Democrats Push Bill That Could Prevent Churches From Having Armed Security

Geeko Sportivo said:
NO SIR! The Bill just isn't ready to pass as it is written today., if an active shooting situation took place, and the shooter was killed or injured by the church security team, the proposed law would make members of the security team subject to criminal penalties that range from 5 years to life in prison.

The applicable text of the bill says, “In the case of a violation that results in…bodily injury, the person shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both; or death, the person shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for any term of years or for life.”

SO what in the world would a Bill like this accomplish really- if it contains language like that!

You need to stop just listening to these Trumptards Sir, without reading the entire story for yourself from a neutral and reliable NEWS SOURCE.

BECAUSE THE TRUMPTARDS ARE NOT GOING TO TELL YOU THE WHOLE STORY.

Their only goal is to upset you and instill fear in you!

Volsrock is a complete TRUMPTARDED AND HATEFUL RACIST IDIOT!

Just so you will know!
Click to expand...

Nordberg’s comment does indeed deserve a groan. It is akin to the guy who prays to God for help with “ “ (insert any life problem there…marriage, drug/drinking problem, financial problem, etc.) and does nothing to try to help improve his situation. While “The Lord helps those who help themselves” is not a direct quote from scripture, it is the essence of scripture’s teaching.

I am in the assembly of Christians every Sunday AM & PM and every Wednesday night. I carry every time I’m there. If a situation did arise that required defense I will use deadly force if warranted … and I will “pray to God” before, during and after…
 
leaningright said:
But the fact that some liberal idiot even proposes something like this is cause for staying on one’s toes as to what is going on.

And people can talk about and/or disparage the source (Breitbart) all they want to, and although I hate the incessant support for all things Trump by them, before the rise of “conservative” media things like this would have flown under the radar of most JQP.

Being informed of such efforts, if, heaven forbid, I lived in NY, this senator would go directly to my “do not support” list.
Click to expand...
I attribute most of this nonsense to it being an election year. Even though Markey isn't running this year, Laphonza Butler is up for elected after being appointed to Feinstein's seat. The Democrats want to make noise for themselves. This will give Biden a chance to support them. Blah, blah, blah. It's just another reason why I never liked politics.

Breitbart, like other politically biased sources, twists the truth, but there's still truth there. This bill is, indeed, up for passage. The fact it won't pass is irrelevant to that fact.

The fact a Massachusetts and a California Senator are pushing the bill says something all by itself. :)
 
volsrock said:
So if this law was on place when the church shooting took place,,The mass shooter would have been able to kill more innocents.
Click to expand...

...and if invaders from Mars attacked, guns would be useless against Martian bioweapons. :thup:

Please feel free to unbunch your panties, vols. This bill won't pass and could hurt the Democrats for merely suggesting such overreaching laws denying Americans the right of self-defense. It's another example of Democrat "one-size-fits-all" laws.
 
volsrock said:
Senator Edward Markey (D-MA) is pushing legislation that could prevent churches around the country from using a “security services unit” comprised of concealed carriers in congregations, parishes, etc.

The bill is the Preventing Private Military Act of 2024, and it is co-sponsored by Senator Laphonza Butler (D-CA)

https://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amend...-prevent-churches-from-having-armed-security/


Armed security is what stopped The Texas shooting and now they want to ban it
Click to expand...

Yet another unconstitutional attempt to ban guns or the right of self defense.
 
volsrock said:
Senator Edward Markey (D-MA) is pushing legislation that could prevent churches around the country from using a “security services unit” comprised of concealed carriers in congregations, parishes, etc.

The bill is the Preventing Private Military Act of 2024, and it is co-sponsored by Senator Laphonza Butler (D-CA)

https://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amend...-prevent-churches-from-having-armed-security/


Armed security is what stopped The Texas shooting and now they want to ban it
Click to expand...

How many churches have parishioners armed with explosives and incendiary devices?

I guess this bill would make David Koresh's compound illegal. (But they were already doing illegal stuff such as altering weapons in violation of the law.)

This is the relevant part of the proposed law.
Ҥ 2742. Unauthorized private paramilitary activity

“(a) Offense.—It shall be unlawful to knowingly, in a circumstance described in subsection (b), while acting as part of or on behalf of a private paramilitary organization and armed with a firearm, explosive or incendiary device, or other dangerous weapon—

“(1) publically patrol, drill, or engage in techniques capable of causing bodily injury or death;

“(2) interfere with, interrupt, or attempt to interfere with or interrupt government operations or a government proceeding;

“(3) interfere with or intimidate another person in that person's exercise of any right under the Constitution of the United States;

“(4) assume the functions of a law enforcement officer, peace officer, or public official, whether or not acting under color of law, and thereby assert authority or purport to assert authority over another person without the consent of that person; or

“(5) train to engage in any activity described in paragraphs (1) through (4).

“(b) Circumstances.—The circumstances described in this subsection are that the conduct described in subsection (a)—

“(1) involves—

“(A) travel across a State line or national border; or

“(B) the use of the channels, facilities, or instrumentalities of interstate or foreign commerce;

“(2) involves a firearm, explosive or incendiary device, or dangerous weapon that has traveled in interstate or foreign commerce;

“(3) involves the use of ammunition or a large capacity ammunition feeding device that has traveled in interstate or foreign commerce;

“(4) obstructs, delays, or affects interstate or foreign commerce; or

“(5) occurs wholly within any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.
Click to expand...

