Question about my church

[rhino]

Given that we have to live with the modern construct of "separation of church and state" in addition to what was actually stated and intended in the US Constitution, how is it that the government (either Federal or Indiana) can apply the laws that pertain to government schools in exactly the same manner to church-owned and operated schools?

In other words, what is the legal justification for the LTCH being invalid on church school grounds if there is this separation of church and state?

 

[SwikLS]

Given that we have to live with the modern construct of "separation of church and state" in addition to what was actually stated and intended in the US Constitution, how is it that the government (either Federal or Indiana) can apply the laws that pertain to government schools in exactly the same manner to church-owned and operated schools?

In other words, what is the legal justification for the LTCH being invalid on church school grounds if there is this separation of church and state?

The legal justification is GFZ at school/church properties promote the progressive cause. The Ten Commandments next to a courthouse does not.

You better get your mind right or risk being sent to re-education camp.

 

[eldirector]

Given that we have to live with the modern construct of "separation of church and state" in addition to what was actually stated and intended in the US Constitution, how is it that the government (either Federal or Indiana) can apply the laws that pertain to government schools in exactly the same manner to church-owned and operated schools?

In other words, what is the legal justification for the LTCH being invalid on church school grounds if there is this separation of church and state?

I'm guessing the same legal justification that requires a license for an otherwise guaranteed right.

 

[Fargo]

Given that we have to live with the modern construct of "separation of church and state" in addition to what was actually stated and intended in the US Constitution, how is it that the government (either Federal or Indiana) can apply the laws that pertain to government schools in exactly the same manner to church-owned and operated schools?

In other words, what is the legal justification for the LTCH being invalid on church school grounds if there is this separation of church and state?

Your ltch is only invalid there if the private school says it is.

 

[eldirector]

Your ltch is only invalid there if the private school says it is.

No, it is invalid by default.

The school (not the church, in this case) has to specifically allow you to carry.

If the school administrator takes no action, you may not carry, even with a license.

 

[CPT Nervous]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

The Seperation clause was two fold. No state religion or prohibiting the free excercise thereof. Meaning that the church would have no authority over the state and vice versa.


And Bill of Rights, not the Constitution. My mistake.

I see what you were saying now. Just the way you said it was a little confusing.

 

[Fargo]

No, it is invalid by default.

The school (not the church, in this case) has to specifically allow you to carry.

If the school administrator takes no action, you may not carry, even with a license.

While you are absolutely correct about the starting point, my point is that churches are perfectly free to allow carry if they want to even if they have a school on the grounds.

I am absolutely opposed to them being GFZs, but I don't see this as a religious freedom issue.

 

[eldirector]

my point is that churches are perfectly free to allow carry if they want to even if they have a school on the grounds.

Agreed, and even supported by current IC. Churches (well, their school administrators) are 100% free to allow carry of firearms by ANYONE they want. Well, other than actually prohibited persons. They could even allow unlicensed carry, as private property owners.

 

[rhino]

While you are absolutely correct about the starting point, my point is that churches are perfectly free to allow carry if they want to even if they have a school on the grounds.

I am absolutely opposed to them being GFZs, but I don't see this as a religious freedom issue.

Agreed, and even supported by current IC. Churches (well, their school administrators) are 100% free to allow carry of firearms by ANYONE they want. Well, other than actually prohibited persons. They could even allow unlicensed carry, as private property owners.

But if they don't specifically take that action, people who carry there are risking a felony arrest and conviction. That's a big difference than the situation of a church with no school. They can ban guns or not, but either way there is no specter of a felony hanging over everyone's head.

 

[jblomenberg16]

But if they don't specifically take that action, people who carry there are risking a felony arrest and conviction. That's a big difference than the situation of a church with no school. They can ban guns or not, but either way there is no specter of a felony hanging over everyone's head.

It is a very big deal. Unfortunately, the schools are hamstrung not just by law, but also by insurance. I would imagine that the insurance policies for many schools have some risk management clauses in them, and a principle or school board member giving permission for people to carry a weapon on school property could be an issue.

 

[eldirector]

It is a very big deal. Unfortunately, the schools are hamstrung not just by law, but also by insurance. I would imagine that the insurance policies for many schools have some risk management clauses in them, and a principle or school board member giving permission for people to carry a weapon on school property could be an issue.

Luckily, it is a (somewhat) free market. If any organization doesn't like their coverage, they can amend the policy or switch providers.

I've gone through this with insurance for local non-profits. Not for firearms, but other (in their eyes) risky activities. When they threatened to raise rates or drop coverage, we found another provider. Even got a better rate a few times.

Of course, even for insurance, it is all about how you position it. Allow guns in school? NO WAY!!!! Provide for increased security during church/school sponsored events, buy State licensed (and possibly even professionally trained) volunteers? Well, that doesn't sound all that risky.

If the private school my kiddo attends suggested that, I would be first in line. Not only to partake, but to help coordinate the effort.

 

[T.Lex]

@OP

I am in a similar predicament.

From this thread:
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...f-defense/380703-carry-church-has-school.html

I belong to a church that also has a school - a real K-8 school. The church and the school are on the same parcel of land, but totally separate buildings.

If someone were to carry at the church, I believe there is a good argument that it is legal, because they are separate buildings. The school "sits" on church property, not the other way around. However, someone should be careful NOT to carry within the actual school, which has a connected gym.

On the wrong day, or with the wrong situation, a prosecutor might disagree. It would take a jury and an appellate court (or 2) to sort it out.

That doesn't really address your point, though, with regard to pre-k or daycares. It is just an approach that makes sense to me. If the church and the "school" are in the same building, then that's a really tough call IMHO.

@Fargo

I know you know how to do this, but this is how I parse IC 35-41-1-24.7:
"School property" means a building or other structure owned or rented by a private school that is not supported and maintained by funds realized from the imposition of a tax on property, income, or sales.

In my case, and the OP, I believe the key is that the "school" does not own or rent anything. The parish/dioceses does. There is no "school" in the legal sense; it is not a legal entity. The church has buildings that it educates kids in, and calls it a "school," but there is not a separate entity.

Now, in an abundance of caution, I do not carry in the buildings where that educating (allegedly) occurs. But, I think the application of the law to this situation is decidedly in doubt.

I am also not looking to be a test case.

 

[lovemachine]

I'm just going to continue like I have been. I don't want to be a test case, and I don't have the stones to chance it anyway.

 

[level0]

The legal justification is GFZ at school/church properties promote the [strike]progressive[/strike] socialst marxist communist un-American traitorous scumbag cause. The Ten Commandments next to a courthouse does not.

You better get your mind right or risk being sent to re-education camp.

FIFM.

 

[bwframe]

I'm just going to continue like I have been. I don't want to be a test case, and I don't have the stones to chance it anyway.

I'm a believer and pretty adamant about carrying all the time. That said, there are a few places that I don't carry. It's not a bad thing to break a bit from the "one tool" mentality.