# LDS Places of Worship



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

So I have been reading the laws on concealed carry and have a question.

The church has asked people to not CC in any place of worship. Do they have to have it posted at the entrances to be able to punish violaters?

Even if it is posted on a church or any other privately owned building (i.e. trolley square) and you are discovered to be carrying can you be punished or just asked to leave?


----------



## marksman (Oct 4, 2007)

Most private places can post and if you don't notice when the see you all they can do is ask you to leave and if you don't leave it's trespassing. However recently the law was changed (http://www.le.state.ut.us/%7Ecode/TITLE ... _0C058.htm) to make an exception for churches and private residences if they post or notify the BCI(list of churches that have notified the bci http://bci.utah.gov/CFP/CFChurch.html) that they don't allow carry and you get caught carrying there you can be sited for an infraction.


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

marksman said:


> Most private places can post and if you don't notice when the see you all they can do is ask you to leave and if you don't leave it's trespassing. However recently the law was changed (http://www.le.state.ut.us/%7Ecode/TITLE ... _0C058.htm) to make an exception for churches and private residences if they post or notify the BCI(list of churches that have notified the bci http://bci.utah.gov/CFP/CFChurch.html) that they don't allow carry and you get caught carrying there you can be sited for an infraction.


As I understood it in the class by being asked to leave and refusing to leave; you can be charged with disorderly conduct as well as tresspassing. Keep your gun concealed and you shouldn't have a problem.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

Marksmen,

From what I understand in order for CC inside an LDS church to be an infraction it has to be posted on the entrances? How do you guys understand that?

The building I attend doesn't have anything posted anywhere, do I risk an "infraction" by concealed carrying in the building reguardless?

Thanks


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

It is an infraction for you to carry in a church or private business/residence any time they have given "notice" that it is not allowed. They do not have to ask you to leave first! You have already been "notified" that its not allowed, so by carrying you are trespassing on private property. Just as if you were hunting on someone's field that was posted "no hunting". I think that if you decided to carry anyway, and got caught, you would most likely just be asked to leave though. "Notice" can be given in a number of ways, it does not have to be with a sign at the entrance. Read through the code that marksman linked to and it will list all the ways a church or business can give notice. The LDS church has posted on the BCI website that firearms are not allowed, therefore they are not allowed in ANY house of worship statewide, regardless of any signs that may or may not be posted.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

El Matador, 

I guess that is my question: The fact that the church has posted their request to not carry on the BCI website does that coun't as notification?

Assume I had my permit but never went on the BCI website to find that out, came to a church entrance and there was nothing posted and got caught carrying inside (left when I was asked to leave). Will law inforcement or a judge say I had been notified just because it is posted on the BCI web?

I know this seems petty but this is my last grey area that I have in my mind as to where I can and can't carry.

I might go to hell for taking it to church but at least hopefully I won't be on my way there because I have been shot.


----------



## FROGGER (Oct 1, 2007)

Because the church has notified the BCI they do not have to post on their buildings... it is up to you to know the law... carrying a gun is our right but we must know and understand the law...

You may get a lenient judge who favors on your side but why risk it.... it is up to us to know and follow the law and as it is written because the church has notified BCI they do not need to post....

Cut and dry here

http://bci.utah.gov/CFP/CFLCarry.html


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

According to the law, it is YOUR responsibility to know where is off limits to carry. By registering with BCI the church has fulfilled its obligation to notify the public. Claiming ignorance of the law would probably not be a very good defense, kind of like saying you didn't know what the speed limit was because there were not enough signs. Just like it's your responsibility to know and abide by the speed limits, its your responsibility to know and abide by concealed carry laws and restrictions.

I haven't heard of any case where someone was actually cited for trespassing because they packed at church. But just be aware of what the laws are, and be prepared to take responsibility for your actions. I break laws every day (like speed limits), but I try to know what the laws are and what the possible consequences are for breaking them. 

Its my personal feeling that the general authorities of the church, and even the "brethren" that preside over them, have nothing against firearms or self defense. It seems like more of a PR issue. There are enough paranoid citizens or members out there that the church wants to ease their anxiety by restricting firearms in their buildings. There are also a lot of people that believe since the church helped pass the law which allowed for them to prohibit guns, they feel obligated to participate. They are now the only church that does register. But regardless of all that, I still respect and obey the leaders of the church. So I don't carry there.


----------



## tapehoser (Sep 10, 2007)

Matador and Frogger got it perfectly right. Good job guys!


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

Well what if I..........Ok, nevermind..... I will just follow the law like a good boy but I'm sure Porter Rockwell is shakeing his head in discust at the thought of going to church with out any lead.


----------



## FROGGER (Oct 1, 2007)

I have never really felt threatened at church and hope i never do. In reality churches are a far better place to attack as opposed to a mall, or school when it comes to number of people and size of building. Not to mention the lack of security. I honestly have been surprised someone has not done this already. (hope they never do ) 

Churches (at least LDS) are crammed with people and the exits are not large... if something ever happened at one it would be horrific...


