Church carry

Discussion in 'Places Off-Limits' started by johnpeace, Mar 19, 2005.

  1. johnpeace

    johnpeace New Member

    96
    0
    0
    Saw this blog entry and it got me thinking:
    http://www.lonsberry.com/writings.cfm?story=1615&go=4

    The ruthlessness with which the left demands that anything 'religious' not interfere or participate in governmental affairs...if we put that shoe on the other foot, we have a state that must leave churches alone.

    Does the state have the right to force churchgoers to disarm?
     
  2. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,081
    253
    83
    Good article.

    Jesus did not mention guns. Not even once.

    He did, however, mention swords! And not just in the context of living and dying by the sword. A less often quoted mention occurred at the Last Supper. Please turn with me now to Luke, Chapter 22, and read along.

    35 And He said to them, "When I sent you out without money belt and bag and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?" [Malum's note: This is obviously a reference to sending the 70 disciples out in Luke 10, where the implication is that these matters would be taken care of supernaturally. Read it, too, for context, especially v.4.] They said, "No, nothing."

    36 And He said to them, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one. [emphasis is mine]

    37 "For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, 'AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS'; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment."

    38 They said, "Lord, look, here are two swords." And He said to them, "It is enough."

    I left the last verse in for context. Some say that the statement of "It is enough" is one of impatience that yet again the apostles failed to understand his true message, which had nothing to do with a sword at all. Of course, these same people do not argue that Jesus really didn't want the apostles to bring along a bag and money belt and coat! Somehow, they have no problem believing that these less offensive items were intended literally. Paul, of course, later laments from his cold Roman prison that he has left his coat with a Christian brother, Carpus, hundreds of miles away in Troas, and, in his first letter to young Timothy, asks Timothy to bring the coat to him when he journeys to Rome to visit the apostle in his Roman dungeon. See 2 Timothy 4:13. This emphasizes the fact that a coat is pretty important. The only other items Paul requests are books and paper (for scripture study and writing, no doubt). A sword must be pretty important if a coat is to be sold to obtain one if necessary. The fact that two swords is enough for the group probably means that they were for defensive use, rather than offensive. The word, by the way, if translated literally from the Greek, means what most of you would recognize as a Greek short sword - suitable for easy carry.

    I, for one, do not believe that any verse of the Bible is meaningless, trite, or trivial. The reference to selling one's coat emphasizes that a sword was pretty important.

    Interesting that disciples were still armed after all those years with Jesus.
     

  3. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    24,122
    71
    48
    I don't know if the State governments have the power to regulate or ban the carrying of weapons in public places, or in private business establishments, or in churches. On one hand, you have private property rights and what those entities THINK will make them safer (disarmament), and on the other hand you have a right to keep and bear arms and a theory of what WE THINK will make those places safer for everybody (armed good guys, since we know the bad guys will ignore the law and carry where they want, when they want).

    But I am SURE that no level of government has, or should have, the power to force a church to tolerate behavior on church property that the church doctrine finds repugnant and offensive to their religious beliefs. So if a church is known to teach pacifism and "turn the other cheek" without also talking about self-reliance and the duty to fight the good fight for just and noble causes, that church is totally within their rights to ban anti-personnel weapons from their property, or even to make members of their congregation take a vow not to own such weapons at home. This is the Church's choice to adopt as their doctrine and each member's choice to accept or reject (like so many Episcopalians left that church when it ordained an openly-gay Bishop).

    The "free exercise of religion" clause is at least on equal footing with the Second Amendment, especially with regard to carrying small arms on a daily basis in public in times of peace.

    --Gunsmoker--
     
  4. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,081
    253
    83
    This is why eliminating "public gatherings" from the code is so important.

    A Colorado style law, allowing carry everywhere and forcing the legislators to list all in one place each and every specific location that is off limits would do wonders, I think.

    Keep in mind that this is the only place where churches are listed - public gatherings.

    I also think that in these days of muslim terrorist attacks, disarmed victims in a "Christian" church offer a rather tempting target to the muslim fanatic . . .
     
  5. GAGunOwner

    GAGunOwner Active Member

    Gun in parking lot okay?

    .
     
  6. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    I think caselaw says you cannot.