TexasCHLforum.com

gugisman wrote:Great commentary, thank you for paying attention. Until laws or regulations are challenged, they can be interpreted by me or anyone else... I interpret my authority under 46.15 to mean 1702 would not apply, since 1702 is subservient to chapter 46. I could tell you my background but that does not matter. Your opinion is no less valid than mine. Now let's work together and fix this by supporting Matt Schaefers bill.

The Occupations Code is not "subservient to chapter 46" of the Penal Code. The provisions of §46.15 and Chp. 1702 are not conflicting, so we don't get into issues such as the specific controlling over the general, presumptive appeal, or any of the other conflict resolution methods we use when there is an irreconcilable conflict between code provisions.

Also, no authority is granted in §46.15. That subsection serves only to make §§46.02 and 46.03 "not applicable" to people set out in §46.15.

Chas.

Nothing of which I am aware in Chp. 46 exempts LEO's from Chp. 1702 of the Occupations Code. However, §1702.322 expressly exempts certain LEOs from Chp. 1702.

Chas.

Tex. Occup. Code §1702.322 wrote:Sec. 1702.322. LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL. This chapter does not apply to:

(1) a person who has full-time employment as a peace officer and who receives compensation for private employment on an individual or an independent contractor basis as a patrolman, guard, extra job coordinator, or watchman if the officer:

• (A) is employed in an employee-employer relationship or employed on an individual contractual basis:
  
  • (i) directly by the recipient of the services; or
    
    (ii) by a company licensed under this chapter;
  (B) is not in the employ of another peace officer;
  
  (C) is not a reserve peace officer; and
  
  (D) works as a peace officer on the average of at least 32 hours a week, is compensated by the state or a political subdivision of the state at least at the minimum wage, and is entitled to all employee benefits offered to a peace officer by the state or political subdivision;

(2) a reserve peace officer while the reserve officer is performing guard, patrolman, or watchman duties for a county and is being compensated solely by that county;

(3) a peace officer acting in an official capacity in responding to a burglar alarm or detection device; or

(4) a person engaged in the business of electronic monitoring of an individual as a condition of that individual's community supervision, parole, mandatory supervision, or release on bail, if the person does not perform any other service that requires a license under this chapter.

gugisman wrote:Please advise if/when the church security amended bill will make it to the floor. What can be done at this time to lobby for it?

It will be filed, probably soon, but I can't estimate is chances of hitting the House floor. They are much better than last session!

Chas.

TresHuevos wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Unfortunately, the legislative website doesn't have the witness list posted for the public hearing testimony on HB2535 on April 11, 2013, during the 2013 legislative session. However, you can watch the video of the public hearing and you will hear the testimony of security industry lobbyist, Allen Trevino of ASSIST. His testimony begins at 2:06:29. He testified against the bill and even falsely stated that the bill wasn't necessary because churches can already do what the Bill would allow. Then DPS Capt. RenEarl Bowie was called to testify as a resource witness and he refuted what the industry lobbyist has just stated.

Chas.

We, as an industry, lose very very little in having churches provide their own security.

I agree and this is one reason I was surprised to hear an industry lobbyist testifying. It must be a pure "not on my turf" philosophy. He lost a lot of credibility with the Committee when he said the Bill wasn't necessary only to have Capt. Bowie dispute that testimony. (Capt. Bowie is in charge of the DPS Division that includes security companies.)

Chas.

gringo pistolero wrote:

mojo84 wrote:You are correct in your statement. However, this discussion is about church security groups and that it's illegal for people to carry while participating in church security activities.

Non-Church too. If you want to do security guard work, you need to follow the security guard rules.

The Occupations Code already has an exemption for volunteers with churches, but there's a catch. A CHL cannot be armed when serving as a volunteer. So church volunteers can perform the functions, but cannot be armed.

Chas.

