Large North Texas church posting 30.06

[dac1842]

Fick, that is exactly what we encourage CHL holders at our church to do, Get down, and protect yourself and your family. As far as how much you practice, you are in the minority, but you like me know practice is one-fun, two a great way to spend time with friends, my wife loves to go as well, she loves shooting my H & K P7. You are right in your assertion a large percentage of officers only shoot when required. At our church we are lucky, some of ours work at the Academy and shoot every day.
I am not at all against someone responding in a one on one encounter, I was referring more to the rare instance where a BG would enter a sanctuary. A controlled, planned and practiced response is what is needed. You know as well as I do, that in a one on one encounter, unless it happens right in front of an officer it will be over before a response is initiated, you as the CHL holder has to decide how you respond and utimately live with that decision. Thanks for the feedback.
Good luck, good shooting and God Bless.

[fickman]

I haven't responded yet (it was gemini), but I agree with several things he said.

Here are a few quick hits from me:
1) Most LEOs in my family or circle of friends are not gun enthusiasts by any stretch of the imagination. They don't know much about guns except for the one that they own and carry. As gemini said, most of them do not practice marksmanship at all. My BIL does, but few of his peers do. I wonder - at this mega church - how many of these super-human LEOs grandstanding about their own capabilities and acting condescendingly towards the CHLers as inferior are in good physical condition? How many have been in the office doing paperwork for over a year? Real-world experience trumps scenario-based training. . . so maybe the SWAT or military guys will speak up and ask for the number of combat hours other LEOs have before allowing them to carry. Running speed traps and writing tickets as part of the motorcycle traffic unit certainly doesn't prepare you for an armed situation in a church. Neither does answering the phone in the evidence room.

2) There are certainly going to be off-duty and/or retired LEOs at this church that are NOT part of the "planned response" and will continue to carry once the church posts a 30.06 sign. These people would almost certainly respond to a threat outside of the existing "plan". Therefore, the 30.06 sign does not solve the problem.

3) I doubt these mega churches are offering personal security for individual members to and from the parking lot, throughout the hallways, classrooms, and other areas of the building. They are a "general response" team. They look at the big picture. They'll be "on scene" after shots are fired, somebody reports it, and the team can travel to the location. It's just too bad for the first handful of victims, I guess.

Because somebody with a badge and an inferiority complex used a bunch of wild and nonsensical "what-ifs" during a church security meeting, these victims weren't allowed to defend themselves. Most likely, the cop(s) pushing for the 30.06 find their identity in their badge and their power in their gun, so having "regular citizens" allowed to carry reduces their relative authority and power.

4) Regarding the "come up on five guys in business casual with guns drawn" scenario: this is ridiculous. What if a policeman comes on scene of a fist fight at a mall? They detain everybody and sort out the details in a controlled environment.

If the police in this extremely unlikely scenario have such superior tactical training, they should know not to fire if they see guns drawn until/unless those guns are aimed at them. They should announce their presence and tell everybody to disarm. Anybody pointing at the cop gets shot. Guess what? The CHLers are trained to disarm in the presence of LEOs. Our instructors told us to be willing and ready to be put into handcuffs if we ever have to draw our firearm. The one who fails to comply might be the bad guy.

This bad scenario could happen outside of a church, also. If it's an argument for disarming people inside the church, then it's an argument against CHLs in general. The only variable not consistent with the outside world is the proximity of potential LEOs in the mega church (assuming they didn't play golf that morning). To be logically consistent, should we ban CHLs within x number of feet of a police station or roaming police car?

More realistically, the outcome of the scenario would be different. . . the church's caped crusaders would arrive and see four guys in business casual standing around one guy who has been shot. (If the BG got to an innocent before being taken down, maybe multiple people on the ground).

5) This flawed logic of LEOs trying to legitimize their skills at the expense of the skills of CHLers needs to stop. You can't brush with broad strokes here. Every LEO I know has stories about incompetent coworkers. There are CHLers taking advanced tactics courses. And, of course, most individuals in both groups falls somewhere in between Navy SEAL and Golmer Pyle.

