Learn gun safety in church?

[spin]

Grandmother brings guns & God together in church ministry

KSDK -- She's a gun-toting granny who has said her closest friends are Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson, and now she's the one behind the growth of a gun ministry at her Wentzville church."I believe a church is a wonderful place to go to get people to pay attention," said Jill McClelland, 67, who is a member at First Baptist Church. "

"I believe a church is a wonderful place to go to get people to pay attention," said Jill McClelland, 67, who is a member at First Baptist Church. "

I'm here to have this ministry on teaching firearm safety."

Thirty-six years ago she and her late husband opened New Melle Gun Shop, and that's how long she's been packing a gun.

"I'm not afraid to live alone because I have my brothers - Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson - with me," she told a about a dozen other members in a church classroom Sunday.

McClelland said there's a kind of confidence she's found in them - the guns - and in Christ, and it's something she wants to share.

"If you've got the knowledge how to use a firearm in a very bad situation, it could get you out of duck soup," she explained.

Exposing church-goers to gun safety began a year ago, and it's part of First Baptist's practical sport shooting ministry, which grows with each fourth Sunday the class is taught.

Dorothy Riddle Iverson is 81 years old and after taking the class said that for the first time in her life - because of McClelland and her partner in fighting crime, Ann Layton - she's isn't gun shy anymore.

"You very definitely should learn how to use a gun properly and be aquainted with one," Iverson said.

No matter how nervous, young or inexperienced their students are, the two instructors tell folks to bite the bullet and get to know guns while doing the same with God.

"You can't lose respect for something that can kill you," McClelland added.

The gun ministry goes out for target practice about once a month.
http://www.ksdk.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=201214

[jeepnstein]

1. It has a place.

If one uses shooting sports as an opportunity for fellowship then I'm OK with it. I'm not so sure about using it as a Sunday night class. Such a class would never be approved in my church. It's all about keeping it in the proper context.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ian David]

4. Gun sale at the church!

Gun Sale at the Church
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x157103

[Deep13]

5. So the new gospel is that the meek and those who turn the other cheek...

...actually suck ass. Interesting.

[spin]

7. Turning the other cheek may not have the meaning you think ...

“But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” Matthew 5:39

Many people want to bypass these provocative words from Jesus because they seem to imply that we are to allow people to just beat the tar out of us and not resist physical violence and injury. Having a sense of what I think Jesus really meant by these words causes me to wonder at how easily we get deceived into believing that it means something that is impossible to obey. God does not give us commands that are impossible to obey. He certainly gives us ones that are difficult and that challenge us but never ones that are impossible.

In order to understand what God wants of us, it is important to catch key details. Anytime the Bible gives a particularly vivid detail we need to pay attention. There is a vivid key detail in this verse that speaks volumes. Jesus said, if someone “strikes you on the right cheek” then you are to turn your face to him in such a way as to present your left cheek. The implication being that he may hit you again. What is the significance of the “right” cheek. Why not the left cheek? Picture someone getting hit on the right cheek. What is the most likely way for that to happen? Since most people are right handed and would hit someone with the right hand, then the only way for them to hit someone on the right cheek is to do it as a backhanded slap. What Jesus is speaking about here is not letting someone pummel you into a pile of broken bones. Rather He is talking about taking an insult. I backhanded slap is just that. It is an insult that challenges you to retaliate. It is an attempt to shame you and get you to either back down in utter humiliation or lash out and escalate the conflict.

To turn the other cheek is neither humiliating nor retaliation. It is rather a response of strength that says, “I will not seek revenge because I am stronger than that”. It also says, I will not respond in shame because I have dignity in Christ. My dignity is not found in if I can hit you back and hurt you. My dignity is found in Christ and I will respond in just the way He would respond.

