Bobby Jindal Signs 'Guns-In-Church' Bill Into Law

If you're like most Americans, there's probably been a time in your life when you've been sitting in church, listening to a particularly ennui-inducing homily or enduring another warbly version of "Holy Holy Holy" and thought, "Man! I could really reach for some steel right now, squeeze off a few rounds, and let these fools know what the score is!" Well, in Louisiana, Governor Bobby Jindal has recently signed into law a measure that would allow you to at least feel comforted by the presence of your gun in the house of the Lord. From the New Orleans Times-Picayune:

Gov. Bobby Jindal has signed into law one of the more controversial bills from the recent legislative session, one allowing guns to be carried into houses of worship.

[...]

[State Representative Henry] Burns' [R-Haughton] bill would authorize persons who qualified to carry concealed weapons having passed the training and background checks to bring them to churches, mosques, synagogues or other houses of worship as part of a security force.

I am only too sure that a law allowing mosque-goers to carry guns to service will not rile up Louisiana's paranoiacs at all!

Some restrictions apply. The "head of the religious institution" would have to "announce verbally or in weekly newsletters or bulletins that there will be individuals armed on the property as members of the security force," and those lucky individuals would have to receive "eight hours of tactical training each year."

So, why is all of this necessary? Basically, Representative Burns is concerned about a possible "First Sunday scenario":

Burns contended that religious institutions in crime-ridden or "declining neighborhoods" need the added protection to ward off thieves and muggers.

The Times-Picayune notes that the same law permitting houses of worship to gun up also allows them "hire off-duty police or security guards to protect congregants" which, on balance, would seem to be the saner option.

RELATED:
Jindal Signs 'Gun-In-Church' Bill, Allowing Congregants To Bring Concealed Weapons To Worship [ThinkProgress]

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to [e-mail] -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Comments

[rikilii]

08:43 PM on 07/16/2010

"Shall-issue" states that do not ban CC in churches: 30+

In-church homicides by licensed concealed-carrying congregants: 0*

Gun-control fanatics throwing a hissy fit when Louisiana finally (sort of) gets with the program: PRICELESS!

*I'm not aware of any, and I've asked a gazillion times for someone to identify one, so I assume the number is 0.

[barefoot2626]

11:29 PM on 07/16/2010

Hissy fit?

I think most people who want reasonable restrictions on firearms find it *amusing*- it shows exactly the mentality of the people who find the need to carry a gun everywhere they go, even to a House of God- way out there, fringe teabaggers.

I wish the LA churches my best when it comes time to buy insurance- when premiums go up a few thousand bucks a year, I know who they are going to blame.

[rikilii]

08:55 AM on 07/17/2010

>>"reasonable restrictions on firearms"

By definition, a restriction on one's freedom is not "reasonable" if there is no "reason" for it, i.e. it has no demonstrable positive effect. Decades of experience in other states clear show that to be the case, and despite there having been over a week for opponents to demonstrate the contrary, nothing has been provided.

All the arguments I've heard against removing this restriction are purely emotional.
I've just established that these emotional arguments are not reasonable, and are therefore unreasonable.
One very fitting definition of the phrase "hissy fit" is "An unreasonable emotional out burst." Very fitting indeed.

[Rooster Coburn]

01:43 PM on 07/17/2010

If the hissy fits, wear it!

[barefoot2626]

11:47 PM on 07/16/2010

> In-church homicides by licensed concealed-carrying congregants: 0*

Prove it.

[rikilii]

09:07 AM on 07/17/2010

I did. I invited you and your cohorts repeatedly over the past week to point to a single incident in the 30+ other states that permit CC in churches, and you fell flat on your faces. I also searched through Josh Sugarmann's "Concealed Carry Killers" document and found not a single incident that occurred in a church. In fact, the vast majority of those killings had nothing to do with the fact that the killer had a permit.

