Hurry and pass gun control before we have time to read it!

cornhole153 wrote:

cornhole153 wrote:



Interesting though that the church has a strict ban on guns (except for on duty officers that are required to carry) on their properties.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Much like the rest of what you say on this subject, you overstate somethng to make it align with your desired outcome. The actual policy is

"Churches are dedicated for the worship of God and as havens from the cares and concerns of the world. The carrying of lethal weapons, concealed or otherwise, within their walls is inappropriate except as required by officers of the law."



Notice it says "lethal wepons" not guns. Accordign to this policy the "Strict ban" as you call it, is for any weopon tat could be used in a lethal manner. Thus switchblades, and I'd say even brass knuckles are "banned: from being within the curch building. There are more lethal wepons than just guns...



The policy also says "required by officers of the law"... nothing about "on duty" or "off duty." (police officers will tell you that they are never "off duty")

The Church specifically prohibits "firearms" in their annual public notice. Also, I'm pretty sure off duty cops aren't required to carry--so it is an accurate statement albeit redundant.



http://publicsafety.utah.gov/bci/CFchurch.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Further interesting is that this for Utah. Does the Church do this everywhere?

SpiffCoug wrote:

ABYUFAN wrote:

Interesting though that the church has a strict ban on guns (except for on duty officers that are required to carry) on their properties.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Much like the rest of what you say on this subject, you overstate somethng to make it align with your desired outcome. The actual policy is

"Churches are dedicated for the worship of God and as havens from the cares and concerns of the world. The carrying of lethal weapons, concealed or otherwise, within their walls is inappropriate except as required by officers of the law."



Notice it says "lethal wepons" not guns. Accordign to this policy the "Strict ban" as you call it, is for any weopon tat could be used in a lethal manner. Thus switchblades, and I'd say even brass knuckles are "banned: from being within the curch building. There are more lethal wepons than just guns...



The policy also says "required by officers of the law"... nothing about "on duty" or "off duty." (police officers will tell you that they are never "off duty")

The Church specifically prohibits "firearms" in their annual public notice. Also, I'm pretty sure off duty cops aren't required to carry--so it is an accurate statement albeit redundant.



http://publicsafety.utah.gov/bci/CFchurch.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Hmmm. What I see there is the Church's intent to comply with the laws of the State of Utah.



Church policy, from the handbook does not prohibit firearms. But the Church does comply with the law.

Dudes--look a little closer. Under that Utah statute, if a church wants to legally ban guns from it's property it has to jump through the exra hoop of making public notice (which the Church did in the Des News). If a church does nothing, there is no ban under that statute. In fact, guns aren't legally banned in any other church in utah, as none of them posted notice.



So clearly it's not just the church complying with the law, but in fact the church making its intention clear to the public.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

SpiffCoug wrote:



Church policy, from the handbook does not prohibit firearms

And how can you say this with a straight face? That's like saying the WOW does not prohibit vodka, because it says alcoholic beverages, not vodka.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

ABYUFAN wrote:

ABYUFAN wrote:

Interesting though that the church has a strict ban on guns (except for on duty officers that are required to carry) on their properties.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Much like the rest of what you say on this subject, you overstate somethng to make it align with your desired outcome. The actual policy is

"Churches are dedicated for the worship of God and as havens from the cares and concerns of the world. The carrying of lethal weapons, concealed or otherwise, within their walls is inappropriate except as required by officers of the law."



Notice it says "lethal wepons" not guns. Accordign to this policy the "Strict ban" as you call it, is for any weopon tat could be used in a lethal manner. Thus switchblades, and I'd say even brass knuckles are "banned: from being within the curch building. There are more lethal wepons than just guns...



The policy also says "required by officers of the law"... nothing about "on duty" or "off duty." (police officers will tell you that they are never "off duty")

The Church specifically prohibits "firearms" in their annual public notice. Also, I'm pretty sure off duty cops aren't required to carry--so it is an accurate statement albeit redundant.



http://publicsafety.utah.gov/bci/CFchurch.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

See, you don't care about truth, you care about your position. The Church's exact policy was quoted in my response, and you dismiss it entirely. and synopsize a third party statement to support your contricved position.

Also, according to yoru position, if an armed shooter walks into a church, in your mind the police officer should excuse himself from the meeting, go at least to his car, and perhaps to his home, and then, eventually return to the church and room before he responds? :roll:



Irrespective of your response. This is my last post on the subject, you think the world will be a better place by eliminating choice. I've seen your type before...