In practice there are very few times in ones life when another person would give you an actual backhanded slap. There are times when they might give you a verbal one, or show great disrespect for you in some other way. It is those things that get people all worked up and excited. Think of how often you see people arguing and fighting because someone “disrespected” them. What they are looking for is dignity. They want an acknowledgement that they are a person of substance and importance. If someone does not give them that respect then they feel somehow violated. The means to get that respect and dignity is to exert power over the other person and show that you are stronger, better, more significant than they are. So instead of turning the other cheek, you strike back, preferably with even more force. If that is what you need to do to get respect and dignity then you will never have it.
http://provocativechristian.wordpress.com/2009/01/23/provocative-bible-verses-turn-the-other-cheek/

As applied to using a firearm for self defense, you never use lethal force to reply to an insult. It is appropriate and legal in most states to use it to prevent severe bodily injury or death.

[Deep13]

10. Not questioning the legality of self defense, only the theology of it. nt

[spin]

15. The Old Testament speaks of lethal self defense ...

Exodus 22:2-3 (New International Version)

2 "If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; 3 but if it happens after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed.
"A thief must certainly make restitution, but if he has nothing, he must be sold to pay for his theft.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+22%3A2-3&version=NIV

And how did Jesus feel about the Old Testament?

A. We could cite many reasons for the Old Testament being God’s Word, but the strongest argument comes from the Lord Jesus himself. As God in human flesh, Jesus speaks with final authority. And his testimony regarding the Old Testament is loud and clear.

Jesus believed that the Old Testament was divinely inspired, the veritable Word of God. He said, ‘The Scripture cannot be broken’ (John 10:35). He referred to Scripture as ‘the commandment of God’ (Matthew 15:3) and as the ‘Word of God’ (Matthew 15:6). He also indicated that it was indestructible: ‘Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished’ (Matthew 5:18).

When dealing with the people of his day, whether it was with the disciples or religious rulers, Jesus constantly referred to the Old Testament: ‘Have you not read that which was spoken to you by God?’ (Matthew 22:31); ‘Yea; and have you never read, “Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babes thou has prepared praise for thyself”?’ (Matthew 21:16, citing Psalm 8:2); and ‘Have you not read what David did?’ (Matthew 12:3). Examples could be multiplied to demonstrate that Jesus was conversant with the Old Testament and its content. He quoted from it often and he trusted it totally.

Throughout the Gospels, we find Jesus confirming many of the accounts in the Old Testament, such as the destruction of Sodom and the death of Lot’s wife (Luke 17:29, 32) the murder of Abel by his brother Cain (Luke 11:51), the calling of Moses (Mark 12:26), and the manna given in the wilderness (John 6:31–51).
http://www.bethinking.org/bible-jesus/introductory/q-how-did-jesus-view-the-old-testament.htm

Some will argue that the Bible also has as one of the ten commandments, "thou shalt not kill" This is a mistranslation.

Q. I am studying the Ten Commandments. Please explain the Sixth commandment "thou shall not kill."

A. The commandment "thou shall not kill" (Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17), is better understood to mean "you shall not murder." Most modern translations of the Bible rendered it this way.

According to the Bible not all killing, the taking of a life, is murder. Murder is the unlawfully taking of human life. The command not to murder applies to human beings, not to killing animals or plant life for food. God gave animals to mankind for his use (Genesis 1:26-30; 9:1-4). But, this does not mean that humans have the right mistreat animals and the environment (Genesis 2:15; Deuteronomy 22:6-7; 25:4; Proverbs 12:10).

Under the Old Covenant God allowed the Israelites to kill other humans under very special circumstances such as punishment for certain sins, for example, murder (Exodus 21:12-14, Leviticus 24:17, 21) and adultery (Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:22-24). God also allowed the Israelites to engage in warfare and even gave them instructions about waging war (Deuteronomy 20:1-20). God also recognized that humans might accidentally kill each other, and he made provisions for this (Numbers 35:9-34; Deuteronomy 19:1-13).

