Via Shutterstock.

A bill allowing the concealed carry of handguns in the District of Columbia now includes a provision adding house of worship to the list of places where carrying is presumed to be prohibited.

The presumed ban in churches, synagogues, mosques and other religious houses was one of the biggest issues raised during an October hearing on the License to Carry a Pistol Amendment Act, a bill created in response to a court ruling that overturned the city’s ban on public handgun carry. Like businesses, the original bill allowed concealed carry in houses of worship unless they posted “conspicuous signage.”

While the city appeals the ruling, the Council has temporary legislation, coupled with regulations from the Metropolitan Police Department, in place to allow handgun owners to apply for a concealed carry license.

The Council’s committee on Judiciary and Public Safety is scheduled to markup the permanent legislation tomorrow, with a full Council vote expected before the end of the year.

Under the original bill, concealed carry was presumed prohibited in D.C.-owned buildings, schools, daycares, hospitals, health care buildings, jails and stadiums, on school grounds, premises where alcohol is served, the National Mall and public transportation, and near the White House or a motorcade. Private businesses may prohibit concealed carry through “conspicuous signage.”

That’s the same under the bill that will be marked up tomorrow, but the presumption has changed for houses of worship:

Any church, synagogue, mosque, or other place where people regularly assemble for religious worship shall be presumed to prohibit the presence of concealed pistols unless the property is posted with conspicuous signage allowing concealed pistols, or the owner or authorized agent communicates such allowance personally to the licensee in advance of entry onto the property; provided, that such places may not authorize concealed pistols where services are conducted in locations listed in subsection (a) of this section.

Terry Lynch, executive director of the Downtown Cluster of Congregations — which opposed the bill as it was originally written — called the change “marvelous.”

“It seemed like an obvious … oversight that they wouldn’t include it in the first place,” he said. “Hopefully we can protect some other critical locations, as well.”