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

I don't go in any business that doesn't welcome my CCW, I vote with the pocketbook, on the same note even if I wanted to go to a LDS church I wouldn't because they posted it on the site. The less you support those places that doesn't welcome permit holders the more places will switch polices to be more CCP friendly.


----------



## redleg (Dec 5, 2007)

The first  time someone tries to prosecute. about 200 of us members should show up to voice disagreement.


----------



## fixed blade XC-3 (Sep 11, 2007)

FROGGER said:


> I honestly have been surprised someone has not done this already. (hope they never do )


You must not watch the news much. Did you hear about the church in colorado a little while ago?


----------



## Surfer Coyote (Jan 14, 2008)

A friend of mine is pretty sure of himself that if a public place does not permit you to carry your concealed firearm, then they are required by law to have a certain level of security to prevent such threats (ie. armed guards, metal detectors, etc.). I think he's full of it, but in a way it kind of makes sense. Seems to me that if someone is harmed or killed in a shooting in a place where they were not allowed to defend themselves, then they should be able to sue that place for not providing enough security to thwart such a threat.


----------



## redleg (Dec 5, 2007)

2 women in Utah have been shot when arriving at church. I believe the one in Lehi last winter had a restraining order against her estranged husband. He knew no one would be armed at the chapel, so that is where he chose to murder her.


----------



## FROGGER (Oct 1, 2007)

fixed blade said:


> FROGGER said:
> 
> 
> > I honestly have been surprised someone has not done this already. (hope they never do )
> ...


I was speaking directly about LDS churches here in Utah and large scale attacks... I know there have been shooting at churches but in all they seem less common...


----------



## tapehoser (Sep 10, 2007)

Surfer Coyote said:


> A friend of mine is pretty sure of himself that if a public place does not permit you to carry your concealed firearm, then they are required by law to have a certain level of security to prevent such threats (ie. armed guards, metal detectors, etc.). I think he's full of it, but in a way it kind of makes sense. Seems to me that if someone is harmed or killed in a shooting in a place where they were not allowed to defend themselves, then they should be able to sue that place for not providing enough security to thwart such a threat.


You are right, your friend is full of it. But you are also on the right track about liability. It's a hard thing for companies to learn, but if it's gotta be the hard way, so be it!


----------



## redleg (Dec 5, 2007)

Intermountain Health Care is like that. the security guards aren't even allowed to carry large flashlights. (wouldn't be safe). And they have already had a nurse shot in the emergency room at Alta View. I think IHC is waiting to be sued by the family of someone who gets killed, who was unarmed because of their policy.


----------



## woollybugger (Oct 13, 2007)

When I was a kid back on the 80's, there was an incident at our church. One sunday an obviously disturbed individual went to the pulpit with a 'package' of some sort in his hand, and I didn't see it, but I recall people saying that he had a gun tucked into his waist. The man pushed the person at the pulpit aside and started angrily talking nonsense. My neighbor, a former green beret among other things, was sitting in the stand (he was the ward clerk at the time) very proptly took the guy down and escorted him from the building to the police that arrived very soon. The stunned audience just remained silent until the whole thing was over. It didn't make the news, and nobody really talked about it (at least not to me, I think I was only about 10 years old)

The point is that stuff really does happen, even in churches. Not every church has a former green beret sitting in the exact optimal spot to take out a crazy person if needed. 

Churches are private property and private property includes their own rights (even banning weapons). I don't know where the balance lies, but I'd rather have a gun and not need it that need a gun and not have it.


----------



## James (Oct 7, 2007)

"The Church" also sent out a letter some time back that addressed this issue and informed members of the ploicy. I don't think you can get a pass just because there is no sign on the door.


----------



## pullyourowntrigger (Aug 22, 2008)

Peter carried a sword and Jesus was cool with him. What's the difference?


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

Surfer Coyote said:


> A friend of mine is pretty sure of himself that if a public place does not permit you to carry your concealed firearm, then they are required by law to have a certain level of security to prevent such threats (ie. armed guards, metal detectors, etc.). I think he's full of it, but in a way it kind of makes sense. Seems to me that if someone is harmed or killed in a shooting in a place where they were not allowed to defend themselves, then they should be able to sue that place for not providing enough security to thwart such a threat.


I just took the CFP class last night and this is exactly what the instructor indicated, not that he is an attorney, but for liability purposes he said that they must do this to actually enforce the rule/policy otherwise it reverts to a simple don't ask/don't tell policy. Fact of the matter being, no one should know that you are packing unless there is a large incident in which all were grateful that you did have it. Again, simply this was his understanding, not an attorney's professional opinion.


----------



## FROGGER (Oct 1, 2007)

I would like to see the outcome of a lawsuit regarding this. I cant imagine the issues this would cause if there were armed guards in front of churches.. 


