HB334 - CCW in place of worship

The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Rating - 100%
    41   0   0
    Jun 24, 2009
    2,839
    63
    Pineville/Alexandria
    I am in no way opposed to any citizen exercising his or her Second Amendment rights to protect themselves, their family or other innocent persons.
    As a life long Louisiana resident, conservative Christian and Second Amendment supporter with a background in law enforcement and firearms training, I strongly
    OPPOSE bill 334 AS IT IS CURRENTLY PROPOSED for the following reason:

    Church leaders, just as business owners, should have input into who carries in their facilities. If your leader says "no" and you don't like it, find another church, just like if a business (or individual) requests no firearms on their premises I go somewhere else.
    My reasoning is this - many churches have security teams. The better teams practice regularly as a team and know who is carrying and how they are trained to react.
    If a shooting occurs in one of these churches and a person unknown to the team members draws and/or fires a weapon, that person WILL be assumed to be a part of the threat and will be shot.
    If the CHP holder has to have permission of the church leader, then at least the security team can be informed that the person is carrying and act accordingly during a shooting.
    Ed
     

    JBP55

    La. CHP Instructor #409
    Premium Member
    Rating - 100%
    338   0   0
    Apr 15, 2008
    16,999
    113
    Walker
    I am in no way opposed to any citizen exercising his or her Second Amendment rights to protect themselves, their family or other innocent persons.
    As a life long Louisiana resident, conservative Christian and Second Amendment supporter with a background in law enforcement and firearms training, I strongly
    OPPOSE bill 334 AS IT IS CURRENTLY PROPOSED for the following reason:

    Church leaders, just as business owners, should have input into who carries in their facilities. If your leader says "no" and you don't like it, find another church, just like if a business (or individual) requests no firearms on their premises I go somewhere else.
    My reasoning is this - many churches have security teams. The better teams practice regularly as a team and know who is carrying and how they are trained to react.
    If a shooting occurs in one of these churches and a person unknown to the team members draws and/or fires a weapon, that person WILL be assumed to be a part of the threat and will be shot.
    If the CHP holder has to have permission of the church leader, then at least the security team can be informed that the person is carrying and act accordingly during a shooting.
    Ed

    I Concur.
     

    Cheesy Lasagna

    Sooooo Cheesy!
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Rating - 100%
    54   0   0
    Aug 20, 2011
    1,848
    63
    Kennah!
    A
    I am in no way opposed to any citizen exercising his or her Second Amendment rights to protect themselves, their family or other innocent persons.
    As a life long Louisiana resident, conservative Christian and Second Amendment supporter with a background in law enforcement and firearms training, I strongly
    OPPOSE bill 334 AS IT IS CURRENTLY PROPOSED for the following reason:

    Church leaders, just as business owners, should have input into who carries in their facilities. If your leader says "no" and you don't like it, find another church, just like if a business (or individual) requests no firearms on their premises I go somewhere else.
    My reasoning is this - many churches have security teams. The better teams practice regularly as a team and know who is carrying and how they are trained to react.
    If a shooting occurs in one of these churches and a person unknown to the team members draws and/or fires a weapon, that person WILL be assumed to be a part of the threat and will be shot.
    If the CHP holder has to have permission of the church leader, then at least the security team can be informed that the person is carrying and act accordingly during a shooting.
    Ed

    Seems reasonable enough to me.
     

    Tboy

    Moving forward
    Rating - 100%
    87   0   0
    Jul 14, 2008
    1,636
    48
    Greenwell Springs
    I’ve been following this one and a couple others.

    From what I’ve read, I don’t think the current proposal removes a churches right to reject CC. Only that it removes the mandate of having to ask/receive permission from the authorities over said religious institution. Just like anywhere else you’d go.

    The proposed law and digests.
    https://legis.la.gov/legis/BillInfo.aspx?s=20RS&b=HB334&sbi=y
     

    El Pozzinator

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jul 29, 2012
    222
    18
    Denham springs LA
    Also concur. I’m all about having more good guys in a gunfight but I definitely would want to know who and where they are. Fog of war is a real consideration, and the last thing the left needs is ammo (pun intended) against any CCW if, god forbid, said fog results in a good guy catching one in the side of the noggin while they were just trying to help.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

    RaleighReloader

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    33   0   0
    Jan 30, 2015
    1,177
    48
    Baton Rouge, LA
    A private property owner can still prevent a person from carrying onto a church property. I believe HB334 only removes the requirement that the person receive explicit permission to carry.

    In other words: the church can post "no guns" signs on the door and/or turn people away that are carrying. Those that are "approved" by the church leadership to carry can still do so with the church's permission.

    I see absolutely nothing wrong with this bill. We don't need the nanny state carefully meting out constitutional rights.

    Mike
     

    mike84z28

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    19   0   0
    Aug 13, 2012
    1,158
    38
    Kenner
    So explain to me how that differs from any other place of gathering or business ? If you make the choice to remove your firearm from its holster you could be considered a threat almost anywhere IMO. Part of the choice of fight or flight I would think. That and I would be very interested to know how many places of worship actually have security teams that are "well" trained.
     

    DAVE_M

    _________
    Rating - 100%
    32   0   0
    Apr 17, 2009
    8,288
    36
    ________
    If you make the choice to remove your firearm from its holster you could be considered a threat almost anywhere IMO.

    Assuming the church has a security team, which is actually a thing, you have a greater risk of having a gun pointed at you than you would in other businesses that do not have armed security. What I wouldn't want is a church security team that lacks adequate training pointing a gun at me and shooting me without either of us being able to identify each other. I can think of a few larger churches that have a security team as well as some that hire armed security. Church shootings are becoming relatively frequent, so it's foolish to think people are not carrying in a church.
     

