Place of worship - church board approval to carry

[Quiver5]

Does anyone have an example of the wording a church board has used to publically post they had approved individuals to carry on the church premises? My understanding is that in NE it is legal for designated individuals to carry if this policy is approved by the church board and is posted publically - even as simply as in a church brochure on a bulletin board.  Would appreciate a link that states this NE statute, or a church website posting that I could see the legal wording necessary, or any other information that could be shown to a church board.  Thanks.

[bullit]

Call Cody Blocker at Lincoln Berean Church. He is the foremost expert on this topic

[DanClrk51]

69-2441. Permitholder; locations; restrictions…

(c) A place of worship may authorize its security personnel to carry concealed handguns on its property so long as each member of the security personnel, as authorized, is in compliance with the Concealed Handgun Permit Act and possesses a permit to carry a concealed handgun issued pursuant to the act and written notice is given to the congregation and, if the property is leased, the carrying of concealed handguns on the property does not violate the terms of any real property lease agreement between the place of worship and the lessor.

I'm a member of the security team at my church and the church leadership has authorized us to carry. Basically what you see above is all the law has to say about the matter. All that is legally required is for the leadership to be ok with it and then to give "written notice to the congregation". This can be as simple as stating in the church brochure or on a bulletin board somewhere in the lobby that says something like this: "The church has security personnel on property which may or may not be armed"

There need not be an announcement nor does it have to be prominently displayed. Basically you can keep it as discreet as you like and you don't even have to name the individuals either.

[Mudinyeri]

Pretty sure my church put the notice in the minutes of one of the regularly-scheduled business meetings.

[GreyGeek]

Some congregations meet in public and private school auditoriums.   For them the 1994 "Safe Schools" Act prohibits guns within 1,000 feet of school property, thereby turning that congregation into a shooting range for madmen during worship services.

I use quotes because we have evidence that the  1994 act was worthless in keeping schools  safe.

[Gary]

I knew there was a reason I stopped going to church

Seriously, there are several sides to that coin, from a religious standpoint.

I am trying to picture the guy from the Crystal Cathedral, with all the talented music he had each week, packing an uzi under his purple robe.

If you notice, something is printing under the robe.

[GreyGeek]

Crystal Cathedral Ministries filed for bankruptcy in October 2010 and in February 2012 sold the building and its adjacent campus to the Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange for future use as the diocese's new cathedral. Under the terms of the sale, the building and most of the campus will continue to be used by Crystal Cathedral Ministries for up to three years before being renovated for use as a Roman Catholic cathedral. In June 2012, the diocese announced that "Christ Cathedral" is the intended new name for the church.

[CitizenClark]

Call Cody Blocker at Lincoln Berean Church. He is the foremost expert on this topic

Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but I just met with Cody over lunch today to talk about setting up a campus security program at my church. He is very knowledgeable and a great guy, and I would strongly encourage folks to contact him with questions.

Here is his website: http://www.avoidthefight.com/

[bullit]

Again + 1 on Cody.....One day we will have the "stones" to challenge the Unicameral on changing this bogus part of the law.   The "Separation of Church and State" (not in the Constitution mind you) is good enough for the PC crowd when it comes to disallowing prayer in schools, but seems to have no bearing on a Church on THEIR PRIVATE property.....

[GreyGeek]

but seems to have no bearing on a Church on THEIR PRIVATE property.....

Indeed!   The pretext for suppressing a Christian's exercise of their 1st Amendment rights in public schools settings was  the assertion that John Q Public wouldn't be able to distinguish between Congress passing laws and School boards creating policies.  This is a classic example of using twisted logic to stand the 1st Amendment on its head.   Christian students had, for over two centuries,  practiced their religion in public schools, wrote school papers about their Faith and experiences, prayed over their meals, and even at school events.  For two centuries politicians and citizens understood what the 2st Amendment said and meant. 

Suddenly, the School Boards had to establish regulations forbidding that which had been a Constitutional right for centuries, and really still is, doing in effect what Congress cannot do, pass laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion or establishing a religion.  It was a clever back-door attack by the ACLU, and the tactic has been repeated several times on other political topics, including the 2nd Amendment.  It is rare that the ACLU will support a "Founding Fathers" position  on a question concerning the Constitution.  They are a bunch of clever lawyers but they aren't smart enough to see that they are cutting their own throats.

[CitizenClark]

Indeed!   The pretext for suppressing a Christian's exercise of their 1st Amendment rights in public schools settings was  the assertion that John Q Public wouldn't be able to distinguish between Congress passing laws and School boards creating policies.  This is a classic example of using twisted logic to stand the 1st Amendment on its head.   Christian students had, for over two centuries,  practiced their religion in public schools, wrote school papers about their Faith and experiences, prayed over their meals, and even at school events.  For two centuries politicians and citizens understood what the 2st Amendment said and meant. 

Suddenly, the School Boards had to establish regulations forbidding that which had been a Constitutional right for centuries, and really still is, doing in effect what Congress cannot do, pass laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion or establishing a religion.  It was a clever back-door attack by the ACLU, and the tactic has been repeated several times on other political topics, including the 2nd Amendment.  It is rare that the ACLU will support a "Founding Fathers" position  on a question concerning the Constitution.  They are a bunch of clever lawyers but they aren't smart enough to see that they are cutting their own throats.

Well, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the states or their political subdivisions until after the Civil War because that was when the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment occurred: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

[GreyGeek]

Well, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the states or their political subdivisions until after the Civil War because that was when the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment occurred: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

The Bill Of Rights did apply to individual citizens of the United States onward from time of their ratification by the States in December of 1791.  The problem was that it was applied it asymmetrically, based on race and religion, of all things.  Regardless, since the 14th was ratified, as you pointed out, the BoR applies to everyone in the United States, regardless of which state they live in, so my remarks stand.

[Bucket]

Not to nitpick, but the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to citizens, in that rights are presumed to exist external from the government.  The Bill of Rights set out a list of things the Federal government could not do.  As CitizenClark states, those limitations didn't apply to the States until the passage of the 14th Amendment.  Prior to that, it was state Constitutions that governed limits on State action.