Favorite

Packing in church, revisited 

My recent e-mail has gone pretty much like this, if you'll permit a composite:

“I used to think you had some sense, but not anymore. Are you seriously for this bill to allow concealed guns in church? Let me tell you something, buddy boy: The first time I find out that somebody in my worship service is packing a gun, that's when I'll find myself another church. You need to go stick your head through an MRI machine.”

Well, ma'am, and sir, this bill, if enacted, would leave the matter to your church. So what you should do is speak with your deacons or elders or bishops or whatever kind of governance your flavor imposes.

And if you're a fan of irony, as I am, please observe the emotionalism of the one accusing the other of lacking sense.

This all reminds me of the time Texas was getting ready to execute a woman. Many expressed outrage that a state would kill a female. I thought at the time: What is this? Are you for the death penalty or not? Or are you only for killing males?

Maybe it's the death penalty that troubles us, not merely its application to a female. And maybe it's the handgun that bothers us, not just its concealed presence in church.

Church buildings offer a crutch, a convenient excuse for expressing an otherwise unpopular position. You folks are harboring some repressed liberalism out there. Yet you lack the courage to express it fully.

But you say your objection is narrowly specific to the grotesque, outrageous idea of letting anyone carry a gun into God's house.

It's all God's house. He loves the victim in the ‘hood as much as he loves the victim in the pew.

Logic, reason, certainly consistency — they're on my side.

We're schizophrenic to allow concealed handguns and then ask those duly licensed to carry them to keep putting them down — somewhere. We say they may carry them into restaurants serving booze, but not into bars.

Let's say you have this good ol' boy, a salt-of-the-Arkansas-earth fellow, whose cultural influences lead him to carry a licensed concealed weapon and who, one night a week, goes to his church — also from his cultural influences — to volunteer janitorial work to get the sanctuary spiffy for Sunday.

Apparently my critics support his right to carry his concealed firearm on his person all the way to the parking lot of the church. But they wouldn't permit him to take it inside. They want him to leave it concealed in the car.

Personally, I'd prefer that the gun be in his pocket next to his body while he vacuums and mops. That would be better than forcing him to leave it in a lone car on a darkened lot. Many more cars are vandalized than guns wrested from licensed carriers.

By the way: Do you know how many persons licensed to carry concealed weapons in Arkansas have had those licenses revoked for taking them somewhere not allowed or using them inappropriately? That would be none.

The fellow who gets a license to carry his gun tends not to be the fellow you need to worry about. The scary guy is the one who doesn't mind a misdemeanor charge of carrying an unlicensed concealed weapon. That's because he has felonies on his mind.

Finally, allow me to invoke one of our most precious principles, that of separation of church and state.

More than 40 states have some fashion of concealed-carry laws and the great majority of them decline to make any reference whatever to churches. This silence is blissful, appropriate, golden, constitutional.

But here in Arkansas we had to go and make ourselves feel righteous by putting a church exception into our concealed carry law. It's yet another irony: We decry meddlesome government even as we insist on imposing it.

So now we look like a Wild West show — we're Leno fodder — for trying to undo something we shouldn't have addressed remotely in the first place.

Like many issues, this one falls victim in public rhetoric to emotion and oversimplification. Its superficial implication (“guns in church; oh my God!”) is much worse than its meaningful substance.

I agree with my critics on one thing. They say guns don't mix with churches. I say that goes for laws.

Take churches out of this law and then leave them alone to do as their theology teaches without any presumed regulation either way. There's a logical solution for you.

Favorite

From the ArkTimes store

Comments

Subscribe to this thread:

Add a comment

More by John Brummett

  • Obstruction is the preferred conservatism

    Is there greater conservative virtue in opposing federal health reform, period, or in saying it ought to be implemented locally instead of from Washington in the event we are unavoidably laden with it?
    • Oct 5, 2011
  • A fate not quite as bad as prison for Lu Hardin

    There is no crime in being overly and transparently solicitous for the purposes of aggrandizement and personal political advancement. That's simply acute neediness, a common and benign human frailty.
    • Sep 28, 2011
  • Can we talk? Can we get anywhere?

    Dialogue is good. It would be even better if someone would venture off script every once in a while.
    • Sep 21, 2011
  • More »

Most Shared

Latest in John Brummett

  • Gone to the DoG

    We're now longer carrying John Brummett's column in this space.
    • Oct 12, 2011
  • Obstruction is the preferred conservatism

    Is there greater conservative virtue in opposing federal health reform, period, or in saying it ought to be implemented locally instead of from Washington in the event we are unavoidably laden with it?
    • Oct 5, 2011
  • A fate not quite as bad as prison for Lu Hardin

    There is no crime in being overly and transparently solicitous for the purposes of aggrandizement and personal political advancement. That's simply acute neediness, a common and benign human frailty.
    • Sep 28, 2011
  • More »

Event Calendar

« »

December

S M T W T F S
  1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31  

Most Viewed

  • Silly acts, good law

    It was unavoidable that the struggle by sexual minorities to gain the equal treatment that the Constitution promises them would devolve into silliness and that the majestic courts of the land would have to get their dignity sullied in order to resolve the issues.
  • A difference

    How low can a columnist go? On evidence, nowhere near as low as the president of the United States. I'd intended to highlight certain ironies in the career of U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.). The self-anointed moral arbiter of the Senate began her career as a tobacco company lawyer — that is, somebody ill-suited to demand absolute purity of anybody, much less Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.).
  • Money talks

    Democratic candidates face a dilemma in Arkansas. To take on the GOP members who are firmly entrenched in the state Legislature and Congress, they will need lots of money and lots of votes. The easiest way to get more votes is to spend more money. Obscene amounts of money. And thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United decision and President Trump's judicial appointments, this will be our reality for a long time. The six Republicans who make up our congressional delegation have stopped pretending to care about their constituents. They vote in line with the interests of big corporations and lobbyists. They know what side their bread is buttered on.
  • Gratitude

    Now, more than ever, I find myself thankful for those who resist. Those who remind us of our higher common values. The fact-checkers and truth-tellers. Those who build bridges in communities instead of walls to segregate. The ones who stand up and speak out against injustice.

Most Recent Comments

  • Re: Cats and dogs

    • I miss my wolves. It has been over five years since the last of my…

    • on December 12, 2017
 

© 2017 Arkansas Times | 201 East Markham, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201
Powered by Foundation