I have grave concerns regarding SB 71, known as the
"Church Protection Act of 2013", which removes houses of worship as exempted
places where concealed carry weapons are not allowed under current law. This is a violation of the sanctity which has
been, and should continue to be, the sanctuary that is inherent to all houses
of worship.
I had expressed my concerns to Arkansas state Senator
Bruce Maloch who indicated his support for the bill, to state Representative
Lane Jean who did not respond to my letter at all, and to Governor Mike Beebe
whose office only acknowledged receipt of the letter (although Gov. Beebe had
previously indicated he will sign it if it reaches his desk). This is the same reaction we received from
the "leader" of the state who, after having signed the lottery bill
into law, indicated he was personally opposed to the lottery and thought it an
ill-conceived measure. Well done,
governor. It is always comforting to
know of your personal opposition to something you officially approve with the
stroke of a pen. I suppose we may expect
the same in this matter: your voice from the back of the room.
The disturbing language of the bill which claims to
address an "immediate necessity ... to public safety" and declares "an
emergency" is, in my humble opinion, a panicked, emotional overreaction (which
is always dangerous!) so soon after the Sandy Hook tragedy and amidst the talk
in Washington DC about gun control and the 2nd Amendment. There is no indication this bill has been
carefully considered as to the potential burdens of liability which will be
placed on houses of worship should this bill become law (it currently lacks
only the governor's signature). The
occurrence of violent incidents in houses of worship is so miniscule in the
broad spectrum of gun violence that this bill does not lend itself to an
"immediate necessity" since no "immediate necessity" seems
to even exist. It is also arguable as to
whether a state of "emergency" actually exists. The language of the bill itself is panicked
rather than measured!
Houses of worship are protected by current law. This bill on its basest level seeks to remove
this protection altogether ... as a matter of "immediate necessity"
because an "emergency" exists?
I fail to see how. As the pastor
of a church, I am disturbed at the idea of armed parishioners, other
parishioners concerned about who may or may not be carrying, the necessity of
posting signs advertising whether a church prohibits weapons or allows only
designated persons, enforcing a church's chosen policy to prohibit weapons, etc.
It must also be considered that in such a litigious
culture as ours, it is quite possible that someone could be hurt and the church
held liable since the legislature "allowed" (mandated, actually) churches
to make these decisions for themselves.
It is no longer assumed houses of worship are gun-free; this bill allows
that all permit holders may carry weapons into a church. The individual house of worship will have to
make a public declaration, presumably post signs outside, and decide whether or
how to enforce its own policy.
Houses of worship must decide to declare "designated"
persons (or any permit holder) who will be allowed to carry a weapon, and the
burden of careful selection falls on the church should that church decide to
allow weapons by designated permit holders.
Given the limited training permit holders have undergone, a liability
factor must consider that a permit holder who has not been "battle
tested" and has only faced stationary targets that don't shoot back could conceivably
panic at a clear or even perceived threat and inadvertently hurt an innocent
bystander. In another scenario, a
"bad guy" could come into an "advertised" unarmed church and
do harm.
Surely it can be said that the church, rather than
being protected by the state and having been left to its own devices, could
conceivably be found to have been "negligent" in ensuring the safety
of worshippers since the state now "allows" (mandates?) the church to
be responsible. It seems a reach, but we
must consider the lawsuits churches face and have faced because adequate
background checks were not done on volunteer child care-givers and youth
workers. This is one more burden
churches do not need and are not equipped to administer effectively because a
background check cannot speak to a person's potential state of mind under
duress. This is the very reason police
officers must undergo psychological testing before being accepted as an armed officer! And even they get it wrong sometimes even
after so much testing and continuous, on-going training.
This bill has the potential to create more problems
yet unforeseen (or even conceived of) than it will solve, and it cannot be
quantified that any lives will be saved or lost from this measure. I will grant that no value can be assigned to
even one life lost or preserved, but I dare say this measure is not the way to
go about it.
I would argue that as surely as the 2nd Amendment
grants citizens the "right to keep and bear arms" (this seems to be
the state of "emergency" the bill refers to), the 1st Amendment also grants
to houses of worship all reasonable measure of protection from government
intrusion - and by government from intrusion.
The law as it currently prohibits weapons in houses of worship is reasonable
and adequate. Now is not the time of
radical departure from what has evidently worked very well.
No comments:
Post a Comment