Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Arkansas HB 1284: Another bill on CC at church

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Spats McGee, Feb 8, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Spats McGee

    Spats McGee Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Messages:
    2,119
    Location:
    Arkansas
  2. Outlaw Man

    Outlaw Man Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2007
    Messages:
    1,870
    Location:
    Cleaning my guns.
    I don't like this. If churches have to have a sign, it should be like businesses: Carry is ok unless posted. Heck, a lot of churches ARE businesses six days of the week.

    ETA: The sponsor and co-sponsor are Democrats. This may not ever gain traction.
     
  3. Spats McGee

    Spats McGee Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Messages:
    2,119
    Location:
    Arkansas
    I agree. No other piece of private property is required to post its policy on CC.
     
  4. razorback2003

    razorback2003 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,230
    The Dems screwed up the AR CHL law when it was first law by making the license pretty much worthless and only good for maybe making bank deposits. Through their leaders, they would never let any real improvements come to a floor vote. There is still a huge list of places you cannot carry in Arkansas that no one can keep track of. It is a joke and shows what you get when Dems pass a law to say "I support gun rights" but it really does not improve gun rights.
     
  5. baz

    baz Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    988
    I've never found it hard to keep track. The rules I go by: (1) no carry in any kind of governmental facility (include here schools, polling places); (2) no carry where posted; (3) no carry in bars or athletic events. That pretty much covers everything (except church, which after tomorrow --???-- should be permitted).

    I just now got the chance to look at HB1284. I'm thinking that this will go nowhere. But I have a query into a lobbying associate for further insight on its prospects. I'll report what I hear, when I hear something.

    Added later: My contact doesn't think this will go anywhere. But it bears watching, just in case.
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2013
  6. baz

    baz Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    988
    Beebe is apparently putting himself behind this bill. I think it has an uphill battle, but we need to bottle it up in committee, if possible. It helped that NRA-ILA sent out an alert today. This means that legislators who care about their NRA rating will have to think twice before supporting this bill. Meanwhile, I sent the following email to the sponsor and cosponsor, copied to all members of the House Judiciary Committee:

     
  7. Mr_Polite

    Mr_Polite Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2011
    Messages:
    25
    Location:
    Indiana
    Liberals are trying to make Churches look like businesses

    Liberals have wanted Churches to be tax filled like businesses for years. A church is a non-profit, but Liberals want them taxed. Please keep in mind, this is one way to help their cause.
     
  8. baz

    baz Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    988
    I got a considerate, if unpersuasive, reply from the sponsor of the bill. Since email is private, I'll not quote directly. But essentially, he makes two arguments: (1) SB71 changes the law, and "signage" is required to properly inform people of the change, and (2) churches need charitable immunity now that they permit people to carry guns.

    I responded (in effect): (1) if this were a valid argument, signage would have been required of ALL locations allowing concealed carry when the CHL law was first passed, and (2) charitable immunity applies to individuals acting as agents of charitable institutions, not to the institutions themselves, and since CHL holders are not acting as agents of the church immunity is not needed (and would not eliminate CHL holders from personal liability and prosecution anyway). I also mentioned the perverse effect of requiring signs as a form of negative "gun free zone" and how this negates the deterrence effect of concealed carry.

    This exchange was copied to all other members of the Judiciary Committee. I hope they take the time to read it.
     
  9. baz

    baz Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    988
    This bill was on the House Judiciary Committee agenda for this morning. I'm not seeing any sign of activity on it today. I hope that's a "good" sign, and means that the sponsor doesn't have the support to get it past the committee. I had another round of email with the sponsor over the weekend. It was cordial, and informative, though in the sense of helping me to hone the basis for my opposition. I'm hoping it goes nowhere, but will be prepared to go make a public appearance before the committee if it comes to that.
     
  10. Outlaw Man

    Outlaw Man Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2007
    Messages:
    1,870
    Location:
    Cleaning my guns.
    Looks like they revised the agenda to the 21st.

    If it comes down to needing to go to the legislature in person, let me know how I can help.
     
  11. baz

    baz Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    988
    I suspect that the sponsor keeps putting it off because there are not enough votes to get it passed. Or maybe that's wishful thinking!

    Will do. I have a contact who I'm sure will let me know if it comes to that. I went to committee meetings in both the prior two sessions (2009) and (2011) when predecessors to this sessions successful SB71 were under consideration. We were usually able to get a respectable group together prepared to speak to the committee (which we did in 2011), so if we need to for this bill, I'll keep you posted. Thanks.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page