I am looking for links but the BCI website has change and many many of their links are not working right now. As i remember reading IF a church contacted the BCI and let them know of their intentions to prohibit guns then they did not have to post... I will find this and post it here...I cant imagine them having to provide security..


----------



## apollosmith (Jun 29, 2008)

FROGGER said:


> As i remember reading IF a church contacted the BCI and let them know of their intentions to prohibit guns then they did not have to post.


http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE76/htm/76_10_053000.htm indicates that they can inform you of their intention to prohibit guns in many ways - personal communication, posting of signs, announcement in meetings, church publication, or a county publication. The last 3 items have to be re-posted every year.

Here's the situation - the church has not published a notice or announced the prohibition in church meetings in several years. Does that mean you can carry there? Probably not. If you know the church's intention is to prohibit firearms, you'd probably have a tough time justifying your actions.

Now here's the kicker - it is at most an infraction if you are caught AND if it is reported to the authorities AND if you are prosecuted. But you can't lose your permit for only one infraction. In short, you'd have to be caught twice carrying at church before anything serious MIGHT happen.

I just pray a shootout doesn't happen or the church may very well be held liable for disarming the churchgoers.

So we're commanded to be protectors (read the Proclamation on the Family - it's one of only two roles assigned specifically to men) and we're also told not to carry at church. Consider Adam and Eve who were given two seemingly conflicting commandments - have kids and don't eat the fruit. They had to violate one law in order to fulfill the other. Choose wisely.


----------



## JimmyPage (Aug 7, 2008)

Business and the LDS church are not required to post anything. It's on the BCI website and YOU as a CCP holder are responsible to educate yourself on where you can and cannot carry. They can and will ask you to leave. If you refuse you will be charged with trespassing.


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

Once upon a time, about five years back, I was sitting in a priesthood meeting when a guy about twenty five years old got upset with the instructor and started going nuts. He started to verbally attack the instructor and then things got physical. The bishop was summons to the room and proceeded to put a full nelson on the guy out of control. The Bishop is a full time AF police officer and he was packing that day under his suit coat, because we all seen his gun and everyone there was glad that he was carrying his service weapon. 

My question is: Are off duty officers required to pack? And if so, can they be restricted from packing in churches and schools while off duty?

Bigbr


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

This issue keeps coming up and it confuses me. The law is clear, yet there seem to be many who are looking for loopholes when maybe it really isn't an issue of temporal law at all. Isn't there sufficient "authority" in the general authority who posted the notification?

Put another way, isn't it true that for a priesthood holder, the legal consequences of carrying in church would be the least of his worries...whether he was discovered or not?


----------



## apollosmith (Jun 29, 2008)

bigbr said:


> My question is: Are off duty officers required to pack? And if so, can they be restricted from packing in churches and schools while off duty?


The law allows law enforcement officers to carry pretty much anywhere, whether they are on duty or not. I'm trying to remember, but I think the original statement read in LDS churches indicated that they law enforcement was allowed to carry, but asked for consideration and courtesy when doing so.

Of note, if you ever have an apostle or member of the first presidency come to your church for meetings, I can guarantee you there are at least a couple armed body guards or local law enforcement in the audience. In fact, at a recent temple open house there were armed (and by that I mean HEAVILY armed) security guards and LEOs in the temple the entire time.


----------



## redleg (Dec 5, 2007)

Can anyone think of a shooting at an LDS church before the church leadership made this policy? I know there have been a few since. That demonstrates how gun control increases crime.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

bigbr said:


> Once upon a time, about five years back, I was sitting in a priesthood meeting when a guy about twenty five years old got upset with the instructor and started going nuts. He started to verbally attack the instructor and then things got physical. The bishop was summons to the room and proceeded to put a full nelson on the guy out of control. The Bishop is a full time AF police officer and he was packing that day under his suit coat, because we all seen his gun and everyone there was glad that he was carrying his service weapon.


WOW _(O)_ What was the topic? Fighting is not allowed in church and he disagreed?


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

[quote="Huge29 WOW _(O)_ What was the topic? Fighting is not allowed in church and he disagreed?[/quote]

The details are a little fuzzy, but as I recall, it had something do with the prior weeks lesson, and I can't remember what the topic was... The Elders quorum president kind of chided the guy on and then the teacher made a joke that had the whole class laughing at the guy in question. Our Elders quorum president was a guy about the size of Danny Davito (school teacher with no common sense) and Shirley Temple could have cleaned his clock The Elders quorum president was the one who ran out of the room and grabbed the bishop.

Turns out the guy was bipolar and off his meds. Quite a humbling experience dealing with this situation. You never really know who your neighbors are or what may trigger someone to the point of egression.

Bigbr


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

Man! Why doesn't stuff like that ever happen at my church? :lol:


----------