The primary reason God hates murder is that out of all creation, only human are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27; 9:4-6). Even before the codification of the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai the murder of other human beings was wrong (Genesis 4:8-12; 4:23-24; 9:4-6; Exodus 1:16-17). While on earth, Jesus spoke out against murder (Matthew 5:21-26; Mark 10:17-19). We also see in the writings of Paul (Romans 1:18, 29-32; 13:8-10; Galatians 5:19-21), James (James 2:8-11; 4:1-3), Peter (1 Peter 4:15-16) and John (Revelation 9:20-21; 21:7-8; 22:14-15) that murder is wrong.
http://www.biblestudy.org/question/what-does-thou-shall-not-kill-mean.html

This is not only a modern interpretation. John Wesley lived in the 18th century and is credited with forming the English Methodist movement along with his brother. He published a commentary on the Bible called Wesley's Explanatory Notes in 1755 which is still in use today.

His notes have this to say on the 6th Commandment:

20:13 Thou shalt not kill - Thou shalt not do any thing hurtful to the health, or life of thy own body, or any other's. This doth not forbid our own necessary defence, or the magistrates putting offenders to death; but it forbids all malice and hatred to any, for he that hateth his brother is a murderer, and all revenge arising therefrom; likewise anger and hurt said or done, or aimed to be done in a passion; of this our Saviour expounds this commandment, Matthew 5:22 .emphasis added
http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/wesleys-explanatory-notes/exodus/exodus-20.html

[dmallind]

20. I'm not worried about the overall thrust of your reply but do disagree re: kill

The word is used quite often in the OT. It is "ratsach" and the etymology comes from words meaning "to tear apart". It is used in cases where "murder" is completely out of the question. Animals killing people? Ratsach. Righteous executions? Ratsach. Combatants in battle? Ratsach. Yes we can certainly infer that in a deontology handed down by a god who not only OK'd but commanded quite a lot of slaughter and execution and warfare it means "don't kill unlawfully" in practise, but the word itself was never in biblical times restricted to eztra-legal killing. IIRC (and I may not) the meaning in modern Hebrew has become specific, but not at the time.

[spin]

26. I don't believe that "ratsach" applies to legitimate self defense...

but that's my view based on my research. Unfortunately, time changes meaning. To find out what was really meant by the sixth commandment, we would have to journey back in time.

[dmallind]

28. Sorry to be unclear - that's not what I disagree with

I agree with you that it does not apply to legitimate self defense - in fact that's one of the cases where it is used elsewhere in the bible with no pejorative implication. I just disagree that it exclusively meant murder and is "mistranslated" as kill. More of a linguistic nitpick than an ethical one.

[spin]

30. Now I follow your reasoning ...

I see your point. Thanks.

[GreenStormCloud]

8. The Bible authorizes self-defense.

The turn-the-other-cheek bit applies to insult and minor assaults. Among men, a slap to the cheek is not a serious blow but is an insult and a challenge to fight. Jesus is telling us to ignore such affronts and walk away from a fight if we can. Fighting over trivial stuff is wrong. Don't get caught up in defending our honor because we were dissed. But we are allowed to fight to save our own life or the life of another person.

[Deep13]

9. Where does it authorize self defense?

My reading of the NT is basically a rejection of all earthly concern. JC calls on people to pick up their crosses and follow him to martyrdom. He tells people not to work in the lillies analogy. He tells men to to provide for their families when he calls Peter. He tells people that suffering in life will lead to eternal rewards. So I guess I don't see where self-defense fits in to that.

[spin]

6. I'm not a church going person ...

but I might be interested in attending this church.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sui generis]

12. all day long

In my opinion, there are crazy stupid gun owners who are unreasonably obsessed with bringing guns into every facet of their (and our) lives. They give decent gun owners a bad name.

I'm sorry if DU doesn't like it but I think those people are batshit crazy and don't represent well.

Seriously, I'll go around on this all day long - this is DU, not the fucking NRA.

[PavePusher]

13. Not sure what point you are trying to make...

in respect to the O.P. Can you clarify?

[sui generis]

14. I see this in the gungeon all the time

I keep thinking if there were an ironing forum how weird would it be to see dozens of stories where using irons saved the day, and how odd it would be that church and iron safety go together, and how the right to bear irons is inviolate, to the point of violating other people's rights to not have to be around people bearing irons.

