Shooting at New Life Church

I have to contrast the actions of the unnamed woman with a gun and Ms Gingrich who saw the shooter in the parking lot fire on a van and was only able to cower in her car and fumble with the ignition key. The late Colonel Cooper said once that "an unarmed man can only flee from evil, and one does not vanquish evil by fleeing from it." That goes for unarmed and armed women, too

Other news reports indicate she had former Law Enforcement experience, but confirm she was a parishioner who volunteered, and did so with the Pastor's permission. She was brave enough to face a rifleman with her handgun and steady enough to make the shots count...good on her. One local account said she took him down initially, and when he appeared to be reaching for another weapon she delivered the coup de grace via an additional shot, also that the perp had an abundance of ammo and could have done a lot more damage. Prayers to the family who lost two daughters and the wounded father, and for those killed and wounded by the same perp in Arvada at the missionary training center dorm. Prayers also for the volunteer who stopped the perp before he could do more harm...her life will never be the same, but she stopped him from ruining a lot of other lives.

That's "prayers for", not "prayers to".

I have to wonder: Did the Church actually have a "volunteer security force" before the shooting occurred?

In Virginia, having a weapon in a Church while religious ceremonies are in progress "without good and sufficient reason" is a misdemeanor.

I looked at Colorado state laws and didn't find anything specific precluding carry in Church...I don't have time to research it properly but I have to wonder, does Colorado Springs have a local ordnance addressing weapons in Church?

If so, does it have a provision exempting, say, security personnel or some sort of "good and sufficient purpose" clause?

I just have to wonder if Mr. Pastor suddenly enlisted Ms. Shooter as a "volunteer security guard" shortly after the shooting...retroactive of course...after realizing that she might be in legal jeopardy for the heinous crime of saving the lives of other members of their congregation.

The downside, of course, is that it allows the MSM to dismiss it as an "official shooting in performance of duty" rather than just Joan citizen exercising her rights and saving the lives of untold innocents.

I can see the journalists talking at the water cooler now: "Isn't it lucky that the Church had a security force? Gaia knows that if it had been just an untrained civilian, it would have been mayhem and chaos and hundreds would have died what with those knuckle dragging, trigger happy gun nuts blasting away at each other in the confusion..."

Sailorcurt,

The definition of "good and sufficient reason" is kind of murky here in the Commonwealth. I suspect that so long as you don't have an accidental discharge and you point to recent shootings, you'll be okay (this is not legal advice, just an observation). Of course, I suspect that the sort of people who carry concealed during services don't go to the sort of church that would report them anyway.

Orthodox Jews don't carry items in the public domain on the Sabbath. After the Seattle Jewish Federation building was shot up by someone seized with sudden jihadi syndrome, I asked the rabbi at the largest Orthodox synagogue around here if in light of recent circumstances it was permitted to carry on the Sabbath. He replied, "Only if you're licensed, but don't worry, at least a couple of people here are."

SailorCurt, I usually see "ordinance/ordnance" confused the other way around. Considering the subject of this discussion it's an amusing typo...

Sailorcurt asks "does Colorado Springs have a local ordnance addressing weapons in Church?"

Well, if they (that is "we," as I live in CS) do, my otherwise very thorough CCW instructor should have said something when I took the class just last month. And he didn't.

As far as VA's laws, I wonder what business it is of the state's what people do in church?

Seems to me that she had "good and sufficient reason" to be armed that day. If this happened in New York and the perp survived, who do you thing would get more time?

According to the local ABC station, she was part of beefed-up security. She even says in the story that she "identified herself" to the gunman. She may not have been hired security, but she wasn't just an armed citizen who happened to be there. That doesn't change my opinion that concealed-carry laws should be on the books, I'm just saying that it doesn't appear that she was simply a parishioner.

I checked the CO statutes and it seems carrying a lawful concealed handgun is not prohibited on church property.

The only restrictions seem to be for official gov't offices/bldgs, courthouses, etc.

Craig C you obviously don't have a CCW. If you did, you'd know that "identifying yourself" is the FIRST thing you do when confronted with an armed agressor...you say it even as you draw a bead on the aggressor. It is not an indicator of any law enforcement affiliation. It is what you learn in the safety corse you take to get the CCW. "Stop. I have a gun." The idea is, stop shooting asshole, or I'll drill you. The idea is to stop everything before anybody gets shot. If the perp is stupid enough to keep shooting, so be it...

No obligation to warn before firing here in Utah.

