Utah's top catholic leader and governor say na to no permit

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Catholics are not pro-gun and the Mormons won't let you carry in their church buildings. It is the reason I have faith in God, not religions or government.

Currently it is legal to open carry "unloaded" in Utah without a permit. What this means is that you can have ammo in the gun but it requires two actions to fire-
Semi-Auto: Rack the slide and pull the trigger.
Revolver: Pull the trigger twice.

This law would make it legal to carry concealed under the same rules.

Kind of silly really, especially when you still have to deal with school zones. Due to the federal laws, you cannot carry a gun into a school zone. In Utah if you have a permit then it is allowed.

Catholics aren't progun? I just got done serving as an alter boy for Lenton Friday night devotions while carrying... At Sunday Mass there's at least four or more of us who carry.

And there's only a couple of our priests who don't enjoy shooting.


Explain to me the Cristeros... Pretty sure they all had a gun in one hand an a Rosery in the other.

We are Catholics not Quakers. We carry guns not oatmeal!

The problem is Vatican II. That gutted the Church. So now the Pope's can't even agree on homosexuality or Purgatory.

But the true believers who still say "Holy Ghost" and not "Holy Spirit", still don't eat meat on Friday year round, and go to Mass where the priest has his back to the people and says every prayer in Latin believe in the 2nd Amendment!

What happened in Mexico can and will happen in America!

In God and Glock we Trust
 
People could still get a Utah CFP and carry red even in school zones with the exception of private property that is posted "No Firearms". Trolley Square Mall is a perfect example of one of these locations.

"No Firearms" signs carry no weight of law in Utah, with the exception of houses of worship, private _homes_, and a couple other places I don't remember off the top of my head. They are completely pointless on publicly-accessible private property such as stores, malls, etc.

Now, if you're asked to leave by someone with authority to do so such as a mall security guard or management, you must leave or you'll get a ticket for trespassing. On-duty LEO's aren't allowed to ask you to leave on behalf of the management although it happens.

I won't frequent any business with a "No Firearms" sign unless I don't have a whole lot of choice. It helps that I hate malls and movie theaters, which are the most common places that have them posted.

Matt
 
Sounds to me like media just trolling for some negative news. I cannot imagine that Catholics are all that common in Utah, especially as compared, say, to another denomination.

I'm sure that did an awful lot to help the Catholics in Utah also?
I'm not a student of theology, but I think it is time for Christians to begin to understand the Left could really care less about their opinions unless they favor the Left, even if those opinons go directly against Church doctrine, i.e. Abortion.
I could write something about having a cloak and not having a sword, but I would be preaching to the Choir here.
The Coffee is brewing, who else is going to wake up and smell it?
 
PABLOJ - "That goes well along with 'Thou shall not kill'."

The original Commandment is "Thou shall not murder ," according to a good friend of mine who is Jewish, plus has a PhD. in Linguistics from UCLA.

There was and is a distinct difference between "murder" and "justified killing."

L.W.
 
sonick808 said:
constitutional carry had NO effect on AZ. UT really should have studied harder.
Yep. The Senate passed it but the Governor is the one being ignorant.

Hopefully we still have enough votes to override the veto.

Takem406 said:
Catholics aren't progun?
I should have phrased my original quote better. It is the leadership of both churches that do not come across as pro-gun due to some of the policies that I have read.

There are many people in their congregations that are pro-gun and that I can appreciate. :)
 
no no no. don't rewrite history based on "a friend."

Christians went to the Colosseum (how briefly it was used for death) because they wouldn't fight in the Roman army because Jesus taught NO killing. That was written by the world's leading Roman historian, Edward Gibbon quite a few years ago (The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire)
 
Utah's top Catholic leader also said it was a bad idea as it created an environment of deadly force as acceptable, antithetical to Christianity.

Who gives a flying flip what Utah's top Catholic leader, or any other religious leader for that matter, has to say about the laws that govern our society? They don't get to make the rules for everybody else. That's kind of why a lot of people came to this country in the first place. People talk about "freedom of religion" but for the founding fathers it was more like "freedom from religion". The church governed every aspect of their lives and they were sick of it.

Now, I'm not an atheist or anything. I attend church regularly but if they started trying to limit my freedom and horn in on secular matters, what I would tell them would definitely not be fit to repeat on THR. They are there for spiritual guidance, nothing more.
 
Well...

Okay I'm sure I will catch a lot of flak here for this, but to be honest I was kind of lukewarm on the idea to begin with.

My reasoning:
- Non-permit holders can already open carry in Utah without one in the pipe.
- Utah is a "shall issue" state and obtaining a permit is relatively painless. I got mine in less than two months.
- Concealed Carry classes contain a lot of great information such as firearms safety, stand your ground laws, and where and where not you can carry in Utah. I understand many responsible citizens will take the time to educate themselves on there own, but many won't. I believe the permit process is valuable at ensuring people that choose to carry are responsible and informed.

On the other hand, I think the legislation that bars police from charging open carriers with disorderly conduct is step in the right direction and i support it fully.

::ducks::
 
It has been publicly released by the LDS church that ALL of their meeting houses are gun free zones.

I'm willing to bet that this has more to do with liability insurance rather than just being anti.