It's not a 3rd party synopsis, it's the church's public statement under the statute.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

ABYUFAN wrote:

This is of course is besides the point--that the church essentially bans guns.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

PS Please reread this and try not to laugh..... "Bans guns?"



You know, of course that the official activity arm of the Church for 12 to 16 year old boys is the Boy Scouts of America? And you undoubtedly know that BSA has two separate merit badges that promote safe operation of guns - right? The Church "Essentially" bans guns by not allowing them in the building? That's a whopper. You've proven my point. Truth is nothing to you, you've got a position, and damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead

... :skeptic: :roll:

Fair point.. I should have specified that the church bans guns on its property, not that is bans guns generally.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

The church is simply limiting it's liability. It doesn't want anyone to sue them in the event of a mass shooting.



Just like the Church bans candles from their buildings. Does that mean that we shouldn't use candles?

cornhole153 wrote:

cornhole153 wrote:

cornhole153 wrote:



Interesting though that the church has a strict ban on guns (except for on duty officers that are required to carry) on their properties.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Much like the rest of what you say on this subject, you overstate somethng to make it align with your desired outcome. The actual policy is

"Churches are dedicated for the worship of God and as havens from the cares and concerns of the world. The carrying of lethal weapons, concealed or otherwise, within their walls is inappropriate except as required by officers of the law."



Notice it says "lethal wepons" not guns. Accordign to this policy the "Strict ban" as you call it, is for any weopon tat could be used in a lethal manner. Thus switchblades, and I'd say even brass knuckles are "banned: from being within the curch building. There are more lethal wepons than just guns...



The policy also says "required by officers of the law"... nothing about "on duty" or "off duty." (police officers will tell you that they are never "off duty")

The Church specifically prohibits "firearms" in their annual public notice. Also, I'm pretty sure off duty cops aren't required to carry--so it is an accurate statement albeit redundant.



http://publicsafety.utah.gov/bci/CFchurch.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Hmmm. What I see there is the Church's intent to comply with the laws of the State of Utah.



Church policy, from the handbook does not prohibit firearms. But the Church does comply with the law.

Dudes--look a little closer. Under that Utah statute, if a church wants to legally ban guns from it's property it has to jump through the exra hoop of making public notice (which the Church did in the Des News). If a church does nothing, there is no ban under that statute. In fact, guns aren't legally banned in any other church in utah, as none of them posted notice.



So clearly it's not just the church complying with the law, but in fact the church making its intention clear to the public.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Right, this is a Utah statute. Is a Utah statute valid for the entire Church? So because The Church sent such notice, in accordance with Utah Statute, that is in effect for every member everywhere?



I didn't realize a Utah Statute was the highest law of the land. If I am mistaken, please correct me and I'll gladly stand corrected.

hawkwing wrote:
The church is simply limiting it's liability. It doesn't want anyone to sue them in the event of a mass shooting.



Just like the Church bans candles from their buildings. Does that mean that we shouldn't use candles?

Why do we need to ban candles? Don't we have sprinkler systems?!

hawkwing wrote:
The church is simply limiting it's liability. It doesn't want anyone to sue them in the event of a mass shooting.



Just like the Church bans candles from their buildings. Does that mean that we shouldn't use candles?

If not being able to carry really increased the risk of crime and made people less safe, wouldn't the church be more exposed to lawsuits from the victims? Also, the ban also includes housing owned by the church.



I agree with you though, the church wants to limit their liability, it's just in their calculation it seems guns don't make you safer.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

SpiffCoug wrote:

SpiffCoug wrote:

ABYUFAN wrote:

Interesting though that the church has a strict ban on guns (except for on duty officers that are required to carry) on their properties.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Much like the rest of what you say on this subject, you overstate somethng to make it align with your desired outcome. The actual policy is

"Churches are dedicated for the worship of God and as havens from the cares and concerns of the world. The carrying of lethal weapons, concealed or otherwise, within their walls is inappropriate except as required by officers of the law."



Notice it says "lethal wepons" not guns. Accordign to this policy the "Strict ban" as you call it, is for any weopon tat could be used in a lethal manner. Thus switchblades, and I'd say even brass knuckles are "banned: from being within the curch building. There are more lethal wepons than just guns...