I'm not in the business of proving negatives. If you want to restrict my freedoms, you darn well better have a good reason for it, so the burden is on you to "prove it".

[JohnF Boulder Co]

11:37 PM on 07/17/2010

Actually, I can think of one: Dec '07 a nut come into a Colorado Springs church with mayhem and murder on his mind, and a lawful gun owners defends herself and everyone else.
Actually, she didn't kill him -he suicided after she engaged and wounded him.
A whining coward, as all such pubic mass shooters turn out to be. Every time one of them encounters armed countervailing force (EVERY TIME historically), they suicide or surrender, crying. They may intend to die, but they seek out disarmed victims and always are stopped ignominiously by any armed opposition.

We don't have and can't afford to have enough police to cover everywhere, and there's no reason to doubt that most people around us can be trusted (unless you're afraid that any one of us -your own family & friends-.will turn into a murdering fiend at any time, in which case, you need help)

[Sean Chen]

07:27 PM on 07/13/2010

All it really does is allow the pastor or minister to decide whether they want to allow their parishioners to be armed and protect the flock when it is gathered.

Nothing wrong with working on peace while armed. Police do it all the time.

Would our law enforcement be more effective if they tried to keep the peace without guns?

I'd rather have people from MY church armed and around me than have everyone together and unarmed. (won't happen where I live, better to have dead citizens than dead criminals in CA)

Do what you'd like at your church. Let the churches that choose to be armed, be armed.

[guffman]

08:45 PM on 07/13/2010

If your church is really worried about its "flock" they should dig into their considerable coffers and hire security. That way, should the bolt of lightning actually strike, you can spare the congregation a free-for-all. Provided. of course, that this is really about security, and not just about people wanting guns.

[JimInHouston]

08:01 AM on 07/14/2010

As many states allow armed parishioners, you will of course have multiple examples of such parishioners participating in "free-for-alls" with attackers both inside and outside churches.

[JohnF Boulder Co]

11:23 PM on 07/15/2010

And all churches have considerable coffers? They should trust rent-a-cops with their lives instead of each other?
Remember this one, and ask the next R-A-C you see what their corporate policy is.
http://pumabydesign001.wordpress.com/2010/02/14/15-year-old-girl-beaten-up-in-seattle-subway-transit-cops-just-watch/

And the fact that even uniformed police officers have no legal requirement to come to your aid even if they can.

You say with no proof at all, that among civilians it would be a free-for-all, and R-A-Cs would be brave selfless heroes, willing to risk themselves for strangers...

Never mind US DOJ facts that civilians who use guns in defense (many more times than there are wrongful deaths by guns) 90% of the time with no shots fired, and civilians who do so are less than 20% as likely as police to use them wrongly or cause undue harm.

Provided, of course, that this is about public safety instead of your unjustified and unproven fear of civilians who might choose to go armed (after their being vetted by law enforcement, even).

[Howard Porter]

10:21 PM on 07/11/2010

A fair question in this debate is What Would Jesus Do? I think I found some light on this in Jesus' words in Matthew 5:38-39: "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, tooth for tooth'. But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." I also found that instead of encouraging arming his people in self defense, Jesus did teach blessed are the peacemakers. Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather go to a church where people work on their peacemaking skills instead of one where worshipers are required by the state to be warned that there are concealed guns in their church and Sunday school.

[RevJimIII]

01:16 AM on 07/12/2010

http://www.lawandliberty.org/defense.htm

[Rooster Coburn]

05:38 PM on 07/12/2010

Luke 22:36
He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."

[barefoot2626]

10:56 PM on 07/14/2010

Let us know if you find the part where Jesus the Christ (praise be upon him) suggested it was okay to carry a sword into the temple.

[barefoot2626]

10:58 PM on 07/14/2010

Matthew 26:52 ('"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.'),

[oldguru]

12:23 PM on 07/10/2010

Just another reason not to go to church. There are more nutty people there as a percentage of the population, AND now they are ready for shootouts in the name of Jeeeesus. Lock the doors and keep them in there so the rest of us can get on with living like sane people.

