TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man wrote:

bizarrenormality wrote:I'm not sure what problem this is really trying to solve but it seems like there are more important legislative changes like removing the restrictions on CHL carrying concealed in schools, sporting events, polling places and, yes, even carry in 51% seems more important than allowing church security teams to wear security uniforms and badges without being trained as security guards.

Let's look at how this works in the real world. A greeter at Walmart doesn't need a security commission/license. I'm pretty sure our receptionist at work carries all or most of the time, and she's not a security guard, even though part of her job is directing the movement of people and watching for unauthorized entry. Ushers and ticket takers at movie theaters don't need to be security guards. Neither do the members of our neighborhood watch and I think every single one of us carries at least one firearm. But we don't play dress up.

I think you're missing a point here......

IF THIS LAW PASSED..... I don't believe that most churches would require people with CHLs on the security time to "dress up" like security guards. Where in HB2535 does it say they would have to "dress up?" 99% of the time, all this bill really would allow is for CHL holders at a church to coordinate with one another and to communicate that coordination to the pastoral staff....and to make themselves available as a resource to those who oversee church security matters. That's ALL it would do.

At my church, we have an EMS first responder team, and a Security first responder team. All of the Security team members are off-duty LEOs. I know them all, have been to the range with a couple of them, and have plans to go hunting with another one. They ALL know about my CHL, and they are ALL sympathetic to it. I have told each one of them that I realize that the law prevents me from being part of the formal team, but that I may possibly—if it makes tactical sense—deploy a gun and use it to defend my family and/or friends in an active shooter situation. I've told them that I am telling them this so that they will know not to shoot ME if they ever see me with a gun in hand. They are all favorably disposed to this and have ALSO been clear to remind me that I cannot be part of the official team because I am not an LEO. Everything is well understood by all who are involved, but my sense is that if this bill were to pass, they would willingly welcome me (or anyone else who is willing) onto the security team if I were to apply for it. In a church with an average weekly attendance of about 1,500 (of whom maybe only 750-800 are actual members), there aren't that many off-duty cops available to serve in that capacity, so they would probably welcome qualified individuals onto the team if the law allowed it.

But the law doesn't allow it. And because a church our size has limited resources to hire staff, paid security is out of the question. It would be one thing if it were a for-profit business—we could simply tailor the price of our product to cover the cost of additional support staff. However, we're a non-profit with finite resources, and a pool of ready, willing, and able volunteers who would be willing to step up and help the LEOs with security if they could, but who CAN'T step up because the law forbids it. It's not a big thing we are asking for, but you see, because we are law-abiding citizens, we cannot do it. This is one of those things where the law does not serve the public good, but rather it exists.....it would seem in the case of churches.....to protect the interests of an industry lobby.

The libertarian in me would argue that it is better for private church organizations to have full control over handling their own security needs instead of government handling and over-regulating it. Current law gets in the way of that for small non-profits.

SewTexas wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:{snip}

Failing to allow a vote on HB2535 is a mistake that diminishes public safety rather than promote it, arguments by the security industry notwithstanding. It is currently legal for CHLs to carry their self-defense handguns in church, unless the church posts a 30.06 sign. Very few post such signs and there are many tens of thousands of Texas CHLs carrying handguns in church every Sunday as well as other days. Texas law allows all citizens to use deadly force to protect not only themselves but also third persons, regardless of the location. If there is an assault on church-goers, then it is highly likely that an armed CHL will intervene to protect innocent people, and their actions will be perfectly legal and justified.

So what is gained by current law that prohibits armed CHLs from participating in volunteer security teams? Absolutely nothing, they still can and will intervene to protect innocent people and they will do so with whatever skills, training and education they possess. The more vulnerable the victims (children, the elderly, women), the greater the likelihood multiple people will intervene. Current Texas law diminishes public safety by denying churches the ability to coordinate security volunteers. The lack of coordination not only reduces operational efficiency, it increases the likelihood of accidental injury or death. This holds true for the military, law enforcement, and even one's own family. This is one reason why the military and law enforcement train and drill and why every family should have and practice both fire and intruder drills.

If HB2535 had passed, then churches could coordinate their volunteers and perhaps even obtain outside training from LEOs. They could notify their congregations of their volunteer security personnel and perhaps even establish an overall intruder plan to better prepare not only the volunteers on the security team, but the entire congregation as well. There is no downside to coordination; it can only improve safety. Not allowing HB2535 to come up for a vote was a very big mistake. Let's all pray that it does not become a tragic mistake.

Chas.

this is exactly what I have been trying to say for several months, thank you sir! you worded it so much better than I ever have!
because of this law, my husband feels unable to lead or server on our parking lot ministry.
Our church would be considered a mid/large church, but is probably lower income, we can't afford a security officer except on Christmas, and he might have even been a volunteer then, I believe he was a member.

alvins wrote:I personally don't see how someone with a chl would want the duty to protect people at church and open themselves up to being sued.d

What if you are providing security and someone tried to cause trouble and you shot them and at the same time you accidently shot an innocent person? should you get immunity from being sued or put in jail? I certainly hope not.

For me if your not family or a very close friend good luck with me providing protection.