The lady was a member of the church. According to news stories, she went to an early service and asked the preacher if she could stay due to the shooting earlier in Arvada. She was NOT a "security guard".And if you have a concealed carry license/permit/whatever you need to know that every state has different laws on the use of deadly force. In TEXAS, there is no "duty to retreat". If I had seen someone randomly shooting, I could take him out and be guaranteed that his "survivors" could not sue me. If you live where you can get a concealed handgun license/permit, GET ONE. If you live in a "may issue state, like California or New York, MAKE THE LEGISLATURE change the law to "shall issue". If you live in Wisconsin or Illinois, MOVE!

No obligation to warn before firing here in Utah.



While that may be (legally) true, there is always the obligation of everyone who uses a gun to make sure you know what you're shooting at. A person with a gun in a situation like this may be the shooter, or he/she may be an undercover/off-duty cop or maybe another CCW holder who is also helping out. Knowing what your target is and what force is needed is the beginning of effective self-defence.

Jeanne Assam is a former police office with the Minneapolis PD. WCCO reported earlier that she left the department under a cloud, though the PD spokesman recalls her with fondness and admiration.

The earlier shooting had alarmed the church leadership and about a dozen parishoners volunteered to provide security at the service in question, Assam being one.

http://northshorejournal.org/index.php/2007/12/jeanne-assam-hero-for-our-time

I can imagine the contortions going on in newsrooms across the country as the press tries to make the connection to Columbine.

But, seriously, a strong lady who kept her head and did the job. I've a CCW permit here in KY and at the range usually put every rd in the center of a 25' target. But you do wonder sometimes what you'd do if the target was armed also. Hope I'm as capable as her if it ever comes to it.

The Denver ABC station says this:

Assam worked as a police officer in downtown Minneapolis during the 1990s and is licensed to carry a weapon. She attends one of the morning services and then volunteers as a guard during another service.

Boyd said Assam was the one who suggested the church beef up its security Sunday following the Arvada shooting, which it did. The pastor credited the security plan and the extra security for preventing further bloodshed.

That's really something that she would have thought to ask church to increase security after the shooting in Arvada.

The shooter was also protected with body armour. This woman did her job. One article states she shot him a second time when he moved to possibly keep shooting.

The definition of "good and sufficient reason" is kind of murky here in the Commonwealth.

Agreed. My understanding has always been that if you have permission from the Pastor it's OK. I would imagine that, depending upon the city and the political stance of the DA of course, if you used a firearm to defend a church in this manner, you would probably be deemed to have "sufficient reason."

As far as my questions...my imagination seems to have gotten the best of me. It still seems a bit strange to me that a shooting at a religious organization (not even a church) near a different city, would prompt the members of this particular Church to "beef up security" and what are the odds that the perp would choose that PARTICULAR church upon which to continue his assault?

I'm not a conspiracy theorist and I have no reason to doubt the accounts of the pastor, defender and witnesses...the initial reports just struck me as a bit strange.

SailorCurt, I usually see "ordinance/ordnance" confused the other way around. Considering the subject of this discussion it's an amusing typo...

No pun intended...just typing too fast and not spell checking afterward. It was a pretty good one though...I almost wish it were intentional.

I also hail from Virginia, and I simply don't tell others that I'm packing. That I don't have to worry that someone will try to get me in trouble on those "good and sufficient reason" grounds. Of course, my church has a fair number of current and former military, and I would guess some of them are carrying too.

Trying to contribute to the discussion here. I do have very good inside information on this situation. First let me say, as a law enforcement officer, this is a great illustration of why concealed carry should be the law of the land! Most rank-and-file cops I know have no problems with law-abiding citizens carrying concealed firearms. Unfortunately, for some reason, a large percentage of chiefs of police and sheriffs tend to be liberal whereas a majority of working cops tend to be conservative. The church has had a security detail for at least a couple of years now. The former pastor - before his downfall - was frequently tapped by the national and international media for soundbites on the nightly news due to his position as the leader of the National Association of Evangelicals. Because of his visibility and the sheer size of the congregation, some prescient individuals thought it might be a good thing to provide him with some security. The folks on his security detail come primarily from law enforcement or military backgrounds although they essentially function as civilians on the protection detail. They are not paid. They volunteer their skills and training. In this particular case, the female who ended the massacre was an ex-cop in Minnesota but I believe she no longer works in the law enforcement field.

As a retired armed guard and CCL holder here in OREGON to be a guard, armed or unarmed you need to be certified by the state end of story. Now as for CCL holders HERE in oregon the gov. buildings are off limits "duh" BUT as a private business "bars, gas stations, stores, restaurants..." you can ban CCL holders but you'll need to post signs in plain sight on all the doors. As for identifying your self if you are working as a guard YES as a private citizen not realy.

If someone is firing shots at innocent people, in the time to get the words, "stop I have a gun," out he could get three or more shots off. This was demonstrated by the instructors in my 4 day hand gun training class at Front Sight, Nevada.

Yes! Judith Kohler wins the prize for being the first MSMer to make a connection of this tragedy to the Columbine shooting. Her article is here.