What part would prevent a church from having armed parishioners or prevent armed security?

You don't seem to know your ass from the hole in your head based on your willingness to believe Brietbart instead of looking at the actual bill.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/3589/text
 
volsrock said:
So if this law was on place when the church shooting took place,,The mass shooter would have been able to kill more innocents.
Click to expand...

NO. The bill doesn't prevent anyone from having armed security. It simply prevents them from training in public in a way that could injure the public.
Or perhaps you are arguing that the shooter is exercising a constitutional right and they can't interfere when someone uses a gun to shoot other people.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
NO. The bill doesn't prevent anyone from having armed security. It simply prevents them from training in public in a way that could injure the public.
Or perhaps you are arguing that the shooter is exercising a constitutional right and they can't interfere when someone uses a gun to shoot other people.
Click to expand...

It seems the Democrats are attempting to ban militias. The "out" is to register as a business or working for the church. :thup:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/118/hr6981/text
(9)Private paramilitary organization
The term private paramilitary organization means any group of 3 or more persons associating under a command structure for the purpose of functioning in public or training to function in public as a combat, combat support, law enforcement, or security services unit.
 
Doc Dutch said:
It seems the Democrats are attempting to ban militias. The "out" is to register as a business or working for the church. :thup:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/118/hr6981/text
(9)Private paramilitary organization
The term private paramilitary organization means any group of 3 or more persons associating under a command structure for the purpose of functioning in public or training to function in public as a combat, combat support, law enforcement, or security services unit.
Click to expand...

No. They aren't banning based on the definitions. They aren't banning all private paramilitary organizations. Only ones that do certain things listed in the text of the bill.
 
leaningright said:
Nordberg’s comment does indeed deserve a groan. It is akin to the guy who prays to God for help with “ “ (insert any life problem there…marriage, drug/drinking problem, financial problem, etc.) and does nothing to try to help improve his situation. While “The Lord helps those who help themselves” is not a direct quote from scripture, it is the essence of scripture’s teaching.

I am in the assembly of Christians every Sunday AM & PM and every Wednesday night. I carry every time I’m there. If a situation did arise that required defense I will use deadly force if warranted … and I will “pray to God” before, during and after…
Click to expand...

You I trust with a gun Sir. And if you want to take your gun to church, GREAT! I am sure your Church is thankful for your voluntary security you provide them.

But, I just wanted you to know, that the way this proposed Bill is written, you could end up being charged with murder- should you shoot someone in church.

That was the point, I was trying to convey to you!
 
volsrock said:
So if this law was on place when the church shooting took place,,The mass shooter would have been able to kill more innocents.
Click to expand...

Just read the bill, as it is written Sir- it is counter-intuitive.

It simply punishes the one who is defending the Church, should someone get shot!

You can't have that!

The Bill needs more clarification- the way it is written now.

When Nancy said, "You must pass the Bill first To Know what is in it" was taken out of context by You IDIOTS.

You took that as literal, when Nancy was just joking, as a phenomena that happens in Congress, because so many House Members tack so many things onto a Bill in the last minute, that the FINAL bill you are signing onto must and should be read, in total, before saying YAY or NAY! As a House Member, you must pay attention to the Bills under review- up until the last minute, or you may say Yay to something you do not approve of.

She was mocking Congress, not telling her House Members they need to just approve a Bill before reading it- LIKE FOX NEWS led you to believe.
 
Last edited:
Bigdog said:
Says the Leftist that hates Black churches. :barf:
Click to expand...

That was a stupid claim. You are a special brand of twisted. I see all churches as the same. The leadership is using comforting lies to fleece the flock. They have no more knowledge about the afterlife than you do. They are a huge con. Cons work so well on rightys.
 
Doc Dutch said:
Keywords "banning".
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with banning.
It makes it illegal to be part of an armed group with a command structure that
1. publicly patrol, drill or engage in techniques that could cause bodily harm or
2. interferes with attempts to interfere with government activities or
3. interferes with the civil rights of other people or
4. attempts to perform the duties assigned to law enforcement

It doesn't matter if the group calls themselves a militia or not. It matters if they meet the definition.

A self described militia can train privately all they want without violating the law.
A group that calls themselves a "dance team" that arms themselves and publicly waves guns around and threatens people would violate it.
a militia that shows up at the border and starts "arresting" brown people that look like they might have snuck across the border would violate it.
 
Last edited:
Geeko Sportivo said:
You I trust with a gun Sir. And if you want to take your gun to church, GREAT! I am sure your Church is thankful for your voluntary security you provide them.

But, I just wanted you to know, that the way this proposed Bill is written, you could end up being charged with murder- should you shoot someone in church.

That was the point, I was trying to convey to you!
Click to expand...

Yep, that’s the way I read it. Not good.
 
Doc Dutch said:
Like militias and Night Watch groups?
Click to expand...

Only if they do one of the 4 things listed would they violate the law.
A night watch group that doesn't attempt to arrest people would not be in violation. (That is if the night watch group has some kind of command structure. I don't think most do.)
A militia that doesn't threaten or do public armed events wouldn't be in violation.

Then you get to the exceptions that would make a group exempt.
A group authorized by law to provide security services would be exempt. A night watch group authorized under local law would not be in violation of the law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top