Arkansas CHL

Status
Not open for further replies.
Good Luck with Efforts

Good luck with efforts getting the church part taken out of the 'off limits' place when carrying in AR on a license. I go back home quite a bit to visit family and friends and would like to be legal when i carry at a church there.

I think the biggest reason these sorts of restrictions need to be taken off, in addition to crime happening anywhere, is guns are frequently stolen out of cars and then used to commit crime. It is kind of hard to steal a gun out of the church parking lot when it is being carried on someone's person. The legislature should be very concerned about firearms theft and realize guns concealed in a holster pose no harm to anyone and a holster is the safest place for a handgun...not a glovebox.
 
Has anyone contacted the Arkansas Rifle and Pistol Association. If not we need to. They have a web page. They are the umbrella group for gun clubs in the State.
 
ARCCA is an offshoot of the ARPA. ARCCA pretty much does the political action work now. Nonetheless, ARPA is aware of this and- I am sure- supports it.
 
Move over, Richard

Dick Armey is coming to town on Tuesday... but today the local news stations were all about the church carry bill which will be before the Judiciary Committee on the same day....

http://www.katv.com/news/stories/0109/590527.html
http://www.fox16.com/news/local/sto...llowing-concealed/cW92v1ym9kGjid4P3XXFzg.cspx
http://www.todaysthv.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=79456&catid=2

Typical slanted reporting. Inaccuracies such as references to "licensed gun owner" and "hidden guns." But big kudos to the majority of the commenters!
 
Watch Fox and Friends on the Fox News Channel at 6:20am Central time on Tuesday morning, Feb. 3rd to see their coverage of this bill. Grant Exton from ARCCA will be speaking for the good guys.
 
The House Judiciary Committee passed HB1237 with a "do pass." There was some debate, which I may fill you in on after I get some rest.KTHV, KATV, and FOX16 were all there- along with radio station KUAR.

This is a victory, but this is only step 1 of 5.
Step 2: This bill will be considered on the House floor. This is the time for ALL ARKANSANS to contact your state representative and urge the passage of this bill.

Go to http://www.arkansas.gov/house/reps.php to find your rep and get his or her contact information. Please reference HB1237.

Thank you all for your support.
Nathan
 
HB1237 was either "passed over" or "pulled down" today on the House floor. Exactly which procedure was followed is unclear in the information I am receiving- but either is not a bad thing yet. Please allow me to explain...

Yesterday in the House Judiciary Committee meeting, the primary objection to the bill as written was that churches which chose not to allow concealed carry would be required to post a sign to that effect at each entrance, as per Arkansas law pertaining to other private properties (with the exception of a dwelling place, of course).

Some asserted that the state would not have the right to require such a posting (see rant below)*. It was discussed that perhaps it might be more proper to remove this requirement for churches only and leave it up to the CHL holder to assertain whether or not he/she would be permitted to carry while on the property of each individual church or place of worship.

Apparently, the bill is to be ammended so as not to require churches to post the signs. The bill is still on the House calendar for tomorrow 2/5.

*Rant: How is the State overstepping its bounds by asking a church to post a sign (as per proposed bill), but not overstepping its bounds when it singles out churches and requires them to prohibit all concealed carry 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (as per current law)??!! We must have "No Smoking" signs, "Exit" signs, and the state tells us how many designated handicap parking spaces we must have... am I missing something here? Truly, I know I am not missing anything. I think this one point (signage) was all the opponents could find to oppose as a constitutional matter. All other opposition stems from emotionalism.
 
Still a long process ahead of us... but it is the same one every bill must go through before it becomes law.

The purpose of the re-referral is apparently to add an ammendment which would exclude churches from the requirement to post signs if they choose to prohibit concealed carry on their property. That was the main point of contention in the Judiciary Committee meeting on Tuesday. It is still expected to pass the house, especially with this ammendment.

I do have mixed feelings about such an ammendment and argued against it in my testimony before the committee. Two objections I have:
First, it would require each CHL holder to inquire of the status of the weapons policy for each church.
Second, it is inconsistent with previous applications of the Establishment Clause and would require the state to impose a different standard on churches than on other private property holders. In principle, that mindset is the root of the flaw in the current law. So, it is just a matter of principle.