Call me a cranky bastard *which I am* but it seems like gun laws don't really keep the real crazies who think about their firearms obsessively 24/7 from actually owning and carrying.

There are perfectly normal gun owners out there who probably agree with me that the level of obsession that some people practice with regard to hysteria against mythical "gun grabbers", wife rapers, gang bangers, and boogeymen terrorist violent criminals under every rock is not a banner of mental health.

As I said, my opinion is that those people give the rest of us a bad name.

[spin]

18. How do you define "normal gun owners"? (n/t)

[sui generis]

19. mostly people who don't post in the gungeon

:P

I think one can have a weapon for personal safety and not be obsessed with all the propaganda and anecdotal justification and over-the-top paranoia about gun-grabbers and saving-the-day stories.

It's odd how brittle some of the posters here can be, and you see the same stuff over and over: either all gun owners are heroes looking for a crime to stop, or oppressed in the fight of their lives to preserve the letter and intent of the constitution.

It's a bit much if you ask me - so much that just having a weapon and not worrying much past that, which is pretty normal for most gun owners, is not apparently how "normal" is defined. I just don't think normal should be defined as people who can't stop thinking about their guns, gun laws, gun grabbers, and everything to do with opportunity to own, carry and discharge firearms.

Now that I've thought out loud, I'd say the short answer is normal gun owners don't define any part of our identity with gun ownership, any more than I would define myself by microwave ownership.

[spin]

22. Democrats who favor gun ownership post in the Gungeon ...

because if they post in General Discussion, the post gets moved to the Gungeon by the moderators. It's the rule and I don't disagree with it. However, it does explain why discussions on RKBA end up here.

The "saving the day" stories were largely the result of posts that discussed criminals misusing firearms. Those who oppose RKBA would post tragic stories about someone who had no legal right to own a firearm murdering some innocent person. In order to balance the situation, pro RKBA posters began submitting posts that show the successful use of firearms by honest owners to deter crime.

If you carefully read the posts from those who have concealed carry permits, you will find that they don't consider themselves police or superheroes. Most practice situational awareness to insure that they don't find themselves in a position where they might have to use their weapon. We don't flash a wad of bills in a bar or walk down dark alleys hoping for some fool to attack us so we can blow him away. The last thing we ever hope for is a situation in which we actually have to use a weapon and we also realize that the legal and psychological downsides of shooting another individual offset any ego boost we might achieve. However, we also realize that if ABSOLUTELY necessary, using a firearm for self defense is better than spending months recovering from injury or being six feet under.

I probably qualify as one of the individuals you would define as obsessed with firearms. I own a small collection of handguns in a wide range of calibers and a rifle and a shotgun. I enjoy target shooting and have a CCW and carry. The majority of the firearms I own are locked away in gun safe and I may look at them every six months or so to check for rust and to wipe them down with a gun cloth. Occasionally I'll pull one for a trip to the range. I shoot and clean it (which is a lot like washing dishes) and put it back in the safe.

I enjoy discussing firearms and RKBA here on DU. A good debate with a person who opposes firearms is entertaining and can be challenging. Unfortunately, there seems to be a shortage of people on the other side who can form a rational argument.

[PavePusher]

31. Yeah. All those "free speech" activists...

should just stop being so obssesed about protecting, nay, expanding, their Civil Rights, it's just a lot of silly twadle...

[sui generis]

36. there's no comparison

let me be the first to say that our right to bear arms is the most atavistic backwater yokel 18 century fallback to the ills of the world, and that on a scale, free speech far far outweighs the right to pack heat.

Now before you start putting words in my mouth, I'm not against the right to bear arms. I'm just saying my opinion is YOUR obsession is twaddle, not free speech.

Sheesh guys. I'm not the enemy, but I don't buy the koolaid either.

[PavePusher]

54. "our right to bear arms is the most atavistic backwater yokel 18 century fallback to the ills..."