The policy also says "required by officers of the law"... nothing about "on duty" or "off duty." (police officers will tell you that they are never "off duty")

The Church specifically prohibits "firearms" in their annual public notice. Also, I'm pretty sure off duty cops aren't required to carry--so it is an accurate statement albeit redundant.



http://publicsafety.utah.gov/bci/CFchurch.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Hmmm. What I see there is the Church's intent to comply with the laws of the State of Utah.



Church policy, from the handbook does not prohibit firearms. But the Church does comply with the law.

Dudes--look a little closer. Under that Utah statute, if a church wants to legally ban guns from it's property it has to jump through the exra hoop of making public notice (which the Church did in the Des News). If a church does nothing, there is no ban under that statute. In fact, guns aren't legally banned in any other church in utah, as none of them posted notice.



So clearly it's not just the church complying with the law, but in fact the church making its intention clear to the public.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Right, this is a Utah statute. Is a Utah statute valid for the entire Church? So because The Church sent such notice, in accordance with Utah Statute, that is in effect for every member everywhere?



I didn't realize a Utah Statute was the highest law of the land. If I am mistaken, please correct me and I'll gladly stand corrected.

I'm not aware of any other state that requires churches to post notice to legally ban guns. Does the church's views change depending on the state?



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

cornhole153 wrote:

cornhole153 wrote:



This is of course is besides the point--that the church essentially bans guns.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

PS Please reread this and try not to laugh..... "Bans guns?"



You know, of course that the official activity arm of the Church for 12 to 16 year old boys is the Boy Scouts of America? And you undoubtedly know that BSA has two separate merit badges that promote safe operation of guns - right? The Church "Essentially" bans guns by not allowing them in the building? That's a whopper. You've proven my point. Truth is nothing to you, you've got a position, and damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead

... :skeptic: :roll:

Fair point.. I should have specified that the church bans guns on its property, not that is bans guns generally.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

No it does not "ban" guns on it's property. For instance, in my Stake, there is a group of us that get together 3-4 times a year to go different hunting trips . We have a duck day, wild boar hunting trip, quail hunt, and coyote.



In our group, we have 2 High Council members, Bishop, and 2 Bishops counselors. Guess where we meet in the morning? In the parking lot of our Stake bldg. I have no doubt that if the Church came out an banned guns from Church property, we would not be meeting up in the Stake bldg. parking lot.



Now, to the point of the Church saying that bringing firearms to Church meetings inside the building - is inappropriate for non L.E. civilian folks. I agree with that policy. Even though it would be legal in some states/counties that have easy to get CCW permits. There are some easy states like Florida, Texas, Utah, etc. No doubt, some folks with their CCW would pack to Church services, and the leadership appropriately advises the membership that is is inappropriate to to come armed. Why? I think it's because it makes some folks uncomfortable.



Unless - there were extenuating circumstances, which the Bishop and the Stake President would be consulted in. For instance, in my Ward a few years ago, there is an attorney that was threatened, with a serious threat. He had to leave his home and go into hiding. In our county it is impossible to get a CCW. If he could have gotten a CCW, he would have.



Well, he still came to Church about every other week. I can see a situation where this good brother, if he had been able to get a CCW, he would have been packing. In a situation like that, after consulting with his Bishop, he might have been given permission to come to Church with his weapon. Then again, if I was his Bishop, I probably would have advised him to lay low, not come to Church, and the Lord would understand (after I received guidance from the Stake President.)



The point I am trying to make is - there is a difference between the work "Ban" and "Inappropriate." I think the church Leadership carefully crafted the guidelines and chose their words carefully. They certainly did not say: "Under no circumstances will any Church member (other than law enforcement) bring a firearm onto Church property". They easily could have chosen that route and they did not.

Ddawg wrote:

ABYUFAN wrote:

This is of course is besides the point--that the church essentially bans guns.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

PS Please reread this and try not to laugh..... "Bans guns?"



You know, of course that the official activity arm of the Church for 12 to 16 year old boys is the Boy Scouts of America? And you undoubtedly know that BSA has two separate merit badges that promote safe operation of guns - right? The Church "Essentially" bans guns by not allowing them in the building? That's a whopper. You've proven my point. Truth is nothing to you, you've got a position, and damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead

... :skeptic: :roll:

Fair point.. I should have specified that the church bans guns on its property, not that is bans guns generally.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

No it does not "ban" guns on it's property. For instance, in my Stake, there is a group of us that get together 3-4 times a year to go different hunting trips . We have a duck day, wild boar hunting trip, quail hunt, and coyote.