The ammendment shoudl be available for viewing sometime tomorrow morning. I will reserve judgment until then.

Regardless, I will still support this bill because it is a step in teh right direction. Maybe a baby step, but a step nonetheless.
 
If Church at Rock Creek wants to disallow people from carrying, so be it. I don't even think there should be a sign that makes it illegal to carry...signs don't have weight of law in a lot of states. I will say that if i was in Little Rock, I would not attend Church at Rock Creek or put money in their offering plate if they didn't trust a fellow churchgoer with defending himself.
 
Sooo... I guess you saw my comments on channel 11 :)

edit: but I should also say that I am not sure if the Pastor's comments reflect the sentiment of the church as a whole.
 
I read the article on KTHV's website. A lot of people writing threads seemed pretty positive towards the state allowing people to carry in churches with a license. Why is it illegal for you to do so, if you are a pastor? I would assume that the church is your place of business? It should be legal with or without a license if you are a pastor, business manager, deacon, elder b/c those folks have a possessory or proprietary interest in the property....kind of like if you had your own counseling office.
 
That article is the transcript of a story which included an interview I did with KTHV's Mike Duncan after the committee meeting.
I referred directly to the Church at Rock Creek because the committee chairman thought it necessary to read aloud in the Committee meeting an e-mail which he had received from the Pastor of that church during a break in the meeting. It was out of order to do so, and an obvious attempt by the chairman to sway the committee.

I never took the time to give some details on the meeting. Other than the aforementioned debate over signage, there was little opposition to the bill in the committee. There was one pastor present who spoke against it. Four pastors present who spoke in favor of it. One additional pastor who was unable to make it sent someone to speak in his place in support of the bill. There was also a security director from a church who spoke in favor of it. And Grant from ARCCA was there to support it as well.

The final vote was an audible vote and I only detected one "nay"- from Rep. "Bubba" Powers.

The meeting went much longer than anticipated. I wonder if some of it was not intentional, but those of us who came expecting HB1237 to be the second item on the agenda (as it was listed that way) found our commitment tested when it turned out to be the LAST item dealt with that day- after waiting through several other items under consideration as well as a recess to accomodate an afternoon session of the House. Some who were there to speak in support of the bill were not able to stay long enough to do so, and there may have been some who oppose it who had to leave as well. Most of us were expecting to get out by 11 am but it lasted until almost 3pm.

The Committee chairman (and House Majority Leader) Rep. Steve Harrelson is not friendly towards this bill. I would not be surpised if he were gathering opposition. The sooner it clears the house, the better.
 
Last edited:
Ammendment filed

The ammendment has been filed. You can read it at http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/2009/R/Amendments/HB1237-H2.pdf but it simply says
"Amend House Bill No. 1237 as engrossed, H2/2/09 (version: 02-02-2009 09:10):
Page 3, delete lines 18 through 24"

Those lines, to be deleted from this HB1237 by this ammendment, would have been additions to the law as the bill was originally written. So, essentially the ammendment simply leaves these proposed lines out of the bill:

18 (E) A sign posted as authorized in this subdivision
19 (a)(18) at a place of worship does not prohibit a person or entity exercising
20 lawful control over the physical location of the place of worship, from
21 allowing a licensee to carry a concealed handgun into the place of worship.
22 (b) This section does not preclude a licensee or a person with a
23 license to carry a concealed handgun recognized by § 5-73-402 from carrying a
24 concealed handgun into the parking lot or parking area of a place of worship.

Basically, these lines addressed an issue that legally did not need to be addressed since private property owners already have the power to make that discretion. (So WHY are they debating concealed carry in churches in the first place?????!!!!!)

Anyway, the bill as now proposed makes ONE change to the current law- it removes Section 1 "Prohibited Places" (a) (16) "any church or otherplace of worship.

So, as I understand the bill as ammended, churches would be removed from the list of prohibited places, and those which wished to prohibit concealed carry would still be required to post a sign to that effect.

I call this an improvement.
 