Huh. And here I had thought that the inate Right of access to the most efficient tools of self-defense was something to be inordinantly proud of. I guess people just can't be trusted, I must have missed the memo.

I don't drink Koolaid. Whisky, single-malt, neat. And I don't obsess over firearms, I obsess over Rights, and specifically the Right of peaceful Citizens to lawfully defend themselves against any threat. Silly me.

[sui generis]

55. where would I begin to reply . . .

So where exactly are all these threats? Do you live in a middle class middle income mostly white neighborhood, or out in the country? Coyotes might be a "threat" if you like to leave your poodle outside.

Yes, I am being intentionally inflammatory, and not picking on you specifically, but I really just don't see threats everywhere in most people's lives, and certainly none that if serious enough or done professionally enough would stand you a chance of surviving with or without your "rights".

If you believe you are in such constant threat of survival that you must be prepared for anything, I'd advise you also wear a parachute and gas mask with your holster. I just don't see it - and I live in Texas. Most people who are "concerned" with their "rights" (AS IF they're under assault) are never in a situation that would even remotely warrant the use of a firearm in public, but certainly paranoia will convince anyone otherwise.

As you said, it is your right to perceive "threats" everywhere, but I don't want to have to live in some crazy 21st century approximation of the wild wild west. I have no problem with personal firearms, generally speaking, on personal property. I am more ambivalent about having them everywhere in public. Mostly my problem is with the kinds of people who feel compelled to shove them in everyone else's faces, thereby inflicting their paranoia on everyone around them.

I drive in insane traffic every day - I know that most people who think they are excellent "prepared" drivers are actually idiots and the proof is in how they exercise judgment in their driving methods and choices. It just creeps me out to think that some of these same people will be exercising the same LACK of judgment in their personal safety choices and methods.

I don't know anything about you so I'm not judging you personally, but I can generalize from observation. Most people are too fucking stupid to be allowed to drive, much less carry a weapon, so I while I accept that stupid people drive and carry weapons I don't have to pretend to be orgasmic about it.

Just my point of view.

[dmallind]

21. You think there is a right to not be around people exercsing their rights?

Weird....

[sui generis]

23. not really weird at all unless you take that statement literally.

I DO have a right to determine whether I want to allow any form of carry in my business, as well as my home and property. If you walk up to my front door and you have a weapon you had damn well better be the police.

Claro?

[X_Digger]

24. And I don't remember anyone saying anything that contradicts that..

.. unless you have some example in mind?

When the Brady group was bitching about their petition to starbucks, it was those on our side who were saying "let starbucks decide".

[sui generis]

35. as it turns out

law or not, I would find some reason to can anyone's ass I felt like. This is Texas, a right to work state. I can fire you for being straight if I feel like it, so I can certainly fire you for any reason I feel like making up, as an employer.

Premises, same thing. If the business I had was a direct service organization (it's not) I could refuse to serve anyone I felt like for any reason whatsoever.

If I decide I don't like or want guns in and around my establishment and employees there isn't a god damn thing ANYONE could do about it.

[X_Digger]

37. Ohkaaaaaaaay.. and?

Has anyone suggested you shouldn't be able to control your private property?

If you're trying to prop up a straw man, you're doing a really bad job of it.

[sui generis]

41. straw man is claiming there is a straw man

I believe "house" was the operative term. Attention to detail sir.

[X_Digger]

46. Stemming from this quote..

to the point of violating other people's rights to not have to be around people bearing irons.

You didn't specify 'house' in that post. And considering the subject of the OP, if that's what you intended when you said it, you should have been specific. Looking at all the responses, it appears that only you had that in mind.

Hence everyone else's head scratching about what the hell you were talking about. But your "rights to not have to be around people bearing irons" only extends to property that you control. If another business owner doesn't have a problem with guns, you have no "right" to demand otherwise. Similarly, in public spaces, feel free to lobby the local, state, or federal government, but those restrictions are actually moving in the opposite direction.