I'll echo what's been said. . . I back LEOs. I know many of them personally and am related to several. The ones I know are all in favor of the CHL program. But guess what - anti's can become LEOs, too. They need to be answered. The badge doesn't magically make their opinion matter more than another citizen's, and it doesn't give them a higher right to protect their own life than the next guy - whether at church or not.

[gemini]

dac1842: I have a couple of questions if you don't mind. Is your churches response plan based on a seated congregation? An alternate plan for a standing congregation (as in standing during singing etc)? Just these 2 scenarios would have entirely different response actions. What if the shooter took the high ground in a balcony? Pulled a weapon from beneath a choir robe? I see many different situations in which a CHL might be the BEST solution to ending an attack in church prior to the response team even being aware there was a problem.
Do you propose that in all situations (sanctuary, not 1 on 1)the "security/response team" would be quicker, more efficient and more
able to prevent injury to innocents than a prepared/aware CHL, that is within arms reach of a BG/shooter, and is willing and able to stop or prevent mass carnage. No matter how well planned the response, there are variables. Tough job and tough decisions, but the decision to post 30-06 makes absolutely no sense.

....and it doesn't give them a higher right to protect their own life than the next guy - whether at church or not.

Unfortunately, the law says it does.

and unfortunately not all LEO use the best judgment all the time...... human, just like me and you

[particle]

Here is the situation that leads to mega churches posting 30.06 signs. You have 3000-4000 people on campus. A male mid thirties, dressed in business casual enters the building and pulls a gun, the uniforms are summoned, they get there and now there are 5-6 males, mid thirties, dressed in buisness causal all with guns drawn... who is the real bad guy? . The police response will really make the innocents upset, everyone goes to the floor, everyone gets searched and everyone gets cuffed until all the questions start and things get sorted out.

First off, use a little common sense and see who has 5-6 firearms pointed directly at them.

Second, order everyone to the ground.

Third, thank God you're cuffing LIVE suspects and not bagging DEAD victims.

Not really that complicated.

Besides, by the time the police show up, the bad guy will likely be on the ground and surrounded by church members - he will most likely only have one firearm pointed at him with the rest safely holstered. 911 will be on the phone, and will be informed of the situation at hand, and the operator can convey that information to the responding officer(s).

This may be a picture perfect scenario, but I'd rather give the church members a fighting chance, instead of taking away their ability to lawfully carry firearms while they wait for the police to rescue them from the unlawfully armed bad guy.

[TxFig]

Fick,. you have the right to disagree. My conclusions, and statements are based on 15 years of tactical experience and come from not only policies I have helped implement but have been implemented by folks i consider much more qualified than I.
<

I am with fick. Our 2nd amendment is FOUNDED on the premise that all people are by their nature able to be entrusted with the biggest and best firearms available. I reject the idea that "15 years of tactile experience" gives one the authority to attempt to take that right away.

I consider the attitudes you display to be at least as dangerous, and possibly moreso, than anything the liberals in congress w/ their Brady constituents can throw at us. Please don't do me any "favors"

[TacShot]

dac 1842, while your opposing view has some valid tactical points, you are arguing against the right to self defense. No one on this forum wants to be disarmed by any authority.

[dac1842]

TAC, nothing I have said is against someone exercising their right to self defense, I have stated that if a person is in immediate danger do what must be done.

Gemini, yes we have plans for several issues. all you mentioned and a great deal you havent. I will be the first to admit if a church still has their head in the sand with the "this is church it wont happen here" mentality, and has no security, or for the smaller chruches were off duty police are just plain cost prohibitive then yes response by CHL holders is a great thing to have. I am not trying to state no one has the right to defend themselves, I am a strong advocate of just the opposite. I do feel the more of a police presene there is the less need for a chl to take aciton unless he/she is in immediate danger had must use deadly force.

I know there a cops that dont put any effort into the job and they dont practice any more than a lot of chl's.We screen our officers. We keep the same ones, we treat them as family and we dont have any of the ones that there just to get a paycheck. We try to make sure that we dont get any of them that are lazy. It is not that hard to do, The person that they report to at our church is an LEO as well. but not with the same department, therefore we have eliminated the good ol boy syndrome
We have some very proactive plans in place from who can serve on the safety team, how to respond to fire, ems, weather and threats. Our plans really center on containment and isolation until the police arrive and let them have it.