DPS FAQ wrote:However, there is one exception to licensing under Chapter 1702 provided by the legislature that could arguably apply, which can be found in section 1702.323 (“Security department of Private Business”). This exception would allow volunteers to provide security services exclusively for one church, as long as they do not carry firearms and as long as they do not wear “a uniform with any type of badge commonly associated with security personnel or law enforcement or a patch or apparel with ‘security’ on the patch or apparel.” See Tex. Occ. Code §1702.323(a) & (d)(2). Thus, the wearing of a uniform or any apparel containing the word “security” would subject them to the licensing requirements of the act.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/PSB/La ... in_sum.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

TresHuevos wrote:

gugisman wrote:I wish it was so simple. The problem is when you start making active shooter/bomber response plans, designating armed individuals to sit in certain areas, develop crowd control commands, and so on.

The law needs to be changed. A private industry must not be allowed to influence our legislators to pass laws that restrict freedom of worship, which by regulating volunteer security teams, it does.

This law is also being used to restrict volunteer armed teams from providing security on privately owned lands on or near the Mexican border.

Please join me when it becomes time to testify in support of the amended bill, sometime in 2015.

I'm curious what proof you have that the contract security industry is doing any type of lobbying on this matter. I work in this field and I know of no position either for or against. The company that I work for wouldn't take a contract at a church, it's just not the type of business that we do.

Unfortunately, the legislative website doesn't have the witness list posted for the public hearing testimony on HB2535 on April 11, 2013, during the 2013 legislative session. However, you can watch the video of the public hearing and you will hear the testimony of security industry lobbyist, Allen Trevino of ASSIST. His testimony begins at 2:06:29. He testified against the bill and even falsely stated that the bill wasn't necessary because churches can already do what the Bill would allow. Then DPS Capt. RenEarl Bowie was called to testify as a resource witness and he refuted what the industry lobbyist has just stated.

Chas.

recaffeination wrote:

chuckybrown wrote:I find it humorous that people are even arguing with Mr. Cotton.

I think it's funny this thread has eight pages of opinions but nobody has quoted where the law says two guys who work in a liquor store can plan what to do in a robbery and not lose their right to carry, and fifty neighbors can form a neighborhood watch and not lose their right to carry, but if twenty people at a church do the same thing it's illegal for them to carry as CHL.

This has been posted more than once, but I certainly wouldn't want you to have to do your own research. You too leave out two key elements, -- serving in what legally constitutes a security role and carrying a handgun. Of course you knew that.

Chas.

DPS FAQ wrote:A volunteer security patrol made up of church members would generally require licensing under the provisions of Section 1702.108 or 1702.222, regardless of whether any compensation is received as a result of the activities. The only exception to licensing provided by the legislature for nonprofit and civic organizations is found in Section 1702.327, which applies specifically to nonprofit and civic organizations that employ peace officers under certain circumstances and would not be applicable here.

However, there is one exception to licensing under Chapter 1702 provided by the legislature that could arguably apply, which can be found in section 1702.323 (“Security department of Private Business”). This exception would allow volunteers to provide security services exclusively for one church, as long as they do not carry firearms and as long as they do not wear “a uniform with any type of badge commonly associated with security personnel or law enforcement or a patch or apparel with ‘security’ on the patch or apparel.” See Tex. Occ. Code §1702.323(a) & (d)(2). Thus, the wearing of a uniform or any apparel containing the word “security” would subject them to the licensing requirements of the act.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/PSB/La ... in_sum.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

bizarrenormality wrote:I agree. 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.

HB2535 has nothing to do with uniforms or badges, it has to do with carrying self-defense firearms.

bizarrenormality wrote: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.

None of those people have anything to do with volunteers security people in churches. Their function has nothing to do with protecting members of a nonprofit entity (i.e. church). Everything you mentioned is irrelevant to HB2535.

bizarrenormality wrote:But we don't play dress up.

Careful, your arrogance is showing once again. In case you haven't realized it yet, it's wearing very very thin.

Chas.

The security industry opposed HB2535 purely for economic reasons; they are concerned about loss of revenue. For obvious reasons, this was not mentioned when the lobbyist from ASSIST (Associated Security Services and Investigators of the State of Texas) [not a state agency] testified against the bill (and gave inaccurate testimony in the process). At first, the representative testified that the bill wasn't necessary because churches could do what they want now. This was false, as specifically stated by a DPS Captain who was called to testify as a resource witness. The Captain correctly stated that no CHL could carry a gun as part of a security team, unless they were licensed as a security officer.