[grossmont328]

12:56 PM on 07/10/2010

I guess in your world, carrying top notch tools to defend your life makes a person "nuts"--you might want to work on your definitions

[guffman]

01:31 PM on 07/10/2010

You misread the poster's comment. His contention, an accurate one, in my estimation, is that many church-goers are already nuts. His pursuant contention, also an accurate one, is that their desire to take their weapons to church defines them as being more nuts.

[oldguru]

02:51 PM on 07/10/2010

A church is not a place that any sane person expects to need to defend one's life. If it weren't for the right wing nut cases shooting up churches, we would not have to worry about safety in churches. The gun lobby that defends everyone's right to carry a gun are complicit in these sorry incidents. I choose to give those crazies a very wide berth.

[enlightened45]

02:00 PM on 07/10/2010

Guns and religion....thank god most fundamentalist churches don't serve any alcohol.....

[blinkthink]

01:41 AM on 07/12/2010

Isn't that the truth!

[wandaw99]

11:46 PM on 07/09/2010

A good reason for Jindal NOT to ever be president. He is not showing good judgement.

[Ralph Noyes]

11:49 PM on 07/09/2010

He jumped the shark on command for the Tea Party.

[grossmont328]

12:31 AM on 07/10/2010

Supporting the BOR is always good judgement

[guffman]

11:27 AM on 07/10/2010

Particularly when pandering to an uneducated right-wing base.

[Ralph Noyes]

11:39 PM on 07/09/2010

These are not real people. This is from The Onion.

People like this -- broad swathes of the country at that -- are complete i diots.

[enlightened45]

01:59 PM on 07/10/2010

Unfortunately for the country, these people are all too real....I wish they weren't, but.........you're correct on the last point......

[RevJimIII]

12:58 AM on 07/16/2010

Close your eyes real tight and repeat after me....

[ForAmericaAndRoosevelt]

08:54 PM on 07/09/2010

Funny, I thought violence in churches was usually caused by right-wingers?

[OdinsEye]

09:06 PM on 07/09/2010

So "left wingers" don't have a right to defend themselves?

[Dimensio]

09:08 PM on 07/09/2010

Even were your comment validated, of what relevance is it to the current discussion?

[Ralph Noyes]

12:27 AM on 07/10/2010

Right-wing fundamentalist g.un people ARE teh problem.

Are you one of them, and if not, what is your point?

[Duke Deltree]

07:23 PM on 07/09/2010

Mad men do not care about laws or gun permits. they are mad. If the quiet guy next door decides he's the sword... Well you might be sadly surprised. it's probably better if the decion to bear arms in church should be put past the decon or what have you

[Duke Deltree]

07:32 PM on 07/09/2010

Sorry for this a borrowed PC it skips and hops and seems to post when it wants to.
.Mad men do not care about laws or gun permits. they are mad. If the quiet guy next door decides he's the sword... Well you might be sadly surprised. It's probably better if the decision to bear arms in church should be put past the deacon or what have you. So he might be aware of who's packing iron

[OdinsEye]

07:39 PM on 07/09/2010

"It's probably better if the decision to bear arms in church should be put past the deacon or what have you. So he might be aware of who's packing iron "

That is what this law does.

[Tony581]

06:05 PM on 07/09/2010

If you needed a reason to avoid church on Sunday, you now have it!

[OdinsEye]

06:12 PM on 07/09/2010

Only if your church decides to allow people to carry firearms, designates who can carry, makes sure they have the extra armed security guard training in addition to the concealed carry training, and makes weekly announcements that there are armed security personnel present.

[johnr49]

07:06 PM on 07/09/2010

"Extra armed security training" - yeah, 8 hours a year BFD!

[Ohio9]

06:12 PM on 07/09/2010

If that's your reason, you had better avoid everywhere else too, since this new law only allows people to carry their guns in church the same way they already carry just about everywhere else.