[sui generis]

48. well, agreed.

now I'm scratching my head.

[GreenStormCloud]

39. As a Texas CHL holder I support your private property rights. N/T

[spin]

27. Question, what will you do if the person who walks up to your door ...

is armed and plans a home invasion?

[sui generis]

34. remove that person from the gene pool

the scenario has happened to me, actually, but someone else took care of the gene pool part.

It was quite the shocker news event here in Dallas - the year was 2007, if anyone wants to research it. I was the first stop on their trip, but I have other deterrents in addition to a silly personal firearm that would have made zero difference.

Why do you ask?

[jeepnstein]

43. How'd you do it then?

Share your story with the group.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sui generis]

56. sorry I hurt your feelings with that post that required alerting

jeez it's like kindergarten in here.

Anyway it was clearly up long enough for the night crowd to poop themselves a little, press the alert button and then assume the crash position.

Truthfully I don't even remember what I said, but I don't believe it was all THAT.

[jeepnstein]

57. Their rules, not mine.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7623624

If I'm not allowed to call you out with fighting words and engage in a flame war I'm not going to take the abuse either. Civility is the order of the day.

[sui generis]

58. I am laughing at you

not with you.

Oh well. I really don't recall what I said that was so uncivil or inflammatory but if the big scary men with guns felt threatened enough to call the playground monitor it must have been quite something.

[jeepnstein]

59. Your words speak volumes.

I don't care to discuss this any further. You are adding nothing intelligent to the discussion. Good day.

[dmallind]

29. Sure - as long as your rights here are restricted to YOUR property

You have no right to not be around armed civilians in public places though. I'm not aware of any CCW proponents who believe that private property cannot be "gun-free". Plenty believe that a public accommodation like a company etc who chooses to be gun free are both unwise and undeserving of business, but I haven't met one who wants the right to carry in your house if you disagree.

[sui generis]

33. "Plenty believe" - give me a break.

yeah - it's that kind of shit attitude that tells me that I wouldn't even serve you in my business much less let you work there. Go ahead, try to make my day.

Gun owners uniting to boycott my business? Can't happen, and wouldn't make the tiniest fraction of a bit of difference. But you are welcome to try.

You are not all powerful, but quite deluded. Oh, and let me clarify - ANYWHERE ON MY PROPERTY. That's a lot more acreage than just my house.

[dmallind]

38. Ermm...you think plenty don't believe?

You think I was making a specific case about your (unidentified) business? I'm not so irrational. Yes your property is what I said. It's yours. You get to decide what happens on it within the limits of the law. Your customers get to decide if they do business with you, based on whatever is important to them.

So tell me - do you post signs all over your property and business saying "gunowners will never be served or employed here so stay the hell away". Why not if not? Do you want their custom or not? If it wouldn't make a tiniest fraction of difference why not post those signs to be really sure?

I am neither powerful nor deluded - nor farnkly apparently what you assumed which is somebody who bases their custom on gun access (I don't even carry personally although I used to). But that doesn't make my point false that many gun owners DO make those decisions - so why not make it easy for them if you care so much?

So really - where was I wrong again? Either plenty of gun owners believe there are no property rights at all superceding their carry (please demonstrate) or plenty DON'T believe they should make customer decisions on that basis (let me know if you doubt that and I promise you five to one cites compared to those who take the position against yourproperty rights) or you don't have the right to decide who is armed or not on your private property (I can cite case law if you doubt that one). Those are the only three claims I made, and you are quite obviously arguing with me so which claim is wrong?

[sui generis]

42. no, now you're playing a little lame

The point being you offered a subtle threat, or at least I interpreted your wording that way.

Anyway, I am king of my own castle and business. I really don't care what anyone else thinks, and when they start telling me (as the tangent for this topic) that their rights supercede mine in my spaces, and that includes my business and the working environment I provide for my employees, I really could give a crap about nuance.

Not trying to be cranky - I don't believe you and I are arguing opposite sides of anything, but just stating my opinion.