    DAVE_M

    _________
    Rating - 100%
    32   0   0
    Apr 17, 2009
    8,288
    36
    ________
    Some even without permission :eek5:

    *gasp*

    You mean people break the law?

    notsurprisedkirk.jpg
     

    RaleighReloader

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    33   0   0
    Jan 30, 2015
    1,177
    48
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Assuming the church has a security team, which is actually a thing, you have a greater risk of having a gun pointed at you than you would in other businesses that do not have armed security. What I wouldn't want is a church security team that lacks adequate training pointing a gun at me and shooting me without either of us being able to identify each other. I can think of a few larger churches that have a security team as well as some that hire armed security. Church shootings are becoming relatively frequent, so it's foolish to think people are not carrying in a church.

    Part of being a responsible citizen is having situational awareness about where you're carrying. That would, IMHO, include knowing whether your church has an organized (and armed) security team or not. That may influence your decision on whether or not to carry, and whether or not to draw in a particular situation.

    It's a complicated decision, no doubt ... but it's a decision that we do *not* need the government making for us.

    Mike
     

    lane

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 19, 2017
    54
    6
    zachary, la.
    Part of being a responsible citizen is having situational awareness about where you're carrying. That would, IMHO, include knowing whether your church has an organized (and armed) security team or not. That may influence your decision on whether or not to carry, and whether or not to draw in a particular situation.

    It's a complicated decision, no doubt ... but it's a decision that we do *not* need the government making for us.

    Mike

    ^^^Exactly^^^
     

    Armbruster Armory

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    13   0   0
    Dec 7, 2012
    204
    16
    Lafayette
    If I know my church has a trained security team and I am not part of that team, I likely would not carry, knowing I and the rest of the congregation are protected by capable personnel. If I attend a church without a security team, I like that this bill will allow me to protect myself and my family, without need to seek written permission, rather than be sitting ducks.
     

    Emperor

    Seriously Misunderstood!
    Rating - 100%
    11   0   0
    Mar 7, 2011
    8,376
    113
    Nether region
    So what happened to all of the Pro-gun Bills yesterday in committee? They all were considered!

    HB's 746, 781, 140, & 334

    Anyone know?
     

    Slalom.45

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 10, 2013
    334
    18
    Lafayette, LA
    Here is my take if "I am carrying in church, am not part of the security team, and know that a team is present".

    The team members have taken on the responsibility of moving to the fight and responding as needed. As an individual I am not. If the issue is not close and involving me or my family my gun stays in the holster and I let them handle it. If the guy in the pew immediately in front of me pulls an AR pistol out of his coat I will handle it and hopefully the team members have the discernment to figure out what's going down.

    I feel the same way in public with police and other concealed carry permit holders. This issue of good guy on good guy is brought up all the time. I have heard the argument even from anti gunners saying it would be chaos due to all the concealed guns. Much like Corona it has been way overplayed. (IMHO of course)
     

    DAVE_M

    _________
    Rating - 100%
    32   0   0
    Apr 17, 2009
    8,288
    36
    ________
    Part of being a responsible citizen is having situational awareness about where you're carrying. That would, IMHO, include knowing whether your church has an organized (and armed) security team or not. That may influence your decision on whether or not to carry, and whether or not to draw in a particular situation.

    It's a complicated decision, no doubt ... but it's a decision that we do *not* need the government making for us.

    Mike

    Most concealed carriers don’t seek training beyond the state mandated course. I don’t expect them to use critical thinking and make a logical choice.
     

    RaleighReloader

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    33   0   0
    Jan 30, 2015
    1,177
    48
    Baton Rouge, LA
    This article demonstrates something I've long known: that some of the world's dumbest people also happen to have a law degree.

    https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_r...cle_9ddf744e-983b-11ea-8dcb-db31281ac079.html

    A careful reading of the bill and the laws that it affects reveal the author of this article to be about as ill-informed as one could possibly be.

    Most importantly: nothing in this bill removes the legal right of a church (or the owner / manager of any private property) to limit conceal carry. That has always been their prerogative, as it is for any private property owner. So, if churches want to ban conceal carry, then ban away. That's entirely within the purview of the law.

    (here's the exact verbiage that remains unchanged: "The provisions of ... this Section shall not limit the right of a property owner, lessee, or other lawful custodian to prohibit or restrict access of those persons possessing a concealed handgun pursuant to a permit issued under this Section.")

    What this legislation actually does is to remove the administrative burden of having churches "authorize" people who are already licensed by the state to conceal carry. It also removes a ridiculous clause stipulating that the conceal handgun permittees get 8 hours of extra training *if* the governing religious entity requires it. And again: since churches are private property, they can impose these requirements if they want to. This is hardly something that we need codified in law, and especially at the state level.

    Before people start hyperventilating about fog of war and all that nonsense, I have to ask: what is different about an active shooter situation in a church versus a store or a house or in any other location? If we're going to start carving out stricter legal requirements for one place, then we're going to hand the Democrats a legislative hammer in every other place. To wit: those in a shopping mall need 8 extra hours of magical shopping mall training. Those carrying in their private home need 8 extra hours of magical home training. Etcetera.

    AND - we have several examples now of church shootings that were dealt with by lawfully armed citizens. None of the pandemonium that gets bloviated about has happened, and we don't have blood running in the streets because some people happen to lawfully put a pistol on after they put their pants on.

    So, if you're going to oppose this legislation, make sure you actually understand what is being legislated. And if you're going to oppose it, think carefully about what you're handing to the people that would love to shred the second amendment.

    Mike
     
    Last edited:

    Staff online

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    195,221
    Messages
    1,546,080
    Members
    29,168
    Latest member
    Lyle.lejeune2017
    Top Bottom