When someone has gone through training and has received a state license to do something, there's a natural resistance to allowing others to perform the same function without the same training and licensing. While this is a natural feeling, in some settings it can be both unwarranted and even dangerous. Unless things have changed dramatically since 1995, security officers need to remember that most LEOs and their departments don't think too highly of what they call "rent-a-COPs" because they haven't gone through the same training and aren't licensed as Texas peace officers. To many LEOs, forty hours of training (or whatever it is for security officers) is grossly insufficient to allow them to serve in a quasi-LEO capacity. (It's not a LEO capacity, but that's the way it is perceived by many.) Some security officers feel likewise about CHLs serving in a security role at church for the same reason; the CHL course is not the same as a security officer's school. When all the chaff is torn away, all a volunteer member of a church's security team needs to know is when they can and cannot legally use force, including deadly force, to protect themselves and third persons. They don't have to be COPS and they don't have to be security officers because they are not performing the same functions factually, though they are performing functions that come within the scope of the Chp. 1702 of the Occupations Code. I've already explained what I mean by the difference between a security officer protecting a store and a church volunteer in another post, so I won't repeat it here.

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.

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.

That's your decision and you have every right to make it. Others chose to help their fellow church members, or children in the case of schools. Neither you nor those who feel differently are wrong; it's an individual decision.

My choice is not to imitate Nero and fiddle while Rome burns.

Chas.

treeman wrote:Not wanting to change subject but it appears this might have a bearing on some of the schools allowing concealed carry also. A local school where a friend is employed is considering allowing certain employees to carry if they have some additional training the school would require. Another possibility that has come up is hiring a school security office (or possibly forming thier own police force of 1) and having that individual "oversee" the concealed carry folks. In reading the previous posts, it appears this would not be legal if I understand right. What if the security officer or school officer did not direct the concealed carry folks but had knowledge of who they were? One other question - would the school dictating certain training like crisis intervention or possibly tactical training by itself be a problem even without the security officer issue?

You are correct, the bills also impact schools.

Chas.

alvins wrote:i think charles needs to read post #8 thats why people keep referring to things you said.lol

Those were examples of how a church security team member's activities would differ from a 40 hr. a week security guard. That was clear in post #8 and I've repeatedly said it in subsequent posts.

Chas.

This will be my last response to your gamesmanship.

donkey wrote:I brought up greeters because they roles that you mentioned (giving directions, assisting those with mobility issues, etc.) can all be performed by volunteers who are not part of the "security team". Everything that has been mentioned relates more to hospitality roles than security functions.

Reread my post; I was giving examples of how most of the volunteers' time would be spent. I was not limiting their duties to those activities. I also said they would deal with threats to anyone attending church by calling 911 if there was time and by dealing with the threat if there was insufficient time. You continually ignore that part of my post.

donkey wrote:So my questions is: If these roles can be performed by greeters(and other volunteers), and greeters are allowed to carry, why do churches need "security teams"?

You cannot seriously be asking why a church would want/need a security team, so I'll ignore this question.

donkey wrote:A CHL is not a batman license. That saying gets posted on this site all the time. Why is it being ignored in this situation?

I strongly suggest you not use that term in this context again. Volunteers wanting to help keep their fellow church members from harm, especially those in the children's wing, don't deserve to be insulted. Tex. Penal Code §9.33 allows everyone to use force, including deadly force, to protect 3rd persons. Although Texas criminal laws allow this, if a church volunteer is an armed CHL, then he/she faces criminal prosecution if their function on a security team or group falls within the scope of Chp. 1702.

donkey wrote:What functions that fall within Chp 1702 do churches need to have performed?

Read all of Chp. 1702 and I bet you can think of some. If you can't, then this "discussion" is meaningless.

donkey wrote:Why are churches insisting on designating volunteers as "security" and thus subjecting them to Chp 1702?

Why do you keep referring to a designation of "security?" It's the function of the team that determines whether or not it falls within the scope of Chp. 1702, not merely the name.