Why you would think someone who carries their gun everywhere else without problems would suddenly become an issue in a church is a mystery to me.

[guffman]

06:52 PM on 07/09/2010

I'll let you know when I see people throwing themselves on the sidewalk and speaking in tongues, at which point we'll discuss it further.

[BlackTantalus]

07:33 PM on 07/09/2010

Gunslingers ARE the problem. Psychoanalysis is a more sophisticated solution to paranoid cowboy fantasies.

[GabrielC]

05:24 PM on 07/09/2010

Seriously, at what point did churches being held up turn into such an out of control problem that the congregation needs to be armed?

[Ohio9]

05:55 PM on 07/09/2010

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/10/colorado.shootings/index.html

It would be nice if criminals would always respect the sanctity of church, but they don't. It's life. Deal with it

[barefoot2626]

01:46 AM on 07/15/2010

Um... yeah, the sanctity of the church because all the parishioners are saints.

[HisXLNC]

05:57 PM on 07/09/2010

Churches don't exist in a vacuum. You usually have to travel to get to one. Violence can happen anywhere between home and church.

[barefoot2626]

09:36 PM on 07/15/2010

Violence is much more likely to happen in the home. The person with the gun will most likely be the husband; the body on the floor will be the wife.

[GabrielC]

05:23 PM on 07/09/2010

Has crime in churches during ceremonies gotten this bad? That is the only reason stated for this, in the article, and it doesn't really seem like a plausible argument. It would be like suggesting that you take your gun to the beach in order to ward off shark attacks. Way to feed the irrational fear Representative Burns.

[OdinsEye]

05:31 PM on 07/09/2010

Abortion doctor gunned down in church, shootings in two Colorado churches, stabbings, etc. While churches are relatively safe places, there are still violent crimes committed in churches/on church property.

And this law merely lifts the proveious state government ban on firearms on church property, it does not force the church to allow firearms. Further, if the church does decide to allow firearms, they have to designate the people to be allowed in person, those people have to have concealed carry trained AND armed security guard training, AND the church has to make weekly announcements that there is an armed security force on the property.

Many other states have no prohibition on carrying in churches and the church actually has to post their property as a no firearm zone.

[ForAmericaAndRoosevelt]

08:49 PM on 07/09/2010

Odd that those were specifically violent right-wing political attacks on liberal churches.

[barefoot2626]

01:57 AM on 07/15/2010

>> Abortion doctor gunned down in church

Yeah- gotta love them "pro lifers", but let's not pretend that having more guns in church would have help him, the killer was your average cowardly bushwacker.

[Ohio9]

05:56 PM on 07/09/2010

There is nothing irrational about it. Crimes can and do take place in churches. They are not the utopian fantasy you seem to think they are. People should have the right to protect themselves in churches just as they do everywhere else.

So far no evidence has been presented to show this law will cause problems. Do you have any?

[barefoot2626]

01:58 AM on 07/15/2010

Crimes occur in portapotties too. You probably want to hand the holster on the hook on the door, though.

[LibRule]

03:51 PM on 07/09/2010

Bought & paid for by the NRA....

[Dimensio]

03:58 PM on 07/09/2010

Please explain your statement.

[LibRule]

04:17 PM on 07/09/2010

Refers to the headline- Bobby Jindal signs 'Guns in Church' bill into law.

[LibRule]

04:20 PM on 07/09/2010

A survey of NRA members showed that the majority of the membership thinks this is not a good idea, even though the NRA itself was pushing it.

[Ohio9]

02:48 PM on 07/09/2010

'The Times-Picayune notes that the same law permitting houses of worship to gun up also allows them "hire off-duty police or security guards to protect congregants" which, on balance, would seem to be the saner option."

