TexasCHLforum.com

jmorris wrote:

Keith B wrote:

Pinkycatcher wrote: Can they be allowed to carry by the administration of the church, because wouldn't it be private property?

Nope, state law specifically lists no church carry, so that overrides the private property. Besides, a church is open to the public for the most part. (Hopefully anyway! )

But being open to the public does not make it public property. A mall is private property. AFAIK, public property is only owned by the goverment.

True. My point was really as a piece of private property open to the public, they have different guidelines they must follow (like the ADA, etc.) However, no matter public of private, if the state law says you can't carry concealed in a mall, then the mall can't give permission either.

I have never understood the prohibition on church carry. It's a clear violation of the 1st Amendment. Tee-totallers outnumber Catholics in most Southern states; what if the majority managed to pass a ban on alcohol in churches?

Same principle applies here: something that offends someone's sense of propriety is outlawed, in clear violation of private property rights. Doesn't matter to me if it's a bar or a church: the state has no business outlawing carry on anyone's private property. (Of course, the property owner has ever right to ban carry, but the onus should be on the owner.)

An update on the facts, which have not been updated here since the initial vague news reports.

Jim David Adkisson has been arrested and charged with murder. Here is a copy of an affidavit in support of obtaining a search warrant for the search of his home, which, among other things, outlines his admissions during an interview by law enforcement officers, after waiving his Miranda rights.

From paragraph 9 of Investigator Still's affidavit,

"During the interview Adkisson stated that he had targeted the church because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country, and that he felt that the Democrats had tied his country's hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of major media outlets. Adkisson made statements that because he could not get to the leaders of the liberal movement that he would then target those that had voted them in to office...."

Adkisson's victims were parishioners of a Universalist Unitarian church noted for its diverse liberal membership, known for its general reputation of supporting a woman's right to choose, racial harmony, the right to live an unhindered alternative lifestyle, and other civil liberties not respected by many others. These parishioners disarmed and captured Adkisson without feeling it necessary to kill him.

Jim

A bit of trivia below (after doing a little reseach on the Model of Remington shotgun mentioned in the affidavit). It tells me the church people probably dog piled him while he was reloading ...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Model 48 Sportsman: The 48 Sportsman was the same gun except it was made so that it would only accept 2 rounds in the magazine, conforming to the Federal Migratory bird regulations. It was introduced in 1949 & discontinued in 1959.

This magazine restriction was made possible by simply taking a 11-48 magazine tube & stamping 3 detent dimples around it thereby restricting the follower from going beyond this & limiting it to 2 rounds in the magazine."

57Coastie wrote:.....
Adkisson's victims were parishioners of a Universalist Unitarian church noted for its diverse liberal membership, known for its general reputation of supporting a woman's right to choose, racial harmony, the right to live an unhindered alternative lifestyle, and other civil liberties not respected by many others. These parishioners disarmed and captured Adkisson without feeling it necessary to kill him.

Jim

Being that none of the parishioners were armed, I don't think it was a choice *not* to kill him, their only option was to capture him. If there'd been one CHL holder in the church might things have gone different? Evidently Mr. McKendry had time to move to try to protect others before the first shot, this should have been enough time to take down the shooter. I applaud the heroism of the members who tackled the shooter, in too many other instances it's every man for himself, but I believe one shooter dead is better than two parishioners dead and six wounded.

Added:
I just found this graphic of how it went down. http://www.knoxnews.com/photos/2008/jul/28/32856/ I understand he fired three times although this lists only two shots. Evidently the third is when the women (6) is struck. I just find it hard to believe, given where he stood, that someone didn't notice him removing the shotgun from the guitar case. I understand that attention was on the children, but there should have been adults back there with the children in the rear, where he was.

jmorris wrote: I don't think it was a choice *not* to kill him, their only option was to capture him.

You don't think so? If they had felt the need to kill another human being, as it appears so many do, they could have beaten him to death.

Jim

57Coastie wrote:

jmorris wrote: I don't think it was a choice *not* to kill him, their only option was to capture him.

You don't think so? If they had felt the need to kill another human being, as it appears so many do, they could have beaten him to death.

Jim

Beating him to death means beating him beyond threat stage. He would be incapacitated and disarmed well before the death blow. In this case, it would be murder, not self defense. There was a CSI (yes, I know not totally legally binding) that had a case of a crazy guy trying to open the door of a pressurized plane cabin in flight, and the passengers stopped him by beating him to death. They determined it was murder because the passengers continued to beat the guy even though he was unconscious after the first or second blow, but let them go because no jury would convict.

A person with a CCW could have stopped him quickly, and as a result may have killed him, but they key is to neutralize the threat with whatever it takes, and nothing overly excessive. Of course without being there, speculation is useless. I see what you are probably trying to say though. Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you pointing out that because of the church's established ideologies, they most likely wouldn't have carried or shot him even if they could have?

agbullet2k1 wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you pointing out that because of the church's established ideologies, they most likely wouldn't have carried or shot him even if they could have?

Not really, ag. I was just attempting to subtly observe that we sometimes appear to be such a blood-thirsty group.

Jim

Ah, agreed. There are always many options in a particular circumstance, and most of the time there is more than one correct choice. Without being there, it's easy to say he'd be full of holes before he got a shot off, but the truth is we'll never know, and whatever worked for them did save lives.

dukesean wrote:what a senseless tradgedy...

...and also why I carry to church

+1