[dmallind]

50. You interpreted is teh key. I had no idea you even HAD a business!

Yes you are king of your castle - I even made that point first. But your castle is only that - yours. Outside your property there is no right to be around unarmed folks.

Honest question: Have any gunowners or gun enthusiasts on DU argued that their right to be armed DOES superced your property rights? Not arguing that you shouldn't exclude guns as a matter of policy, but arguing that you CANNOT? I suppose it's possible of course but it's a minority from what I've seen and I certainly disagree with them.

And follow up question if I may be so bold - how publicly and clearly DO you state your prohibition of firearms in your space?

[sui generis]

51. Multi-tenant building, posted at building entrance.

Plus posted with all required employee postings on each floor and directly in HR department wall space.

Anyway, it's ironic that one can expect to carry firearms in every "public" space that doesn't specifically prohibit carry, but elsewhere in this thread are people who claim they wouldn't patronize a business that posts such a sign.

The ironic part is, and in line with my original original response, that most people who aren't obsessed with everything-firearm wouldn't really care one way or another, certainly not enough to boycott a business based on a posting prohibiting firearms.

I wonder, just idle thinking, could you have a business that REQUIRED you to have a licensed firearm in your immediate possession in order to be served? Now that would definitely cause a stir . . .

[dmallind]

53. Then you're good

I'm not saying nobody DOES carry a gun buit they don't do it legally and you can evict them if they do.

And you are right but many gunowners DO boycott such businesses. In some cases it is obsession sure, but in others it is simply the same as a hardcore Dem refusing to buy from Beck sponsors or a GOP-only contrubutor etc. Most of us don't do that either (heck I don't even know who Beck sponsors ARE)but are the ones who do obsessed or simply those who are more personally committed to their cause over personal convenience. One very real argument that is neither obsession nor even zeal is taht of safety. If a person has a CCW but has a need to enter a place of business that posts a prohibition, their only option is to either not carry (essentially removing their right for yours - just as bad as the reverse) or to store the gun unattended in their car, which is a security risk especially if they are seen or known to be carrying - and a risk that the gun will fall into criminal hands.

A business that required you to be armed? IANAL but if it's a public accommodation like a bar or cafe that might be pretty shaky. I don't think the unarmed are a protected class (no pun intended) but it's an awfully big exclusion and it's possible some could make a case on other grounds. If it's a gun club? Probably would work out. A grocery store? Probably not. Pretty lousy business decision in any case.

[GreenStormCloud]

40. Do you have your business marked with a no-guns sign? N/T

[sui generis]

44. actually yes.

And it's in the employee SOW agreements as well, and those agreements are renewed annually. I know what I'm doing.

Software and banking don't tend to attract wild-eyed paranoid yahoos as a general rule, but we do get the occasional poorly socialized paranoid genius that I'd rather not encourage to impulsive postal behavior with anything more dangerous than cafeteria eating utensils.

Also, my personal view is that guns are not appropriate for the office, unless they're strapped to building security personnel.

I suppose somebody could bring a lawsuit eventually but I probably would fire them for being straight in that case, or some other absurdity just to drive home the point.

[X_Digger]

47. If you really want to (legally) deny entry..

You may want to consider getting a valid 30.06 sign-

"PURSUANT TO SECTION 30.06, PENAL CODE (TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF A LICENSE TO CARRY A CONCEALED HANDGUN) A PERSON LICENSED UNDER SUBCHAPTER H, CHAPTER 411, GOVERNMENT CODE (CONCEALED HANDGUN LAW), MAY NOT ENTER THIS PROPERTY WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN."

"CONFORME A LA SECCIÓN 30.06 DEL CÔDIGO PENAL (TRASPASAR PORTANDO ARMAS DE FUEGO) PERSONAS CON LICENCIA BAJO DEL SUB-CAPITULO H, CAPITULO 411, CODIGO DE GOBIERNO (LEY DE PORTAR ARMAS), NO DEBEN ENTRAR A ESTA PROPIEDAD PORTANDO UN ARMA DE FUEGO."