Both options are equally sane. Now granted the hiring of cops or professional guards might be the better option, but not the more practical one. Not every place of worship can afford to hire security professionals for every day. Simply allowing CCW holders to carry their lawful guns in church just as they do everywhere else solves that problem, as there is not cost issue to deal with.

[Fernando Augusto Schuh]

04:39 PM on 07/09/2010

I, for myself, think it's insane. What kind of paranoia makes you want to carry your gun to church? Being a foreigner, it strikes me as insane, paranoid and downright crazy all this gun-happy talk.

[Ohio9]

04:55 PM on 07/09/2010

Well maybe if you actually took some time to understand the other side, it would seem more sane. I'll try to explain it, but this is going to require an open mind.

There is nothing specifically dangerous about a Church. The reason I carry in churches (it's legal in my state) is the same reason I carry my legal gun everywhere else that allows it: Personal protection. It would be great if criminals would call in advance to let you know when they will strike, or if there was some place on earth where crime will never happen, but that's not how it works in the real world. As such, carrying everywhere is the best policy, because that way you are always prepared. My gun is as much a part of my everyday gear as my wallet, keys, and phone.

Carrying a gun can and does save lives, as evidenced by these many stories you have probably never heard about from your media. I hope you take the time to read them, as they can be real eye openers to those unfamiliar with the issue of armed self defense:

http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/

Furthermore, there have also been cases where CCW holders have saved lives in churches, such as this one:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/10/colorado.shootings/index.html

I hope this clears things up

[blinkthink]

06:00 PM on 07/09/2010

Many here agree with you, Fernando. So much civil agitation surrounding guns, fear mongering, hate and paranoia now pervades our society because a certain party is out of power. It brings out the barbaric fringe elements and the sheer anxiety has gun enthusiasts demanding to carry their guns everywhere.

[OdinsEye]

01:42 PM on 07/09/2010

Once again:

1. This laws DOES NOT FORCE a church to allow firearm on its property. All it does is give them the OPTION. Prior to this law, places of whoship were FORBIDDEN by state law from allowing firearms on thrie property.

2. To carry a firearm on church property, the person not only has to pass the state Concealed Carry course, but must be designated BY THE CHURCH and take an additional course given to armed security guards.

3. The church MUST ANNOUNCE that there are armed persons on the property.

[enlightened45]

02:47 PM on 07/09/2010

I'm joining one of those fundamentalist "firearms and brimstone" churches......Target practice before Sunday School, I hope....

[BlackTantalus]

07:59 PM on 07/09/2010

You know, don't you, that you just excited some gunslingers, since they tend to be Biblical literalists!

[mauigrrl]

09:51 PM on 07/09/2010

That was awesome!!! You truly are enlightened!!!

[Lab Sharpei]

01:42 PM on 07/09/2010

"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers at 184-8

[guffman]

02:09 PM on 07/09/2010

It's "hope". If you really think that copying and pasting 200-year-old quotes is an effective of validation for gun carry in churches, at least try to do it correctly.

[rikilii]

02:42 PM on 07/09/2010

You have a point about 200 year old documents, like quotes from the founding fathers, the Bill of Rights, etc., being totally irrelevant :\

I prefer to cite the complete lack of shootings in churches by legally concealed carrying congregants in other states that have never prohibited it, like PA, as evidence in support of this law.

The only part of the law I don't support is the requirement for extra training above and beyond what is required to carry concealed anywhere else. I don't see any reason why a church should be treated any differently than any other publicly accessible facility.

Funny that I've mentioned this nearly half a dozen times on this comment board, yet no one has addressed it.

[Lab Sharpei]

06:47 PM on 07/09/2010

You probably think the Constitution and Dec. of Independence is just some 200 + year old document not worth the paper it was written on...that's why the left continues to say it is a living document...let me give ya another quote...

Thomas Jefferson: "On every occasion...of Constitutional interpretation let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying to force what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, instead let us conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (June 12 1823, Letter to William Johnson)

Guffy, that means original intent...which the left does not like...