Given a "do pass" by the Judiciary Committe as ammended. On the agenda for the House on Wednesday, Feb. 11.
 
Good news, yes. But...

This brings us to our next- and most imposing hurdle- the Senate Judiciary Committee. I do not believe it will get through this committee without some serious wrangling. And I do mean serious. I don't want to publicly "show our hand" on this- but suffice it to say that we have put the call out for some help from the Big Guns on the national scene- and I'm not talking about the NRA. More details will be available as things progress.

It seems like we have come through a big battle just to get where we are today- but the truth is that the largest hill to climb still lies ahead of us.

This is action time like never before. I will follow up soon with some action items (AKA: Strategery!)

Nathan
 
Welcome to phase 3. Here is the action plan.

Our next step is to get HB1237 through the Senate Judiciary Committee. This will likely not come easily. Hearing from you will make a difference, though. Listed below are the e-mail addresses of the Senate Judiciary Committee Members. Please be firm but respectful in your communications. The swing vote in this committee will likely be Senator Robert Thompson from District 11. His district covers Clay, Greene, and Craighead counties. Please, if you are one of his constituents, make a special effort to contact him. If you know someone from his district, please ask for their help.

To get this through committee this time, we will need to focus on rights rather than need. The Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment and the Equal Protection clause of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment are on our side. Please point out that if it is wrong to carry a gun into a church, it is wrong on the basis of moral and religious standards and as such, it is the right of the church to make that determination, NOT the State. Current law is a violation of church rights. They will listen to that better than “I need my gun to protect myself.” We have to make this a constitutional and personal property rights issue.

I hope you are all sitting down for this one. The ACLU has been contacted about this and it is possible that they will be on our side. Stranger things have happened, I suppose. But this is drawing national attention already and the ACLU likes attention. It would be nice to see them on the side of the good guys for a change.

Here are the Senate Judiciary committee members. Please remember the above information and reference HB1237. Enjoy!

Senator Ed Wilkinson. Greenwood, AR District 6 [email protected]
Senator Ruth Whitaker. Cedarville, AR District 3 [email protected]
Senator Henry Wilkins IV. Pine Bluff, AR District 5 [email protected]
Senator Jim Luker. Wynne, AR District 17 [email protected]
Senator Sue Madison. Fayetteville, AR District 7 [email protected]
Senator Jerry Taylor. Pine Bluff, AR District 23 [email protected]
Senator Robert Thompson. Paragould, AR District 11 [email protected]
Senator David Johnson. Little Rock, AR District 32
[email protected]

And for the ease of cutting and pasting:
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]


Please note that HB1237 is not on the Senate Judiciary Agenda yet, but it is not too early to get started.
 
HB1237, the “church carry bill,” will be reviewed by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, Feb. 25th at 10 am.
First- let me encourage those who are pastors, if at all possible, to be present for this meeting. I learned from the House Judiciary Committee meeting on this bill that our presence speaks much more loudly than our e-mails. We have almost succeeded in getting this through, but it probably will not happen without one very strong, final push. If there is any way possible, please plan to attend and let me know if you will be able to be there.
Our only hope of success is if we focus on HB1237 as the solution to a 1st Amendment Establishment Clause (so-called “separation of church and state”) issue. We need to be unified in this message: it is not the State’s place to single out churches and place a restriction on us because the State does not have the authority to decide moral issues for the church.
I will be getting more updates to you soon. Please let me know if you can attend this meeting.
Thank you,
Nathan Petty
 
Three swing votes to concentrate on before the Feb.25th Committee meeting:

Senator Robert Thompson. Paragould, AR District [email protected]
Senator Sue Madison. Fayetteville, AR District 7 [email protected]
Senator Jim Luker. Wynne, AR District 17 [email protected]

Looking for a pastor in both Luker and Thompson's districts who support HB1237. PM me.

Thanks!
Nathan
 
Death by Committee

Or maybe not...

The Senate Judiciary committee failed to pass HB1237. The vote appeared to be 3 to 4. Those in favor: Taylor, Whitaker, Thompson.
The bill's sponsor, Rep. Beverly Pyle, intends to work with a couple of opponents and work out an amendment which would satisfy their objections to the signage issue.
So, the bill is still alive. We just have to wait to see what amendment may be offered and go from there. Two more votes on the committee will do it.

