom any pastor or parishioner to be comfortable in a church knowing a tool of violence is in the vicinity.

Since 1999, there have been 638 deadly force incidents, according to carlchinn.com. That is among the 150 million church-going, adherent Americans, within over 340,000 congregations, according to the 2010 Religious Congregations and Membership survey. The chances of a shooting in a church, while outlawed, are incredibly small. So why change a law that is working?

In my eyes, if someone is bringing a gun to church, they are not going to pray. Then it becomes the responsibility of the police and law enforcement officers to make decisions common citizens cannot.

I can understand “we the people” have the right to bear arms and the argument that we have the right to decide where and when guns are necessary. I also understand this motion is another separation of church and state, putting more power in our hands. However, the general assembly is wrong writing “personal security is increasingly important” and claiming this act is “immediately necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health and safety,” according to Senate Bill 71 on Arkansashouse.org.

Churches are not places we “immediately” need protection. Instead, we need strict restrictions of guns, keeping security to professionals.

The introduction of weapons into places of educational and spiritual growth is entirely unnecessary. State and federal laws prohibiting weapons in churches and on campuses should remain in tact so violators can be charged simply for bringing a tool of violence to places of peace.

Joe DelNero is a senior broadcast journalism major and the opinion editor of the Arkansas Traveler. 

  • Maltz

    “I can understand “we the people” have the right to bear arms and the argument that we have the right to decide where and when guns are necessary.”
    Agreed – except that right now, churches do not have that right to decide where and when guns are appropriate in the state of Arkansas.Nothing in this bill requires a church to allow concealed carry – it actually explicitly states that churches can still ban guns if they so choose.  It merely gives individual churches the right to decide for themselves if they want to allow state-licensed CHCL holders to be able to carry rather than having state law dictate.  Not such a bad thing, I think.  It certainly doesn’t seem to be a problem in the many states that do allow it.

    One other comment…  ”Churches are not places we “immediately” need protection.”  Well, until you do.  There have certainly been shootings at churches, and almost all of them already banned guns.  Consider that the only people who so-called gun-free-zones disarm are the people who DON’T intend to do harm.  Just some food for thought.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=774489394 Michael P. Daniel

    This bill has the potential to create more problems than it seeks to solve, and the language of the bill lends itself to a panicked state in referring to “immediate necessity”.  The burden placed on churches will go much further than anyone realizes when you consider that now the burden to protect parishioners will fall on the churches, and the churches will be forced to designate those allowed to carry.  The conflicts these measures and decisions will have to address should be apparent (i.e., ‘you failed to protect my grandmaw when you had the ‘right’ and responsibility to do so; I’m gonna sue!’ … or ‘your designated’ carrier panicked and shot my child; I’m gonna sue!’ … or ‘You let Billy Bubba carry his weapon in church; why are you denying my RIGHT to carry one in church as well?  I’m gonna sue!!’).  All likely, all reasonable.  It is no different than doing background checks on youth workers and child care-givers.  Same burden, different measure.

  • JC

    “I cannot fathom any pastor or parishioner to be comfortable in a church knowing a tool of violence is in the vicinity.”

    Ah, you mean like a book, a chair, a pan, eating utensils, knives, a drop side on a crib, a wire hanger, a pen, a wooden pointer, a metal pointer, metal communion trays, small babies, lecterns.

    This is quite possibly the most idiotic sentence I have read in the traveler in my 15 years of reading it.  …tool of violence.  Sweet crap, there is a tool of violence in a holster under the care of an otherwise peaceful soft-spoken older gentleman that I know would lay down his life for me!  I’m so uncomfortable!

    “In my eyes, if someone is bringing a gun to church, they are not going to pray.  Then it becomes the responsibility of the police and law enforcement officers to make decisions common citizens cannot.”

    Did I miss a meeting?  Are all churches and people the same now?  If you are uncomfortable with it, should everyone, even in places you don’t go, be forced at the point of the police gun to comply with your sensibilities?  You are really willing to use hired guns to force others to conform to you?

    “Churches are not places we “immediately” need protection.”

    Really?  Where is this magical place that you frequent that you know you will be attacked?

    “Instead, we need strict restrictions of guns, keeping security to professionals.”

    Ah, are you referring to the police that show up after the shooting is over?

    “The introduction of weapons into places of educational and spiritual growth is entirely unnecessary.”

    It’s none of your business.

    “State and federal laws prohibiting weapons in churches and on campuses
    should remain in tact so violators can be charged simply for bringing a
    tool of violence to places of peace.”

    Brilliant.  Prosecute people for attacking no one.  That’s good policy.  That has worked out well in the nations of the world over the centuries.  I think we should arrest the baseball team for wielding those bats. 

    “A place of worship should not be tarnished with people carrying weapons.”

    By all means.  Insert yourself into other people’s religious beliefs… you know, like protecting your family.

    You are sick in the head, sir.  You are presumptuous and a bully.  You are using other people’s money to hire armed men to have “common” people do what you want them to do when they aren’t harming anyone.  Your vote is a tool of violence.  You are going into other people’s houses of assembly for the carrying out their beliefs and telling them what to do under threat of force.  You are a hypocrite and a bully and you act like you’re helping people.

  • JC

    As an aside, a stat in a vacuum means nothing.  I could say that the gun laws affecting Chicago were working because a large majority of people in Chicago aren’t murdered.  When I compare it to other cities under different gun laws, the stat suddenly seems less cheery.