Penal Code Section 30.06(c)(3)(B) further states that a sign must meet the following requirements:

1. includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
2. appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
3. is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.


That would keep members of the public from carrying, and anyone caught carrying in contravention can be charged with trespass by a holder of a license to carry a concealed handgun. As an employer, you can restrict carrying in your business by employees, but if, in the next legislature, the 'parking lot' bill passes, you won't be able to require that anyone employees parking in your lot not have a gun in a locked container.

eta: changed anyone to employees.

[shadowrider]

49. We all know building security personnel, being human and all, are not subject to

sudden outbursts, for a variety of reasons, wreaking havoc on those unable to defend themselves.

Your choice to ban firearms is your choice and it's your business. I applaud you for making that stand.

That said, I personally won't visit any establishment that bans them. I refuse to be a sitting duck for some bad guy that decides a "Gun free zone" aka "Target rich environment" is on his agenda for the evening.

[GreenStormCloud]

52. Some more questions, if you don't mind.

What kind of sign? 30.06 sign, gunbusters sign, or "no unlicensed guns" sign?

Do you own the parking lot? If you do own it, do you attempt to bar people from having guns in the car? Do you attempt to bar employees from having a gun in the car?

OOPS. I just saw post #51 which answers my question about the parking lot. What kind of no-guns sign does the building have?

[spin]

17. Many members of DU support RKBA and have concealed carry weapon permits ...

I feel that your portrayal of many honest gun owners who support RKBA as crazy is an unfair stereotype.

While you are not explicit about which gun owners suffer from an unreasonable obsession that leads them to "bring guns into every facet of their lives (and ours)", I assume you would include those who have concealed carry permits.

I wish to point out that those with such licenses are among the very elite of gun owners and are known for rarely misusing their firearms. Florida publishes a monthly summary report called "Concealed Weapon / Firearm Summary Report" which can be revealed at http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html.

This report currently covers a time frame from October 1, 1987 to March 31, 2010. During his period 1,744,945 Concealed Weapons Permit have been issued but only 167 have been revoked for a crime involving a firearm after the license was issued.

I can't speak to the motivations of those who appear at public gatherings with firearms on open display as open carry in Florida is illegal and I don't know anyone who walks around with an exposed firearm. From what I have read most of these people also appear to be rational and sane.

I am a member of the NRA and while I often disagree with their political wing, the NRA-ILA which publishes propaganda about Obama, I find that the organization does a lot of good for citizens and the shooting sports. And yes, they often give pro-gun Democrats an excellent rating. One example is Bill Richardson, the current governor of New Mexico.

[russ1943]

16. Been done before.

Reminds me of an article I read recently;
NRA gun instructor shoots student by accident
Instructor’s gun goes off, striking student in foot
February 21, 2010|By Eloísa Ruano González, Orlando Sentinel
A gun instructor accidently shot a student in the foot Saturday during an NRA class to receive certification to carry a concealed weapon, Orlando police said.

Robert Frauman Jr., 50, was taken to Florida Hospital after instructor Michael Phillips' firearm discharged about 11:45 a.m., police said.

Phillips, 32, could not be reached for comment. The accident happened at Summit Church, located in a former movie theater near the Fashion Square mall.................

This was not the first time something's gone wrong during a gun demonstration in Orlando. In 2004, a special agent with the Drug Enforcement Administration shot himself in the thigh with a .40-caliber Glock pistol while talking to schoolchildren about gun safety.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/state/nra-gun-instructor-accidentally-shoots-orlando-student-266686.html?sort=desc

[PavePusher]

32. So, that's the norm then, right?

Or are we merely trying to fan the hyperbole by extrapolating an exceedingly rare incident into an every-day, every-city occurance?

[Hoopla Phil]

25. I have taught gun safety classes for my church youth group a number of times.

It is a voluntary program that has had a GREAT following. It was broke down into three sessions (three weeks) with the last one being at the range for live fire. Never had a problem or complaint.