[Liberty]

TAC, nothing I have said is against someone exercising their right to self defense, I have stated that if a person is in immediate danger do what must be done.

Gemini, yes we have plans for several issues. all you mentioned and a great deal you havent. I will be the first to admit if a church still has their head in the sand with the "this is church it wont happen here" mentality, and has no security, or for the smaller chruches were off duty police are just plain cost prohibitive then yes response by CHL holders is a great thing to have. I am not trying to state no one has the right to defend themselves, I am a strong advocate of just the opposite. I do feel the more of a police presene there is the less need for a chl to take aciton unless he/she is in immediate danger had must use deadly force.

I know there a cops that dont put any effort into the job and they dont practice any more than a lot of chl's.We screen our officers. We keep the same ones, we treat them as family and we dont have any of the ones that there just to get a paycheck. We try to make sure that we dont get any of them that are lazy. It is not that hard to do, The person that they report to at our church is an LEO as well. but not with the same department, therefore we have eliminated the good ol boy syndrome
We have some very proactive plans in place from who can serve on the safety team, how to respond to fire, ems, weather and threats. Our plans really center on containment and isolation until the police arrive and let them have it.

The very fact that a church would post 30.06 sogns makes a statement that they don't trust us gun toters. They have that right, but that sign would make almost every member of this forum look at the place with disdain. To us its the same thing as taping us on the shoulder telling us that "Your kind isn't wanted around here." When I see a 30.06 I know its not a place that would want me or my family.

I went to an event Wedensday just as folks went to hundres of these these around this state. The people were angry, and we know a lot of of them were armed. There were lots of police at the one I went to they even had some on horse back. The police were relaxed and didn't seem worried. I'm sure they knew there were a lot of guns in this mob. Funny, though the people might have been very afraid of what their government was doing to them. All of them seemed to be behaving relaxed, and happy. A sea of strangers and the children were playing and lots of smiles. I believe that just knowing lots of the citizens were armed meant they were safe. Because they all knew these were the best behaving bunch of people you could ever get together in the state of Texas.

I am not much of a church goer, but I go toseveral different churches. Sometimes I like going to te intimate smaller church. Sometimes I like the mega church, they put on a good show music and some real great preaching. I could never go into a posted into a church who makes such a statement about one of my fundimental beliefs.

[gemini]

dac1842 " Our plans really center on containment and isolation until the police arrive and let them have it. "

That's nice, and I wish your safety team and you well.
My bottom line is: If my church posts 30-06, I'll be finding another church home.

[longtooth]

I know a good one in Diboll.

[SlowDave]

dac and others:
I understand your concern over an armed confrontation and the extra confusion that CHL'ers might cause. I think there are some reasonable responses on here, and I don't think any sane CHL holder is gonna get irritated about being cuffed in a situation like that. It would be a very tight situation, and I don't think I'd draw unless a very specific set of conditions were met, namely that the BG was within 15 yards of me. I'd need to be firing at an upward angle (from my spot on the floor) to avoid the chance of hitting anyone else. At my church, I'd need to be firing upward and towards the front, as there is an upstairs to the rear with youth up there during the service. I'm also not going to take a 40 yard shot in a crowd.

Another thing to consider is the other situations at church. As noted by others, if you can't carry in the church, then you can't carry to/from in the parking lot. You also can't carry to your bible study class, or to committee meetings, which I used to have on Tuesday nights from 6:30-9. There isn't any security there then.

I think it is somewhat... selfish (dare I say) of the security force to request 30.06 posting. It makes one situation possibly better for them while creating several higher risk situations for the members. Not worth it to me. But that's just me.

[Liberty]

I think it is somewhat... selfish (dare I say) of the security force to request 30.06 posting. It makes one situation possibly better for them while creating several higher risk situations for the members. Not worth it to me. But that's just me.

I think its pretty safe to say in general, that those who wish to disarm us are not interested in our safety, and don't trust us.