https://pilotonline.com/opinion/letters/article_c85290b6-267d-11e9-87ed-8763b1b501e5.html
Since it is impossible to prevent madmen and criminals from bring them there, the question becomes ‘should we have the means to defend ourselves there?’
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum
A place for civil discussion of the events of the day for Tidewater residents without the limitations imposed by media forums.
https://pilotonline.com/opinion/letters/article_c85290b6-267d-11e9-87ed-8763b1b501e5.html
Since it is impossible to prevent madmen and criminals from bring them there, the question becomes ‘should we have the means to defend ourselves there?’
First, as private property, it is none of the government’s business whether carrying firearms is permitted or not. That is a First Amendment issue if a church requires its members to be armed, that is their right. Whether parishioners can carry arms into church is up to the parishioners as owners of the property.
As a more general principle, people should be able to carry arms anyplace the government cannot take absolute responsibility for their protection. Courtrooms, prisons, police stations and such would be OK to ban carry, but otherwise we should not be denied the means to defend ourselves.
LikeLike
Church property is subsidized by the government.
Generally if an organization gets money from the government, it has to adhere to certain rules. Norfolk Southern has to return millions because they are pulling out before their fulfilled their end of the bargain to get tax relief.
LikeLike
Not taxing churches is not a subsidy. It is a Constitutional requirement.
Churches are exempt from taxation for exactly the reason that they must not be coerced in their policies by government.
LikeLike
A church as a private establishment should be able to set it’s own rules regarding carrying arms. What do you mean by “if a church requires its members to be armed” Is that not a restriction on a private establishment?
LikeLike