Of course, this hasn't stopped shootings on temple grounds or ward house parking lots. (duh)

Nor will it ever. Free agency is not retracted because of policy dictating that temples or meeting houses be gun free. I guess this is one policy that I will be ignoring while I attend worship services.
 
EHL said:
I'm willing to bet that this has more to do with liability insurance rather than just being anti.
That is pretty bogus if that is the true reason. Maybe they don't know about the lady who was brutally attacked in her church in Illinois and is suing the state because they won't allow her to carry.

I am not a sue happy person but I have always told my wife, that if I am injured or killed because of a law that prevents me from protecting myself, to call the best lawyer she can find,
 
There are Catholics in Utah, and they may oppose carry, but all they have to do to ban carry in their churches is post them on the BCI website, and they haven't done it.

I really don't know what Herbert was thinking. He thinks he will look bad if he approves the measure, but if his veto is overridden, does ht think that will make him look GOOD?!

I don't know how thrilled I was about the measure in the first place. They changed it, specifically because it was rumored that Herbert wouldn't sign it if it was straight Constitutional Carry. So they changed it to unloaded concealed carry, and he didn't sign it anyway. What was the point of changing it? In changing it to unloaded carry, it was a compromise that would have put us in between permitted carry and Constitutional carry, and I don't know if it would have been a step in the right direction or a dead end compromise, in that they have already given some, and wouldn't feel like they need to give any more.

I SAY, if they have a veto-proof vote on it, WHY CHANGE IT IN THE FIRST PLACE?
 
EHL said:"Really??? I've been carrying for years while church services are going on and I've never been told anything nor have I ever seen anything written that states that this is the official policy. Where did you get this information from?"

It's in the LDS Church's 'Handbook 2: Administering the Church'. Section 21.2.4 reads:

Firearms

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.


I'm also LDS (not in Utah), & regularly carried at church, but have not done so since I read this in the manual a year or so ago. Our buildings here in WA aren't posted, so I don't think it would be a legal issue here, just Church policy.....frankly, I'm a little disapointed by the decision, just doesn't make any sense other than possibly being being PC.
 
It's a guideline, not a hard rule. The reason I don't carry is that it's illegal. If I lived in a state where it was legal, I would.
Same here. Just remember that the parking lot and outside areas of the church property are not covered by the policy or the law.

Biggest irritation for me is that it makes it really hard to teach Rifle or Shotgun merit badge courses at Merit badge pow-wow's held in church buildings. :banghead:

Matt
 
I believe there is fine print that allows the building's custodian to make an exception for approved activities. I am able to teach a concealed carry class without having any actual guns on-premises.

It makes me scratch my head over where I would rather live: Arizona, where I CAN carry to church but I CAN'T carry to pick my kids up from school, or UT, where it's the opposite. (I have no plans to move anytime soon.)
 
I believe there is fine print that allows the building's custodian to make an exception for approved activities. I am able to teach a concealed carry class without having any actual guns on-premises.

It makes me scratch my head over where I would rather live: Arizona, where I CAN carry to church but I CAN'T carry to pick my kids up from school, or UT, where it's the opposite. (I have no plans to move anytime soon.)

It's the Agent Bishop for the particular building that can grant exceptions, but from what I've been told when asking is that it gets very complicated with minors involved with real guns. I also know that my Bishop isn't that thrilled that firearms have anything to do with scouting in the first place. :confused:

Matt
 
I'm not even Catholic, and I know he's going against the Catechism of the Catholic Church to some extent here.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

Legitimate defense

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.66

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67

2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68
 
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.

What a load of crock! I'm as faithfull as the next guy, maybe more so, but until free agency is suspended and the Son of Man, Himself, reigns among us, I WILL continue to carry a firearm to protect my family. If the above bologna was actually true about churches being "havens from the cares and concerns of the world" then I'd like to see the General Authorities stop using armed security to really demonstrate this truth to us. Once again, I believe this has more to do with insurance and liability than anything else.
 
Last edited:
"If the above bologna was actually true about churches being "havens from the cares and concerns of the world" then I'd like to see the General Authorities stop using armed security to really demonstrate this truth to us."

I couldn't agree more.....afterall, it wasn't much of a 'haven' when Bishop Sannar was shot a killed after sacrament meeting in Visalia, CA a couple of years ago http://www.deseretnews.com/article/...n-California-chapel-gunman-killed.html?pg=all
The Bishop was actually shot in the foot whilst in his office, then dragged out to the foyer for the coup de gras.....how long would that have taken?!, if there had been even one concealed handgun-carrying member in the building there would most likely have been enough time to intercede in his behalf.
Just thinking about that incident again makes me think I'm going to start carrying at church again (it's not illegal in this state), afterall no-one knew I was doing it before, apart from my wife, so who's going to be any the wiser?
 
Utah's top Catholic leader also said it was a bad idea as it created an environment of deadly force as acceptable, antithetical to Christianity.

That 'Catholic leader' is full of sh*t.

I am Catholic and our theology says self defense is not only acceptable but is necessary. As per the VATICAN:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

"Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm."

'The prohibition of murder does not abrogate the right to render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. Legitimate defense is a grave duty for whoever is responsible for the lives of others or the common good. "

So you see this 'Catholic leader' is FLAT WRONG. If you have the right to defend yourself then you have the right to the MEANS to defend yourself. I.E. arms such as guns.

Deaf
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top