The notes from my testimony. (And they still didn't get it):

I speak to you today not only as a pastor, but also in behalf of four dozen other pastors, ministers, and religious leaders who believe strongly that the passage of HB1237 is necessary to correct a serious violation of rights which are guaranteed to us and our congregations by the Constitution of the United States.

The question before you today is not whether it is right for a law-abiding citizen to carry a handgun into a church building, but rather WHOSE right it is to say whether it is right or wrong. As much as I would stand beside any Pastor who does not want law abiding citizens to bring a handgun into their church building, the truth is that any law which makes that decision on behalf of a church denies every church the right to make a free choice on a moral and religious issue. In the end, the state has made a moral and religious judgment for all churches and not all churches agree with it.

The commandment, “Thou shalt not kill” is often misunderstood. More correctly translated, “Do not murder” this commandment from God does not mean that believers are not to use necessary means to defend themselves against those who would kill them. In fact, in addition to meaning that we are not to cause willful harm to others, inherent in this command is also our God-ordained duty to protect others from harm.

Even Jesus told his disciples on the night He was arrested that if any did not have a sword, he should sell his coat and buy one to protect themselves. It was on that same night that Peter misused his sword and was severely reprimanded by Jesus for it. It was there that Jesus said, “those who live by the sword will die by the sword.” Jesus himself made a distinction there. Where we are never to use a weapon offensively or to do harm to an innocent person, it is our duty to provide for self-defense and for the protection of innocent human life. To do anything less is to violate God's law. It is absurd to assume that God's law ends when we enter the church doors.

This is where the current law oversteps the sovereignty of the local congregation. Every daycare in Arkansas can choose to allow or prohibit concealed carry. Every hospital, every nursing home, every bank, even Chuckee Cheese has that right and it is appalling that religious institutions have been singled out and denied that right with no just cause, which is in itself a violation of the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution- but where many have opposed this bill because they believe the current law is necessary to maintain the sanctity of the church, it is not the role of the state to preserve the sanctity of the church and it is not the role of the state to impose religious judgment calls on the churches.

Regardless of what policy any church may adopt when this bill becomes law, only after it becomes law will they be able to do it knowing that they got to follow their conscience, and not submit to a state-imposed religious mandate.

If there were 500 or 5,000 pastors speaking out against this bill and not a single one here to support it, I hope you would still see that the issue before you is not a matter of public policy preference. This bill might not win a popularity contest, but it does correct a wrong which has stood uncorrected for way too long. This is not a matter of public policy. This is a matter of constitutional right. The purpose of the constitution has never been to confirm the preference of the majority, but to protect the rights of all citizens- even a single citizen- and even to do so against the preference of the majority.

For anyone to assume that any religious institution is served favorably by the current law, I assert, is a naïve assumption. I concur with the statement by Dr. DiPippa (Dean of the UALR Bowen School of Law), that “religion can not be free if we protect only those people and groups with which we agree. Rather, the test of freedom is whether we are willing to extend its protections to those with whom we disagree.” Every pastor who does not want to allow concealed carry by law-abiding citizens in the building where they serve has the constitutional right to follow that conviction, but no right to impose that conviction upon others. For those of us who hold the opposite conviction, our rights are just as real and just as sacred.

Today each of you hold within the power of your respective votes the ability to make a choice- a choice concur with the preference of some, or to restore the rights of all. I trust your decision will be governed by the principles of freedom and religious liberty.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
Arkansas needs your help!
Replies
11
Views
931
Deltaboy1984
Deltaboy1984
I
  • Locked
Arkansas Pastors Divided Over Packing Heat in Church
Replies
24
Views
627
EHL
E
C
  • Locked
Mississippians: Support HB 1082!
Replies
0
Views
710
chadwickms
C
C
  • Locked
Conceal Carry resource thread!
Replies
8
Views
562
Gary Slider
Gary Slider
P
  • Locked
AR Bill Advances: CC in Church
Replies
6
Views
393
Prince Yamato
P
Back
Top