From Deseret News archives:
Editorial on guns was illogical
I know of no one in the pro-self-defense community who has demanded the right to carry a gun into churches. We have resisted efforts to have the state infringe on freedom of religion by banning private guns from all churches. If the state had the proper power to ban guns from churches, it would also have the proper power to ban alcohol or any other item from churches. We assert that the state does not have that power in either case.
While we respect the rights of churches to set private policies different than we might set, we have expected that if our permits are not going to be valid in a particular church, we will be given some kind of reasonable notice. Even smokers are given notice of where their cigarettes are not welcome. Why is a "no smoking" sign OK, but a "no guns" sign unreasonable? For that matter, why should private firearms be treated any differently than alcohol, pork, unwelcome literature or any other item that a church may find offensive?
I also note that you ignore the current exemption for government employees who carry guns (see Utah Code 76-10-523). Why does an off-duty out-of-state traffic cop, or a federal meat inspector, or city prosecutor from Moab have a dire need to carry a gun to church while an abused woman whose ex has threatened further violence get labeled a pariah for wanting to protect herself and her children? Why is it OK for public officials to have armed security while worshipping, but some kind of desecration for minorities, gays, the handicapped, or others who may be at special risk from crime to take measures for their own defense?
I also have to ask: Where was your concern about private weapons in 1994 before Utah ended discrimination in its permit process? If 1,000, mostly well-to-do white businessmen could be trusted to carry guns to church, what exactly is the problem with 50,000 law-abiding men and women of whatever race, income level or career choice doing the same thing in 2003? How many problems have we seen in the nearly 10 years since we stopped discriminating in who could defend themselves?
Your bias against the (federal and state) constitutionally protected principle of individual self-defense has reached new and irrational heights with this latest editorial. You're clearly using the emotionalism and misunderstandings surrounding this issue to further an agenda that is hostile to the very idea of effective self-defense.
Shame on you.
Charles Hardy is the policy director of GOUtah! (Gun Owners of Utah!).
