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

Arkansas House and Senate Approve Church Carry

Discussion in 'Legal' started by JPG19, Feb 4, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. baz

    baz Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    988
    I found a copy of the Humphrey decision online, here. I'll read it later this evening, or tomorrow. Thanks.
     
  2. Spats McGee

    Spats McGee Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Messages:
    2,112
    Location:
    Arkansas
    By the way, I'm not sure where this bill was when this thread was started, but the bill is now headed for the Governor's desk.
     
  3. locnload

    locnload Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    138
    Location:
    Northern Colorado
    This is partialy toung in cheek, and partialy serious but I really want to know. With all the hub bub about "the seperation of church and state" in every other area, how is it that State law has any business prescribing whether a church does or does not allow their parishoners to carry firearms on church property? :confused:
     
  4. Spats McGee

    Spats McGee Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Messages:
    2,112
    Location:
    Arkansas
    The separation of church and state doctrine are derived from the A1: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. . . . " (My best shot at a quote without actually looking it up.) Congress cannot support one particular religion, nor disparage one, but it can pass laws that affect all religions equally. Same applies to states, more or less.
     
  5. baz

    baz Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    988
    Well, it actually was close in this case to favoring those churches which opposed guns in church on religious grounds, and those which did not. In prior sessions the "church carry" bill could not get out of committee because of certain legislators on the relevant committee were basing their opposition on their religious views.

    I always thought of this as more of a 14th Amendment (equal protection) issue, than a 1st Amendment issue. Why were churches singled out for discrimination on this issue? A charitable non-profit with public meetings was free to determine whether or not to allow concealed carry on its premises. Why were churches not allowed the same freedom?

    I also believed that it violated the Religious Liberty clause of the Arkansas Constitution. There was some effort to get an AG ruling on this in 2009, but inexplicably, to me, they didn't address the Religious Liberty clause of the Arkansas Constitution. But that is all water over the dam.

    I think Beebe has to sign the bill on Monday, at the latest.
     
  6. Spats McGee

    Spats McGee Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Messages:
    2,112
    Location:
    Arkansas
    Legislators have been basing their opinions on all sorts of legislation on their religion since time immemorial, so that's nothing new.

    As for favoring, favoring in what way? In order to really look at the "favoring those churches which opposed guns in church on religious grounds," I'm going to suggest that you consider three things: (1) how many churches would base a ban on guns on their property on religious grounds; (2) how many churches would support or require the carrying of arms on religious grounds; and (3) whether such holdings would be central to said churches' religious belief system. I don't have the answer to those questions, but if I court were examining the question, that would be part of a court's analysis.

    Anyway, locnload asked about the "separation of church and state." That's derived from the A1 on a federal level. I haven't tried to approach the issue by looking at the Arkansas Constitution. I was just trying to answer the question that was asked.
     
  7. Evergreen

    Evergreen Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2009
    Messages:
    533
    Location:
    Seattle, Washington
    In Oregon and Washington we have been able to carry guns in our churches for a long time. I am surprised a freedom loving red-state like Arkansas would ban something that is so inherently Constitutional. People always say the Deep South is the most freedom loving, but then I hear about these type of laws and I wonder what's going on with laws such as these.

    I guess they forgot the Separation of Church and State and the 2nd Amendment? Oops.
     
  8. baz

    baz Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    988
    This past summer I took a driving trip from Arkansas through Oklahoma, Nebraska, Colorado, Utah, Idaho, Oregon, California, and then back home through the Southwest. Only in Oregon and California (of course), did I have to remove my CCW and pack it away.

    Every state has idiosyncrasies about something.
     
  9. Evergreen

    Evergreen Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2009
    Messages:
    533
    Location:
    Seattle, Washington
    I had to drive to Grant County, Oregon to get my Oregon out-of-state CHL. I agree the reciprocity deal is one of Oregon's greatest flaws and has been challenged quite a bit. On a bright note, I hear more and more sheriffs as of late are now issuing out-of-state permits, but you have to take a trip to Oregon, which is unfortunate.


    Anyway, glad to hear Arkansas people finally got the freedom to carry in church. I have carried when I go to my religious congregation and I will say a law like that would leave me with a very sour taste in my mouth. Also, considering how some religious congregations are vulnerable to attack, it is criminal, IMO, that government would ban people from being able to defend themselves.
     
  10. michaelbsc

    michaelbsc Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2012
    Messages:
    374
    And Oregon issues only to bordering states. Not places like Arkansas or Florida.
     
  11. baz

    baz Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    988
    Senate -- Notification that SB71 is now Act 67.

    So it's done. I don't know if Beebe signed it, or just let it pass into law without signing. I've not seen any news reports one way or the other.

    Now we just have to watch out for HB1284, hope it goes nowhere, and rally opposition if it looks like it has legs.
     
  12. Outlaw Man

    Outlaw Man Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2007
    Messages:
    1,870
    Location:
    Cleaning my guns.
    I got a text alert from KTHV saying he signed it. No link to a news story as of yet.

    OT, but we've got to push for the privacy bill, too.
     
  13. Arkansas Paul

    Arkansas Paul Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    7,397
    Location:
    Central Arkansas
    It wouldn't make sense not to sign it seeing how lopsided the vote was. It only takes 51% to veto.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page