"If someone is firing shots at innocent people, in the time to get the words, "stop I have a gun," out he could get three or more shots off. This was demonstrated by the instructors in my 4 day hand gun training class at Front Sight, Nevada."

Agreed.

I this paricular situation, there was no question what the shooter was doing.

The first, and last, thing he should hear is the retort of your CCW as his lights go out. Warning him only draws his attention to you. And yes, I have a permit, and am trained.

From the upcoming Page Nine report:


The Gun-Free-Zone Liability Law will be introduced in Arizona in January to hold people liable for the damages fraudulent "gun-free zones" can cause.



As if to demonstrate the bill’s value, a private citizen with a CCW permit in Colorado shot and killed a madman intent on wiping out a congregation at church. The news media, behaving in a now-familiar manner, played down the incident, referring to the woman as a security guard.



The Associated Press headline, “Megachurches expand use of security forces,” essentially hid what actually happened. The Uninvited Ombudsman, in the report due shortly, suggests a more descriptive headline of “CCW-Permit Holder Kills Murderer, Saves Lives.” To get that report, sign up at http://www.gunlaws.com.



Dave -- thanks for helping to get the truth out on this issue. Alan.

Exurbankevin, thanks , you beat me to it. Denton has righteousness in his heart, but we MUST identify each other before we start shooting. God knows I don't want to shoot Denton or you ---or have you shoot me---in one of these chaotic scenes.... CCW permits entail risk. That means you are obliged to take that instasecond to identify yourself. If you just want to blast away, please don't carry.

Yes, Chris, you are right. I totally agree, the time it takes to identify yourself can be fatal for more victims. In a controlled class situation it's easy to show how many more shots a perp can get off in that second or two it takes to identify youself. But I believe (and have been trained so) that there's a big caveat here. Skipping the seconds needed to ID yourself is possible ONLY if you are sure of the shooter. In this case maybe it was clear, but that is not what we can expect if confronted with a mass murderer in a public place. In a mall or church, where other CCW permitees may be helping out, who is who? So I stand by my point. CCW permits, and carrying, entails risk, including the shooter getting a couple more shots off and even turning on you, before you are sure you are killing the right person. I just can't emphasize, the decision to have a CCW permit is not to be taken lightly. Why? Because YOU must act ethically, while the bad guy does not. You and other innocents could indeed be killed.

George Lyon & Chris, you are right. In my classes, I too saw how many more shots the perp could get off in the second or two it took to ID myself. But CCW permits come with a big caveat: YOU are expected to act ethically. In class we were not in the chaos of a public place with people screaming and running and no one wearing identifying clothing so you would know not to shoot them. Plus, take note. No cop ever draws and threatens deadly force without identifying himself and giving the perp the opportunity to stop. If you are not up to that level of ethics, you should not be carrying.

With all due respect Nitro Nora, as a cop/police supervisor/SWAT guy...there is no absolute requirement, at least in my state, to identify oneself (as a police officer) or giving the perp an opportunity to stop, if by doing so, I would endanger myself more or endanger others. This means, if some dirtbag is actively shooting others..I can shoot him until his activity is stopped, even without warning him or identifying myself. Obviously if the gunmen is not imminently threatening another with his/her gun, an officer (or private person for that matter) has the responsibility to identify/warn unless this increases the good-guys chances of getting shot. A good illustration is the classic hostage scenario. If the dirtbag has taken a hostage and is holding a gun to the hostage's head, in every jurisdiction I know, it would be perfectly legal for a police sniper to take a head shot without warning the bad guy. In all cases, the "reasonable officer" standard applies. But....otherwise you have a good discussion going on. As a cop very much in favor of a private citizen's right to carry a weapon, the difference between a private party carrying a gun and a cop carrying a gun is not necessarily shooting skills. Anybody can be taught to shoot the center ring....but what cops do get a lot more of is "shoot-don't shoot" scenarios. Many times this is through simulators or scenarios with training guns. My recommendation to any private person with a concealed carry permit is practice decision making as much as you do your target shooting. Get your friends to roll-play etc. And visualize. You have to prepare yourself mentally. Before you walk into that convenience store, for example, go over in your mind how you would react if you walked in on a robbery in progress. Unfortunately most cops don't even do this. But the ones who really care about staying alive and making it through a shift constantly do this kind of mental excercising in regards to using and reacting to deadly force situations. Stay safe all of you! Good stuff.

What is the Big deal? She, regardless of being a former Leo or Volunteer or what ever her background is ,SHE SAVED MANY LIVES THAT DAY.It is time to let this rest and let her get on with her life.The Media will do enough to make her look like a criminal and gun slinger.She did what I pray any one else would do if put in that same situation

What is the email address for new life church?