Again, you've already said you are opposed to these bills, if church volunteers would serve in a security capacity. Why are you working so hard to distance yourself from your own clearly stated position?
Chas.

donkey wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

donkey wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

donkey wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

donkey wrote: HB2535 and SB1324 won't change current law for CHL's carrying in church, so people will still continue to do that. They will make it possible for volunteers to do additional things like watch the children's/infants' wing and other sensitive areas without fear of violating Chp. 1702.

Chas.

Are we talking about all volunteers or those who volunteer as security? What you describe sounds a lot like a greeter/hospitality. You don't need to be "security" to give directions, help those with limited mobility, and anyone can call 911 if needed. I fail to see why those situations call for security teams.

No, I'm not talking about greeters because these people, like those watching the children's/infant's wing, will address a threat to anyone attending the church, if the need arises and there is insufficient time to call 911. That being the case, they currently would violate Chp. 1702 if they are a CHL carrying a handgun. I was describing what a typical day is like for such people; I was not limiting their involvement.

Chas.

Are you saying that someone who carries while volunteering as a greeter (or any other non security role) at a church would be in violation of Chp. 1702? I'm reading through 1702 and I don't see anything that would prevent a CHL holder from carrying while serving as a greeter or playing in the band. Why the need to designate volunteers as "security"?

I've already said I'm not talking about greeters, so why keep using that term? Why did you now bring up playing in the band? The function I'm talking about is clear and a CHL violates Chp. 1702 if they serve in that capacity and carry a handgun, whether or not they use the term "security."

Are you in the security industry?

Chas.

I do not work in private security.

I see this as a non issue. The only time a CHL holder is prevented from carrying in a church (other than with 30.06 notification) is if they are serving as a member of a "security team". So church greeters, and members of the band, and Sunday School teachers, and all other volunteers can carry and not violate the law. So why is it that churches need "security teams"? You don't need to be a security guard to give directions, help those with mobility issues, assist with parking, etc.

You need to reread my article and the bills referenced in it. The purpose of the article and the two bills is to allow church members to perform functions that would fall within the scope of Chp. 1702 of the Occupations Code without having a guard certification.

You have said you are against this concept (see your post below). I posted that I disagree with your position and in doing so I noted the difference between a 40 hr/week security guard and a volunteer security team/group member in a church. Never once did I say I'm talking about greeters or band members, but you insist on taking examples of activities and turning them into an all-inclusive job description. My goal and the goal of the two bills is to allow church members to volunteer on security teams or groups and be armed if they are a CHL, without violating Chp. 1702.

Chas.

donkey wrote:. . . Or are these security teams performing functions similar to private security companies (i.e. access control, physical security of facilities, responding to complaints)? If they are, then they should have to meet the same requirements as any other security company.

donkey wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

donkey wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

donkey wrote: HB2535 and SB1324 won't change current law for CHL's carrying in church, so people will still continue to do that. They will make it possible for volunteers to do additional things like watch the children's/infants' wing and other sensitive areas without fear of violating Chp. 1702.

Chas.

Are we talking about all volunteers or those who volunteer as security? What you describe sounds a lot like a greeter/hospitality. You don't need to be "security" to give directions, help those with limited mobility, and anyone can call 911 if needed. I fail to see why those situations call for security teams.

No, I'm not talking about greeters because these people, like those watching the children's/infant's wing, will address a threat to anyone attending the church, if the need arises and there is insufficient time to call 911. That being the case, they currently would violate Chp. 1702 if they are a CHL carrying a handgun. I was describing what a typical day is like for such people; I was not limiting their involvement.

Chas.

Are you saying that someone who carries while volunteering as a greeter (or any other non security role) at a church would be in violation of Chp. 1702? I'm reading through 1702 and I don't see anything that would prevent a CHL holder from carrying while serving as a greeter or playing in the band. Why the need to designate volunteers as "security"?

I've already said I'm not talking about greeters, so why keep using that term? Why did you now bring up playing in the band? The function I'm talking about is clear and a CHL violates Chp. 1702 if they serve in that capacity and carry a handgun, whether or not they use the term "security."

Are you in the security industry?

Chas.