In our group, we have 2 High Council members, Bishop, and 2 Bishops counselors. Guess where we meet in the morning? In the parking lot of our Stake bldg. I have no doubt that if the Church came out an banned guns from Church property, we would not be meeting up in the Stake bldg. parking lot.



Now, to the point of the Church saying that bringing firearms to Church meetings inside the building - is inappropriate for non L.E. civilian folks. I agree with that policy. Even though it would be legal in some states/counties that have easy to get CCW permits. There are some easy states like Florida, Texas, Utah, etc. No doubt, some folks with their CCW would pack to Church services, and the leadership appropriately advises the membership that is is inappropriate to to come armed. Why? I think it's because it makes some folks uncomfortable.



Unless - there were extenuating circumstances, which the Bishop and the Stake President would be consulted in. For instance, in my Ward a few years ago, there is an attorney that was threatened, with a serious threat. He had to leave his home and go into hiding. In our county it is impossible to get a CCW. If he could have gotten a CCW, he would have.



Well, he still came to Church about every other week. I can see a situation where this good brother, if he had been able to get a CCW, he would have been packing. In a situation like that, after consulting with his Bishop, he might have been given permission to come to Church with his weapon. Then again, if I was his Bishop, I probably would have advised him to lay low, not come to Church, and the Lord would understand (after I received guidance from the Stake President.)



The point I am trying to make is - there is a difference between the work "Ban" and "Inappropriate." I think the church Leadership carefully crafted the guidelines and chose their words carefully. They certainly did not say: "Under no circumstances will any Church member (other than law enforcement) bring a firearm onto Church property". They easily could have chosen that route and they did not.

I can see how both the handbook and utah law might not include the parking lot. Though it's clearly illegal (except for the narrow LE exception) to have guns in the building, which I'd think goes beyond it being merely inappropriate.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

cornhole153 wrote:

Yes, all life is precious and the US far exceeds all these countries in gun deaths--it isn't even close. The US also has far higher rates of homocide, so I'm not sure where you are getting your data.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

And yet, let's look at the areas of the United States where the highest percentage of homocides are committed. Don't those areas have rules about guns?



And you still haven't answered how you justify limiting the liberties of hundreds of millions of law abiding citizens.

cornhole153 wrote:



I can see how both the handbook and utah law might not include the parking lot. Though it's clearly illegal (except for the narrow LE exception) to have guns in the building, which I'd think goes beyond it being merely inappropriate.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

If the LDS church does not want guns in their church, I'm fine with that. How does that relate to what gun control advocates want (removal of liberty).

I'm actually relieved that the NEW YORK legislative bodies did this in such a haste manner. It was written so poorly that no one in new york is actually going to follow these laws, and they shouldn't.

cornhole153 wrote:

Haven't all of the modern 1st world democracies survived after banning guns?



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

1. This is about as UN-American as logic can be.

2. America is not built upon a democracy.

3. Show me a single country in modern 1st world government that has fallen because they DID NOT ban guns.

Taking a firearm into an lds worship service is an infraction on the same level of severity as speeding. You wouldn't have an sort of long term penalties. Also the legal ban only includes worship services, so non church meetings have no such restrictions.

hawkwing wrote:
Taking a firearm into an lds worship service is an infraction on the same level of severity as speeding. You wouldn't have an sort of long term penalties. Also the legal ban only includes worship services, so non church meetings have no such restrictions.

Yes, and drinking vodka and sleeping around around are totally legal. Point was about the Church's views on guns in their buildings. BYU also bans guns, though I don't think it's covered under the Utah law.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

So in other words we should ban alcohol and extra-marital sex. I guarantee that if you could do that it would solve far more deaths than banning guns, but for some reason limbs don't seem interested in actually preventing deaths.

hawkwing wrote:
So in other words we should ban alcohol and extra-marital sex. I guarantee that if you could do that it would solve far more deaths than banning guns, but for some reason limbs don't seem interested in actually preventing deaths.

Actually, banning etoh and extra-marital sex would change nothing. People would do it anyway, and it would create even a stronger push for the stuff by some. Non of these topics (guns, etoh, sex) should be pushed on people through legislation. These are topics for religious institutions. If someone believes extramarital sex and partaking of alcohol are part of their pursuit of life liberty and pursuit of happiness, then by all means go for it. Generally, people know better, and will have to answer for it with the consequences that follow.